[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26829-26839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11909]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
45 CFR Parts 1355 and 1356
RIN 0970-AB38
Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems
AGENCY: Office of Information Systems Management (OISM), ACF, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: These final rules implement section 13713 of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-66). Under section
13713, funding is made available for the planning, design, development
and installation of statewide automated child welfare information
systems. Such systems must be comprehensive in that they must meet the
requirements for an Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting
[[Page 26830]] System (AFCARS) required by section 479(b)(2) of the
Social Security Act (the Act) and implementing regulations; to the
extent practicable, be capable of interfacing with State child abuse
and neglect automated systems; to the extent practicable, be capable of
interfacing with, and retrieving information from the State automated
system for determining eligibility for title IV-A assistance; and, be
determined by the Secretary to be likely to provide more efficient,
economical, and effective administration of the programs carried out
under State plans approved under title IV-B or IV-E of the Act.
Enhanced Federal funding at the 75 percent matching rate is
provided for such activities as well as for the cost of hardware
components effective October 1, 1993. This funding rate is eliminated
under the statute after September 30, 1996, at which time a Federal
matching rate of 50 percent is available. Also effective October 1,
1993, Federal financial participation at the 50 percent matching rate
is available for the operation of such systems.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 19, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Naomi Marr (202) 401-6960.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains information collection activities which are
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, the
Department resubmitted for OMB clearance the APD process, described in
this document, under which States may apply for and obtain Federal
financial participation in their ADP acquisitions. This reporting
requirement was previously approved under OMB control number 0990-0174.
The reporting burden over and above what the States already do for
the current APD approval process is estimated to average 10 hours for
the initial submission of an APD. This includes time for reviewing
instructions, and collecting and reporting the needed information in
the APD.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing
burden, to the Administration for Children and Families, 370 L'Enfant
Promenade, SW, Washington, DC, 20447 and the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 3208, New
Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Desk Officer for
ACF.
Statutory Authority
These regulations are published under the authority of several
provisions of the Social Security Act (the Act), as amended by Pub. L.
103-66. Section 474(a)(3) of the Act contains new requirements
providing funding for statewide automated child welfare information
systems to carry out the State's programs under parts IV-B and IV-E of
the Act. Under section 474(a)(3)(C), Federal financial participation at
the 75 percent matching rate is available from October 1, 1993 through
September 30, 1996 (after which time the rate is reduced to 50
percent), for the planning, design, development and installation of
statewide automated child welfare information systems (including the
full amount of expenditures for hardware components for such systems)
to the extent that such systems--
(i) Meet the requirements imposed by regulations promulgated
pursuant to section 479(b)(2);
(ii) To the extent practicable, are capable of interfacing with the
State data collection system that collects information relating to
child abuse and neglect;
(iii) To the extent practicable, have the capability of interfacing
with, and retrieving information from, the State data collection system
that collects information relating to the eligibility of individuals
under part IV-A (for the purposes of facilitating verification of
eligibility of foster children); and
(iv) Are determined by the Secretary to be likely to provide more
efficient, economical and effective administration of the programs
carried out under a State's plans approved under part IV-B or IV-E of
the Act.
Under section 474(a)(3)(D), Federal financial participation at the
50 percent matching rate is available for the operation of the systems
described above.
Section 474(e) provides that the Secretary treat as necessary for
the proper and efficient administration of the State plan, all
expenditures of a State necessary to plan, design, develop, install,
and operate the information retrieval system under section
474(a)(3)(C), without regard to whether the systems may be used with
respect to foster or adoptive children other than those on behalf of
whom foster care maintenance payments or adoption assistance payments
may be made under part IV-E of the Act.
These regulations are also published under the general authority of
section 1102 of the Act which requires the Secretary to publish
regulations that may be necessary for the efficient administration of
the functions for which she is responsible under the Act.
Background
The title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance program provides
Federal funds to States for the care of eligible dependent, abused or
neglected children who must be placed in foster care, and for adoption
assistance payments for certain children with special needs. The title
IV-B, subpart 1 program provides Federal funds for service programs for
children and their families aimed at strengthening families and
preventing the unnecessary separation of children from their families;
assuring adequate care by the State of children who are away from their
homes; providing services to return children when separation occurs;
and placing children for adoption or other permanent placement when
restoration to the family is not possible or appropriate.
The title IV-B, subpart 2 program is a capped entitlement for
family preservation and family support services. Family preservation
services are targeted to families that are already in crisis and
children who are at risk of being placed in foster care and include
intensive interventions to help families weather crises, provide for
reunification of families by returning home foster care children
whenever possible, and by arranging for the adoption of or permanent
and appropriate living arrangements for those children who cannot
return home. Family support services are designed to help increase the
strength and stability of families and include programs to improve and
reinforce parenting skills and to provide respite care for care
providers and drop-in centers for families.
In recognition of the critical need for effective statewide
automated capability to support these programs in a comprehensive
fashion, section 13713 of Pub. L. 103-66 amends the funding provisions
under section 474 of the Act to provide for the development and
operation of comprehensive information systems to assist in the
administration of title IV-B and IV-E programs. To encourage States to
act quickly to develop efficient comprehensive statewide automated
information systems, Congress limited the availability of Federal
funding at the 75 percent matching rate for statewide automated child
welfare information systems (SACWIS) to Fiscal Years 1994, 1995 and
1996. [[Page 26831]]
When implemented, these information systems will result in more
efficient and effective practices in administering child welfare
programs which in turn will ultimately result in improved service
delivery. Readily available information and automated procedures to
assist in case assessments and plans will allow States to be more
proactive in program administration and to focus efforts on preventive
services and measures rather than constantly reacting to crisis. With a
single statewide automated information system, States will realize more
efficient and effective processes and procedures.
An interim final rule providing the requirements for States wishing
to pursue enhanced funding for the development of statewide automated
child welfare information systems was published in the Federal Register
December 22, 1993 (58 FR 67939). We received 22 letters of public
comment regarding the interim final rule from State agencies and other
interested parties. Specific comments and responses follow the
discussion of regulatory provisions. These comments did not generate
any changes to the regulatory provisions outlined in the interim final
rule.
Regulatory Provisions
The requirements for the automation of comprehensive child welfare
services are included under 45 CFR part 1355, which provides the
general requirements for Foster Care Maintenance Payments, Adoption
Assistance and Child Welfare Services. The purpose of these
regulations, as provided under Sec. 1355.50, is to set forth the
requirements and procedures States must meet in order to receive
Federal financial participation authorized under the Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993 for the planning, design, development,
installation and operation of statewide automated child welfare
information systems.
Funding authority for statewide automated child welfare information
systems (SACWIS), is provided at Sec. 1355.52 to effect the statutory
provisions under section 474(a)(3)(C) of the Social Security Act
authorizing funding for comprehensive child welfare systems.
Paragraph (a) provides the basic requirements a State must meet in
order to be eligible for Federal financial participation at a 75
percent matching rate for fiscal years 1994, 1995 and 1996 and at a 50
percent matching rate thereafter for expenditures related to the
planning, design, development and installation of a statewide automated
child welfare information system.
First, under Sec. 1355.52(a)(1), the SACWIS must provide for the
collection and electronic reporting of data required under section
479(b) of the Act and the implementing regulations under Sec. 1355.40.
Under section 479(b) of the Act, States must establish and implement
adoption and foster care reporting systems designed to collect uniform,
reliable information on children who are under the responsibility of
the State title IV-B/IV-E agency for placement and care.
Under paragraph (a)(2), the SACWIS must, to the extent practicable,
provide for an interface with the State's data collection system for
child abuse and neglect. The phrase ``to the extent practicable'' as
used in this paragraph is statutory and reflects in part the voluntary
nature of the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data Systems (NCANDS)
established under Pub. L. 100-294, the Child Abuse Prevention, Adoption
and Family Services Act of 1988, as well as the inherent requirement
that such interface be cost beneficial to the title IV-B/IV-E programs.
(For more information on the term ``practicable'' as used throughout
this rule, refer to ACF-OISM-AT-95-001.)
As provided in the interim final rule, we would expect that most
States would integrate the automation of child abuse and neglect
activities as part of their SACWIS because of the direct association
between child protection and child welfare services. While the language
of the statute speaks of interfacing with child abuse and neglect data
systems, we understand that in many States these data are already a
part of a larger child welfare system and/or States will be considering
the integration of such data as part of an overall comprehensive
information/client system. Accordingly, the statewide automated child
welfare information systems development effort may include automated
procedures which will provide the State with the capability to meet the
National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System requirements.
While we believe that such interface/integration is vital, in
accordance with the statute any State which can clearly demonstrate
through the submission of documentation with the advanced planning
document (APD) that such integration or interface is not practicable
because no automated statewide database exists to complete the
interface or because of cost constraints would not be required to
include this provision in the SACWIS as a condition of approval. In the
latter case, the documentation should establish that the costs to
develop and operate an automated interface with the existing system
will exceed the combined costs of manual inquiry, verification and
information exchange with the existing system, and duplicate data entry
and maintenance in the SACWIS.
Similarly, paragraph (a)(3) requires that the SACWIS, to the extent
practicable, provide for interface with and retrieval of information
from the State automated information system that collects information
relating to eligibility of individuals under title IV-A of the Act.
Interface with, and access to, the data maintained by State IV-A
systems is of vital importance for gathering information about clients
or other relevant persons and because eligibility for foster care
maintenance payments as well as adoption assistance are based in part,
on a child's eligibility under the AFDC program. However, as provided
in greater detail under the discussion of Sec. 1355.53 below, this
requirement need not be met if a State clearly demonstrates through the
submission of documentation with the APD, as indicated under
Sec. 1355.52(a)(2), that electronic interface and data retrieval is not
practicable because of limitations in the design of the IV-A system or
because of cost constraints.
Finally, paragraph (a)(4) requires that the SACWIS provide for more
efficient, economical and effective administration of the programs
carried out under State plans approved under title IV-B and title IV-E.
As used here, efficient, economical and effective means that: the
system must improve program management and administration by addressing
all program services and case processing requirements by meeting the
requirements of Sec. 1355.53; the design must appropriately apply
computer technology; the project must not require duplicative
application system development or software maintenance; the procurement
must provide for maximum free and open competition; and the costs must
be reasonable, appropriate and beneficial.
Paragraph (b) provides that Federal financial participation
provided under paragraph (a) is also available for the full amount of
expenditures for hardware components. The matching rate provided is 75
percent with respect to Fiscal Years 1994, 1995 and 1996, and 50
percent thereafter. The general requirements applicable to the
treatment of hardware expenditures under part 95 apply to all such
expenditures.
Paragraph (c) provides that Federal financial participation at the
50 percent matching rate is available for the operating costs of
statewide automated [[Page 26832]] child welfare information systems
described under paragraph (a).
The conditions for funding systems under Sec. 1355.52 are provided
at Sec. 1355.53. Functional guidelines providing details of these
requirements were recently issued in the form of an action transmittal
(ACF-OISM-AT-95-001).
Under paragraph (a), as a condition of funding, the SACWIS must be
designed, developed (or an existing State system enhanced), and
installed in accordance with an approved advance planning document
(APD). The APD must provide for an efficient and effective design
which, when implemented, will produce a comprehensive system which will
improve the program management and administration of the State plans
for titles IV-B and IV-E. Comprehensive means that the SACWIS must, to
the extent feasible and appropriate, introduce, monitor and account for
all the factors of child welfare services, foster care and adoption
assistance, family preservation and support services, and independent
living services, as provided under paragraph (b).
Paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(8) provide, in accordance with
section 474(a)(3)(C)(iv) of the Act, the functional requirements
determined by the Secretary to be likely to provide more efficient,
economical and effective administration of the programs carried out
under State plans approved under part IV-B and IV-E of the Act. First,
under paragraph (b)(1) the system must provide the State automated
support to meet the Adoption and Foster Care reporting requirements
through the collection, maintenance, integrity checking and electronic
transmission of the data elements specified by the Adoption and Foster
Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) requirements mandated under
section 479(b) of the Act and Sec. 1355.40 of this chapter.
Paragraph (b)(2) includes the requirements for system interface or
integration necessary for the coordination of services with other
Federally assisted programs and for the elimination of paperwork and
duplication of data collection and data entry. Under this paragraph the
SACWIS must provide for electronic data exchange with State systems
for: (A) Title IV-A, (B) National Child Abuse and Neglect Data Systems
(NCANDS), (C) title XIX, and (D) title IV-D, unless the State
demonstrates that such interface or integration would not be
practicable because of systems limitations or cost constraints.
With respect to the electronic exchange with the NCANDS and IV-A
systems, these are statutory conditions of funding which must be met to
the extent practicable. As indicated previously, we have defined
``practicable'' to mean that the interface requirement need not be met
if the responding program system is not capable of an exchange (and the
State does not wish to pursue such capability) or where cost
constraints render such an interface infeasible as demonstrated by the
State through the submission of documentation, in the APD, that the
development and operation of such an exchange would exceed the costs of
manual inquiry, verification and information exchange as well as the
cost of duplicate data entry and maintenance.
Similarly, the electronic data exchange with the title XIX system
is required unless the State Medicaid system does not have the capacity
for such an interface or the State clearly demonstrates through the
submittal of documentation that such an exchange would not otherwise be
practicable because of cost constraints. The requirement for an
interface with the State's child support enforcement system, unless
demonstrated to be impracticable, duplicates the systems requirements
under the title IV-D program, requiring statewide child support
enforcement systems to provide electronic data exchange with the title
IV-E program, to assure that benefits and services are provided in an
integrated manner and that the State is able to collect support from
the responsible parent.
Paragraph (b)(3) requires that the SACWIS enable the State to meet
the provisions of section 422 of the Act by providing for the automated
collection, maintenance, management and reporting of necessary
information. Section 422 of the Act requires that each child in foster
care under the responsibility of the State agency be afforded specific
protections related to case planning, case reviews and dispositional
hearings.
Accordingly, under paragraph (b)(3) the SACWIS must have automated
procedures and processes to assist the State in meeting the 422
requirements. At a minimum, these automated procedures would include
collection, maintenance, management and reporting of information on all
children in foster care under the responsibility of the State,
including statewide data from which the demographic characteristics,
location and goals for foster children can be determined.
Under paragraph (b)(4), the SACWIS must provide for the collection
and management of information necessary to facilitate the delivery of
client services, the acceptance and referral of clients, client
registration, and the evaluation of the need for services, including
child welfare services under title IV-B subparts 1 and 2, family
preservation and family support services, family reunification and
permanent placement. This provision speaks to intake and assessment
activities which include processing referrals for services, conducting
investigations and determining the need for services.
Under paragraph (b)(5), the SACWIS must collect and manage
information necessary to determine eligibility for the foster care
program, the adoption assistance program, and the independent living
program.
Paragraph (b)(6) requires that the SACWIS support necessary case
assessment activities. Under this requirement, the system must have
automated procedures to assist in evaluating the client's needs.
Under paragraph (b)(7), the SACWIS must assist the State in
monitoring case plan development, review and management, including
eligibility determinations and redeterminations.
Under this requirement the system must provide for service
provision and case management which entails determining eligibility and
supporting the caseworker's determination of whether continued service
is warranted, the authorization and issuance of appropriate payments,
the preparation of service plans, determining whether the agency can
provide services, authorizing services and managing the delivery of
services.
Finally, under paragraph (b)(8), the confidentiality and security
of the information and the system must be ensured.
Paragraph (c) provides other program functions which may be
included at State option in the SACWIS design under paragraph (a) of
this section. We believe that the vast majority of States would want to
incorporate these functions in their SACWIS development or enhancement
activities but we are sensitive to the need for State flexibility to
determine their own optimal level of automation and thus these elements
are optional.
Under paragraph (c)(1), the SACWIS may provide management and
tracking capability to assist the State in resource management,
including automated procedures to assist in managing service providers,
facilities, contracts and recruitment activities associated with foster
care and adoptive families. [[Page 26833]]
Under paragraph (c)(2) the SACWIS may provide for tracking and
maintenance of legal and court information, and preparation of
appropriate notifications to relevant parties.
Under paragraph (c)(3) the SACWIS may provide automated capability
to assist in the administration and management of staff and workloads.
This functionality would provide for a sensible and practical balance
between the workload and workforce and provide a methodology for
management to prioritize resource allocation and workload decisions.
Under paragraph (c)(4) of this section, the SACWIS may assist the
State in tracking and management of licensing verification activities.
Paragraph (c)(5) provides that the SACWIS may support the State in
priority setting and risk assessment or risk analysis activities. Such
automated support could include an expert systems module, or rule-based
automation to assist in consistent caseworker analysis and to aid in
decision-making to the extent the APD justifies that such automation is
both technologically and programmatically feasible as well as cost
effective.
Paragraph (d), provides that the SACWIS design may at State option
provide for interface with other automated information systems,
including, but not limited to: accounting and licensing systems, court
and juvenile justice systems, vital statistics and education, as
appropriate. Such interface or integration would create a link to
obtain and verify client information that is maintained in other
systems to ensure appropriate delivery of services such as information
on school attendance and performance. Other linkages could include
resource directories and license payment systems.
Under paragraph (e), if the cost benefit analysis submitted as part
of the APD indicates that full adherence to paragraph (c) and (d),
would not be cost beneficial (e.g., relative to the State caseload or
level of automation), final approval of the APD may be withheld pending
reassessment of the State's specific automation needs and, as
necessary, adjustment of the APD to reflect a level of automation which
is cost beneficial. This paragraph is intended to make clear that any
optional functionality to be undertaken by a State is subject to the
same requirement for cost effectiveness as required of all other
functional elements.
Paragraph (f) provides that a statewide automated child welfare
information system may be designed, developed and installed on a phased
basis, in order to allow States to implement AFCARS requirements
expeditiously as long as the approved APD includes the State's plan for
full implementation of a comprehensive system which meets all
functional and data requirements as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section, and a design which provides for a comprehensive system
and which will support these enhancements on a phased basis.
Finally, paragraph (g) requires that the system perform quality
assurance functions to provide for the review of case files for
accuracy, completeness and compliance with Federal requirements and
State standards.
Requirements for submittal of advance planning documents are
provided at Sec. 1355.54. Under Sec. 1355.54, Submittal of advance
planning documents, the State title IV-E agency must submit an APD for
a statewide automated child welfare information system, signed by the
appropriate State official, in accordance with procedures specified by
45 CFR part 95, subpart F. The conditions for FFP at the applicable
rates for the costs of automatic data processing incurred under an
approved State plan for titles IV-A, IV-B and IV-E of the Act (among
others) are contained in 45 CFR part 95, subpart F.
ACF review and assessment of statewide automated child welfare
information systems is provided under Sec. 1355.55 of this regulation.
Under paragraph (a), ACF will, on a continuing basis, review, assess
and inspect the planning, design, development, installation and
operation of the SACWIS to determine the extent to which such systems:
(1) Meet Sec. 1355.53 of this chapter, (2) meet the goals and
objectives stated in the approved APD, (3) meet the schedule, budget,
and other conditions of the approved APD, and (4) comply with the
automated data processing services and acquisitions procedures and
requirements of 45 CFR part 95, subpart F.
Under Sec. 1355.56, Failure to meet the conditions of the approved
APD, information on the consequences and actions resulting from a
State's failure to meet the conditions of the approved APD is provided.
Under paragraph (a) of Sec. 1355.56, if ACF finds that the State fails
to meet any of the conditions cited in Sec. 1355.53, or to
substantially comply with the criteria, requirements and other
undertakings prescribed by the approved APD, approval of the APD may be
suspended.
Paragraph (b) provides events which shall take place should
suspension of the APD occur. Under paragraph (b)(1), if the approval of
an APD is suspended during the planning, design, development,
installation, or operation of the SACWIS the State will be given
written notice of the suspension stating: (A) The reason for the
suspension, (B) the date of the suspension, (C) whether the suspended
system complies with Part 95 criteria for 50 percent FFP, and (D) the
actions required by the State for future enhanced funding.
Under paragraph (b)(2), the suspension will be effective as of the
date the State failed to comply with the approved APD. Paragraph (b)(3)
further provides that the suspension shall remain in effect until ACF
determines that such system complies with prescribed criteria,
requirements, and other undertakings for future Federal funding. Should
a State cease development of an approved system, either by voluntary
withdrawal or as a result of Federal suspension, paragraph (b)(4)
provides that all Federal incentive funds invested to date that exceed
the normal administrative FFP rate (50 percent) will be subject to
recoupment.
The issue of cost allocation is addressed under Sec. 1355.57. Under
paragraph (a), all expenditures of a State to plan, design, develop,
install, and operate the data collection and information retrieval
system described in Sec. 1355.53 of this chapter shall be treated as
necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the State plan
under title IV-E, without regard to whether the system may be used with
respect to children other than those on behalf of whom foster care
maintenance payments or adoption assistance payments may be made under
the State plan.
Paragraph (b) provides that cost allocation and distribution for
the planning, design, development, installation and operation must be
in accordance with Part 95.631 and section 479(e) of the Act, if the
SACWIS includes functions, processing, information collection and
management, equipment or services that are not directly related to the
administration of the programs carried out under the State plans
approved under titles IV-B or IV-E.
A conforming provision is provided under Sec. 1356.60, Fiscal
requirements (title IV-E), in paragraph (e), Federal matching funds for
SACWIS. This paragraph merely reiterates the statutory provision that
all expenditures related to an approved APD under Sec. 1355.52, will be
treated as necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the
State plan, without regard to whether the system is used with respect
to foster or adoptive children other than those on behalf of whom
foster care [[Page 26834]] maintenance or adoption assistance payments
are made under title IV-E.
Response To Comments
We received a total of 22 comments on the interim final rule
published in the Federal Register December 22, 1993, (58 FR 67939) from
State agencies and other interested parties.
Specific comments and our responses follow.
General Comments
Comment: Commenters were extremely supportive of the interim final
rules. They were pleased with the flexibility provided and noted that
the rules incorporate the diversity of child welfare programs into a
realistic automation plan. One commenter however was concerned about
the limited comment period provided.
Response: We believe that the partnership strategy employed in
developing these rules fostered a positive dialogue between the Federal
government and States and led to the development of a better rulemaking
document which provides States with the tools they need to improve IV-
B/IV-E effectiveness. As indicated in the preamble to the interim final
rule, in developing these rules we relied heavily on information from
existing State efforts to establish systems and the efforts of a State
and Federal child welfare system workgroup.
So that the States could begin development and avoid the risk that
the rules would change, we restricted the comment period to 30 days in
an effort to quickly identify whether there were any fundamental
problems or concerns with the terms of the interim rules which would
have necessitated a major change in direction in the final rule. We
felt this was critical because of the relatively short window of
opportunity related to the availability of enhanced funding.
Requirements for FFP
Comment: One commenter questioned the criteria used to distinguish
between development and operation and asked how implementation costs
will be funded. Another commenter asked at what point a system is
considered operational for the purpose of claiming expenditures at the
regular rate, particularly under a phased approach.
Response: Enhanced funding is available for the planning, design
development and installation of a SACWIS, while operational costs are
funded at the regular administrative match rate. We view implementation
costs as part of design, development and installation of the system.
The State's ability to claim enhanced funding ceases when the system
(or portion of the SACWIS, in a phased development effort) has
successfully passed a pilot test and is used to support child welfare
activities in an automated fashion in any geographical area. However, a
State may continue to claim enhanced funding for costs associated with
the planning, design, development and installation of a subsequent
phase of the total project, as well as allowable installation costs
(e.g., conversion and training activities) for parts of the State that
have not yet been converted to the new system.
As provided in ACF-OISM-AT-95-001, the operational stage of the
SACWIS is the point at which the system is used for automated
processing. The implementation APD covers the design, development and
installation of the SACWIS. It should also be noted that hardware costs
are eligible for 75 percent matching within the window provided by
statute regardless of the operational status of the system.
HHS and the Food and Consumer Service (formerly the Food and
Nutrition Service) published changes to our information technology
policies regarding the depreciation or expensing of data processing
equipment (Action Transmittal AT-94-5, dated July 22, 1994). Equipment
having a useful life of more than one year and a unit acquisition cost
of less than $5,000 may now be expensed for the quarter in which it is
purchased. These recent policy changes should allow States to expense a
large portion of the hardware necessary for SACWIS; however, there will
still remain hardware with a unit acquisition cost of greater than
$5,000. For equipment that falls into this category, the State must
either depreciate or charge use allowance for the cost of the equipment
over its useful life, and in accordance with statewide accounting
practice.
For more information, see 45 CFR part 95, subpart F, ``Automated
Data Processing Equipment and Services; Conditions for Federal
Financial Participation (FFP).''
Comment: One commenter asked what effect the rules will have on
current and future claims at the 50 percent matching rate for systems
enhancements that may not meet these requirements. Another commenter
asked whether the effective date limitation means that the entire
system must be accepted prior to September 30, 1996 for enhanced
funding to be available.
Response: In response to the first commenter, these rules apply
only to systems funded at the enhanced matching rate provided in the
1993 legislation. However, any system initially funded under these
rules would continue to be subject to these requirements even after the
start of FY 1997 when the enhanced funding allowance expires.
With respect to the second comment, the system need not be fully
operational by September 30, 1996 to receive enhanced funding. As
provided in ACF-OISM-95-001, the three-year window for claiming
enhanced funding does not mean that the project must be completed prior
to the expiration of the availability of enhanced funding. However,
even though the project may not be complete within this time, the
statute is clear that expenditures after this date are no longer
eligible for enhanced funding.
Comment: A number of commenters expressed concern that the three
year window for enhanced funding is too short, especially for States
which are starting with primitive systems or which require the consent
of the State legislature. Others were concerned with the limitation in
light of their immediate need to meet the AFCARS requirements.
Response: The three-year time limit on the availability of enhanced
funding for statewide automated child welfare information systems is
contained in statute and we have no statutory authority to extend the
availability of this funding rate. With respect to the second point,
however, we understand that States may have difficulty in dedicating
the necessary time and resources to meet the AFCARS and SACWIS
requirements concurrently and for this reason the rule provides a
phase-in strategy to allow the AFCARS requirements of the system to be
pursued first.
As provided in ACF-OISM-AT-95-001, a phased approach might allow
the roll-out of a system on a phased basis under which workers could
begin to use some of the planned functionality of the system, such as
enhanced data collection capability which would enable compliance with
the AFCARS reporting requirements, while additional modules or
components are not yet available.
Functional Requirements
Comment: One commenter asked whether guidance will be offered to
assure that States have a clear understanding of the systems
requirements.
Response: Since issuance of the interim final rule, general
guidance on systems requirements and functionality has been provided to
the States in [[Page 26835]] several forums, such as the semi-annual
ACF User Group Meeting, various ACF sponsored State technical advisory
groups, System and Child Welfare related conferences, State and Federal
Child Welfare Collaboratives, and issuance of a draft and final version
of a child welfare related action transmittal (ACF-OISM-AT-95-001). As
indicated in the interim final rule, we stand ready to assist in the
planning, design, development and installation of a SACWIS upon
request.
Comment: One commenter was concerned that the requirements are too
client focused, rather than family focused, stating that in a system
growing out of concern for family preservation, there needs to be
greater attention to the identification of the strengths and needs of
the family.
Response: We disagree with the commenter and believe that the
SACWIS design envisioned under this rule supports the family. These
projects are intended to be more than information systems but rather
comprehensive tools to make service delivery more responsive to the
needs of families and communities. It is our strong expectation, which
we had hoped to convey in the interim final rule, that States will take
advantage of this opportunity to move the child welfare service system
into a direction which would lead to a more coordinated, flexible
system, built on and linked to existing community services and support
able to serve children and their families in a more effective way.
A. Interfaces
Comment: One commenter asked about the availability of FFP for
systems modifications to enable the interface and data exchange
requirements with SACWIS to be met. Another requested additional
clarification as to what must be addressed in an interface component.
Still another asked if the cost of an interface is placed completely on
the State's child welfare agency and questioned the role of the
agencies with jurisdiction over IV-A, Medicaid and IV-D?
Response: As provided in ACF-OISM-AT-95-001, FFP is available for
the IV-B/IV-E portion of the interface. FFP is not available for the
cost of automating the respondent agency. Because we have no
legislative authority to pay for the reciprocating end of any
interface, any modifications to another existing system to support an
interface with a SACWIS (optional or required) must be funded by the
program that supports the system to which this interface is being
established.
To the extent that such programs are automated, the SACWIS would be
required to establish an interface. Where these entities are not
automated, no automated interface is possible, and the State will not
need to fulfill this requirement. Further, as provided in the above
cited action transmittal, FFP is not available to develop functionality
in a SACWIS when it duplicates functionality which already exists in
other State system(s) to which an interface is required.
The purpose of these requirements is to provide integrated services
to clients through more accurate, timely and effective exchange of
information.
Comment: One commenter asked that we provide clarification on cost
allocation procedures between programs sharing data for purposes of the
interface requirements.
Response: As indicated above, FFP is not available to develop
functionality when it duplicates functions which already exist in
another State system. If a function supports but does not exclusively
or primarily benefit the program under title IV-E or IV-B, the cost
must be allocated among all benefitting programs. To illustrate, our
action transmittal provided the example of factors pertaining to the
determination of eligibility for an income maintenance program such as
AFDC. While the determination of eligibility for such benefits is
clearly linked to the provision of services to children and families
under title IV-E and IV-B, it is not reasonable to allocate the cost of
developing eligibility subsystems or modules to title IV-E as the
primary program benefitting from such automation. In these cases, the
cost must be allocated between title IV-E and the other benefitting
eligibility processes.
The issue of cost allocation is addressed in more detail in
response to comments later in the preamble and in ACF-OISM-AT-95-001.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the requirement
for interface with the IV-A (AFDC) and IV-D (child support enforcement)
programs.
Response: We believe each of the interfaces referenced by the
commenter are important to SACWIS development in that they are
intricately related to the title IV-E program. Title IV-A eligibility
is a determining factor in title IV-E eligibility. Further, the
requirement for an interface where practicable between the SACWIS and
the State's IV-A system is mandated in statute. The title IV-D
interface requirement replicates a functional requirement of a
certified IV-D system. Interface between the child support agency and
the SACWIS may be extremely beneficial to the goals of both programs in
that it may assist in the collection of increased child support on
behalf of children receiving child welfare services and could assist in
the unification and permanent placement of children with formerly
noncustodial parents.
As with the requirements for interface with the State Medicaid
agency and the State child abuse and neglect system, we believe an
electronic interface will be far more effective in service delivery
than redundant data entry to multiple systems.
B. Case Assessment Activities
Comment: One commenter was concerned that the approach to services
is not sufficiently individual and stated that an adequate SACWIS needs
to support a sophisticated and highly individualized approach to the
provision of services.
Response: Automation is intended to assist workers' needs in
effective service delivery, not supersede their judgment. We
wholeheartedly agree that individual assessment is critical but believe
that the system can support and inform the caseworker by ensuring that
the right questions are asked and addressed.
C. Confidentiality and Security
Comment: One commenter was particularly concerned about the
requirement that the State agency responsible for the APD be
accountable for the confidentiality of the SACWIS and raised related
concerns regarding access to information and the cross-training of
agency workers. Concern was raised by another commenter that the rule
does not mention confidentiality which the commenter considers to be an
important aspect of any required cross-agency interface. Still another
questioned how confidentiality of information can be assured in an
interface system and what rules the agency with jurisdiction over IV-A,
IV-D and Medicaid have for treatment?
Response: These regulations require under Sec. 1355.53, that at a
minimum the SACWIS must ensure the confidentiality and security of the
information and the system. Under this requirement, States are expected
to build systems which provide necessary safeguards which would, for
example, enable them to share information, when such sharing is legal
and appropriate, without identifying the source, or which would enable
them to limit access to specific data elements.
Each of the programs subject to an interface expectation is also
subject to [[Page 26836]] specific statutory confidentiality
requirements which the system must provide. However, Federal statute
and regulations allow, and in many cases require, designated State
agencies to disclose confidential information to other State agencies
for the purpose of administering other Federal programs. Thus,
confidentiality rules should not be an obstacle to the development of
an effective interface with the systems used to administer the title
IV-A, IV-D and XIX programs.
For more information on the issue of confidentiality, see our
action transmittal, ACF-OISM-AT-95-001.
Optional Functionality
Comment: One commenter expressed hope that the final regulations
will speak to the importance of incorporating outcome measure data
collection within the comprehensive system development and that data
collection specifically related to capturing training information for
State staff be provided as an optional feature.
Response: We agree that data collection to support outcome measures
are important to comprehensive systems design and believe that we have
provided States with flexibility to incorporate these measures in their
SACWIS. Data collection necessary to support outcome measures are
integral to meeting the AFCARS requirements and are also embraced under
Sec. 1355.53(g), which requires that the system perform Quality
Assurance functions for the review of casefiles for accuracy,
completeness and compliance with Federal requirements as well as State
standards. This would include generation of summary management reports
and exception reports related to services needed and provided.
With respect to the second point, under Sec. 1355.53(c)(1), the
system may perform functions related to resource management which would
include information captured for training purposes.
Comment: One commenter asked whether the provision at
Sec. 1355.53(c)(3) includes systems administration or administration of
staff and workload and asked for clarification of whether costs
associated with systems administration are eligible for enhanced
funding and then regular funding for operational costs.
Response: Under Sec. 1355.53(c)(3) the SACWIS may provide automated
capability to assist in the administration and management of staff and
workloads. This would provide a methodology for management to
prioritize resource allocation and workload decisions to support
program staff. It is not intended to provide systems administrative
support.
Comment: One commenter asked for clarification of whether the
allowance at Sec. 1355.53(c)(5), i.e., that the system may provide for
risk analysis, was the same as risk assessment.
Response: Yes, as used under Sec. 1355.53(c)(5) risk analysis is
the same as risk assessment.
Comment: Also regarding risk analysis, one commenter expressed
concern that ACF may be suggesting that commercially-available off-the-
shelf (COTS) technology is limited in use to the area mentioned in the
regulation and encouraged ACF to restate the position on this
technology and its use so it is clear that they are not restricting it
in some manner or endorsing any particular system approach. The
commenter further questioned ACF's reference to ``rule based''
automation and noted that COTS technology is far preferable to the
customized rule based software modules which have been embedded in
other human service systems.
Response: It was not our intent to suggest that commercially
available off the shelf technology (COTS) is either limited in its use
or inferior to customized rule based technology. However, we are not
aware of a COTS package available today that will meet the case
management, service delivery and automated support needed to qualify as
a SACWIS. A State may build or transfer a customized application
software which is enabled by a COTS software development tool.
Comment: One commenter questioned whether the intent of
Sec. 1355.53(e) was to provide that if one of the optional functions
under paragraph (c) and (d) is not cost beneficial, final approval of
the APD may be withheld.
Response: Paragraphs (c) and (d) of Sec. 1355.53 are optional
levels of system functionality which States have discretion to adopt,
and for which enhanced funding may be provided, if such functionality
will be efficient and effective. However, if a State decides to include
any or all of these elements in their SACWIS design, the APD would have
to indicate that their inclusion would not negatively affect the cost-
effectiveness of the system. The fact that they are optional functions
does not eliminate the requirement that the system design prove to be
cost beneficial. For example, if in a given State inclusion of one or
more of these elements resulted in over-automation for demographic
reasons, that is, automated to a level beyond the State's needs and
thus was not cost beneficial, approval of the APD would be withheld
until the area of over-automation was dropped.
If it is shown through the cost benefit assessment that it is more
cost-effective not to automate to the degree provided under the
optional functionality, approval of the APD may be withheld.
Comment: We were asked by one commenter to state that the ``mays''
of the system are purely optional. This commenter also remarked that
States should not have to justify why these functions are not included
in their APD.
Response: We would reiterate that the functionality included under
paragraphs (c) and (d) of Sec. 1355.53 are State options as indicated
in the preamble. If a State chooses not to include these elements in
their SACWIS design, no justification is necessary in the APD. However,
as provided under paragraph (e), if any of these items is included, the
State must indicate in the APD that such element(s) will be cost
beneficial.
Comment: One commenter asked for clarification regarding what
functions can reside within a statewide payment system and what is
required for the SACWIS.
Response: We are not limiting the use or functions of statewide
payment systems under this regulation. States have flexibility to
continue to use such systems as long as the IV-B/IV-E related
information necessary to meet these regulations is accessible through
communication or link with the SACWIS. In this case, enhanced funding
may be claimed for the interface to the existing statewide payment
system. However, any modifications to a separate system must be
allocated to all benefitting programs affected by such modification.
Any costs allocable to title IV-B or IV-E for such modifications will
only be matched at the regular funding rate.
Comment: One commenter questioned whether it would be possible to
modify the APD at a later date to include optional interfaces.
Response: Yes, under Sec. 1355.53(d), the system may interface with
other automated information systems. This could be included under the
original APD or as an amendment to the APD, as long as the State can
show, in accordance with paragraph (e), that such an interface would be
cost beneficial.
Comment: One commenter stated appreciation for the section in the
rules that addresses optional systems functions, acknowledging that not
all States will be in a position to develop systems so far reaching.
Response: Our intent was to outline the level of functionality we
thought appropriate for the vast majority of [[Page 26837]] States
while recognizing the need for maximum State flexibility.
Comment: We were asked by one commenter to clarify whether the need
for a cost benefit analysis in the APD process could be waived.
Response: The need for a cost benefit analysis in the APD cannot be
waived. Cost benefit analyses are a required portion of all APDs,
necessary to determine efficiency, effectiveness and economy of system
design. As noted in the preamble to the interim final rule, OBRA '93,
in authorizing enhanced funding for automated information systems for
family and children's programs, specifically requires for the first
time that the Secretary include economic considerations along with the
traditional statutory provisions for systems implementation of
``efficiency and effectiveness'' in determining whether a system should
be funded. In accordance with existing requirements at 45 CFR Part 95,
before a project is approved the State must present a cost benefit
analysis as part of an APD. We have issued technical assistance in this
area in the form of a publication entitled Feasibility, Alternatives,
and Cost/Benefit Analysis Guide. Following our initial publication, we
issued additional guidance entitled Companion Guide Cost/Benefit
Analysis Illustrated. Both of these documents are available through
ACF.
Sound management practices require that a State perform a cost/
benefit analysis of any proposed undertaking which would result in the
expenditure of a large amount of funds.
Comment: One commenter suggested that it might be helpful to revise
the language in Sec. 1355.53(e) to provide ``any function described
under paragraph (c) and (d) included in the APD by the State will
require cost justification or final approval of the APD may be
withheld.''
Response: Under paragraph (e), if a State chooses to include
optional functionality in its system design, such functions are subject
to all cost benefit tests required of any other functional
specification. If a State cannot design a system including such
optional functionality in a manner that proves cost beneficial in the
APD, approval of the APD may be withheld until such time as the system
is designed in such a manner that it is cost beneficial.
While the language suggested by the commenter is acceptable, since
we did not receive a substantial number of questions on this issue, we
are not revising the language from that provided in the interim final
rule.
Comment: Paragraph (f) of Sec. 1355.53 provides that a statewide
automated child welfare information system may be designed, developed
and installed on a phased basis, in order to allow States to implement
AFCARS requirements expeditiously, in accordance with section 479(b) of
the Act, as long as the APD includes the State's plan for full
implementation of a comprehensive system which meets all functional
requirements and a system design which will support these enhancements
on a phased basis. According to a commenter, it is not clear in the
case of a State which has included mandatory components and optional
components whether they only have to meet the mandatory components
addressed in the APD to keep from jeopardizing their enhanced match.
Several commenters indicated that they were pleased with the phased
approach. One of these requested clarification on enhanced funding
allowed for the development of non-required features.
Response: With respect to the first comment, if a State initially
anticipates developing a system on a phased basis which includes
mandatory and optional functionality and later decides not to pursue
the optional elements, they would not jeopardize the enhanced funding.
In such a case, we would simply adjust funding approvals to reflect
changes for the cost of the optional elements which were dropped from
the systems effort. Corresponding changes will be required in the cost-
benefit analysis for the project to reflect the anticipated differences
in cost-effectiveness resulting from the change in systems
functionality. However, we expect such situations to be rare and that
APDs will realistically provide what the State can do.
With respect to the latter comment, optional elements are eligible
for enhanced funding as long as other general requirements for enhanced
funding are met.
Comment: One commenter expressed the view that the term quality
assurance functions has no singular or clear meaning in the child
welfare or social services arena and stated that States should not be
expected to perform functions beyond their current staffing and
legislative mandates and scope.
Another commenter indicated that this provision might be troubling
because it sounds like the system would need to include almost the
entire casefile in order to perform the functions necessary to assure
compliance with Federal requirements and State standards. The commenter
questioned this mandate since it was not in statute.
Other commenters requested clarification of why the quality
assurance function is needed and said the definition should include
whether it is related to data integrity for AFCARS or rather review of
a casefile to assure compliance with program policy requirements. One
commenter asked for further guidance on the requirements for quality
assurance functions to provide for review of casefiles.
Response: While not specifically mandated by statute, we believe
the requirement for quality assurance capability is necessary to meet
the statutory requirements of efficiency, economy and effectiveness.
Since a State's SACWIS is intended to be the source of child welfare
information, it is essential that the State have in place a process to
ensure the quality and completeness of the data. As provided in our
action transmittal (ACF-OISM-AT-95-001), it is essential that the
system incorporate quality assurance measures, processes and functions
to ensure completeness, accuracy and consistency of critical data and
to support sound management practices. The requirement is intended to
ensure that all current and historical information and data maintained
by the system are kept in logical sequence, and accessible in a timely
manner to monitor operation and assess performance. With respect to the
commenter's concern about the need for the system to maintain the
State's entire casefile, we would remind the commenter that such a
requirement is inherent in the statutory requirement that the system
meet the SACWIS case management and AFCARS requirements, to the extent
that these requirements comprise the most significant data elements
included in the casefile.
Further guidance on meeting the requirements for quality assurance
are detailed in our action transmittal referenced above.
Comment: One commenter stated that quality assurance functions are
focused on agency process rather than outcomes for children and
families and expressed concern that while good attention is given to
documenting service delivery only minimal attention is given to outcome
measures. The commenter was concerned that an adequate SACWIS must not
only address the scope of services but their effectiveness.
Response: We encourage States to use their SACWIS as a means for
measuring the effectiveness of service delivery. Furthermore, we
believe that the language is flexible enough to allow States to address
outcome measures as part of their SACWIS effort. However, effective
outcome measures of service delivery do not ensure the accuracy and
[[Page 26838]] completeness of data, and while we encourage State to
use the flexibility allowed, it is essential that the system
incorporate quality assurance measures to ensure the completeness,
accuracy and consistency of critical data.
Comment: One commenter stated a desire to see a statement in the
optional section that allows the Secretary to approve other
enhancements to the child welfare automated systems not mentioned in
this section but which will result in a comprehensive system.
Response: Additional functionality beyond what is defined in
Sec. 1355.53 of the regulation may be funded at the enhanced rate as
long as the State can demonstrate that it will provide more efficient,
economical and effective administration of the programs under title IV-
B and IV-E. To be eligible, added functionality may not duplicate
functionality included in an existing system to which an interface is
required and the APD must address the cost benefit of the optional
functionality requested for approval by the State.
APD Submission
Comment: One respondent asked how States which have already
submitted an APD expressing the intent to seek funding for a
comprehensive system should submit claims now for the enhanced funding.
Response: Such States would submit requests using existing form IV-
E-12, State Quarterly Report of Expenditures and Estimates, and
following existing procedures for requesting program funding under
title IV-E. Procedures for submitting APDs are specified by 45 CFR part
95, subpart F.
Comment: Two commenters expressed agreement with the transfer
policy provided in the interim final rule. However, another requested
that systems transfer be addressed in the final rule. Still another
suggested that system transfer may not be the best solution.
Response: As stated in the preamble to the interim final rule, our
intent in publishing these rules is to provide States necessary
flexibility to develop systems fitting their individual needs. Under
part 95 requirements, a State must conduct an alternative analysis to
consider both the enhancement of any existing systems and the transfer
of a system to determine the most cost effective approach. However, as
noted in the interim final rule, we recognize that at this time, there
is only limited State experience in comprehensive child welfare systems
development. Because of the limited scope of current comprehensive
child welfare systems, a flexible approach has been adopted in
considering justifications for not transferring existing systems.
Comment: Two commenters expressed interest in pursuing any
technical assistance which ACF can provide. Another commenter
questioned how technical assistance can be provided when ACF Regional
Office staff have no travel money.
Response: Budget limitations often necessitate difficult decisions
concerning allocation of resources, including decisions which may serve
to limit the availability of on-site technical assistance. However, we
do not believe that technical assistance must necessarily be on-site to
be effective. In fact, we are hopeful that our action transmittal and
our involvement in national users meeting and conferences have
alleviated much of the need for on-site assistance. Furthermore, ACF
has awarded a contract to assist in the development of a Child Welfare
prototype system. As part of that contract, we will sponsor several
national and regional conferences to share information and provide
technical assistance to States. Central and Regional Office staff stand
ready to provide States with help upon request.
Comment: One commenter asked whether, in the interest of saving
time, if it is possible to share APD work being done by various other
States and whether the Federal government will facilitate sharing.
Another expressed interest in efforts to develop a consortia of States
with similar commitments to permit more rapid and efficient development
of systems which have greater capability to produce information of
quality.
Response: We have and will continue to share system related
documents, such as APDs, RFPs and other design documents, as they
become available. These materials are available to the public upon
request. We have distributed information to various States, child
welfare related foundations, vendors and other public interest groups.
We have entered into partnerships with States to coordinate the joint
design of child welfare information systems. We have established
different State Technical Advisory groups to identify the best
approaches for sharing information. We have participated in regional
and national system and child welfare conference and we will continue
to encourage the sharing of State experience at the ACF Users Group
meetings.
Review and Assessment and Part 95 Requirements
Comment: One commenter stated that depreciation of equipment is a
major concern. For many States the three year window could conceivably
be very narrow for the planning, design and development phases,
especially under a phased-in approach and for States just entering the
planning phase and asked that this be addressed in the guidance
provided under an action transmittal.
Others stated that the depreciation period should be over the same
period as the availability of enhanced funding, i.e., equipment should
be depreciated over a three year period instead of a five year time
span.
These commenters point out that the regulation appears to conflict
with the statute which states that payments to States ``including 75
percent of the full amount of expenditures for hardware components for
such system'' and suggested that since enhanced funding is available
for only 3 years, the rule should reflect an exception to the 5-year
depreciation schedule requirements.
On a related issue, commenters thought that language on financing
of hardware appears to be the same as depreciation and suggested that
expensing be instituted.
Response: As provided in our action transmittal, recent policy
changes delineated at ACF-AT-94-5, dated July 22, 1994, may allow
States to expense a large portion of the hardware necessary for SACWIS.
For additional information, see ACF-OISM-AT-95-001.
However, the statute explicitly eliminates enhanced funding for
system activities as of October 1, 1996. We have no authority to adjust
this statutory date or to revise the Department's requirements for
capitalization and depreciation of equipment in this final rule. The
controlling requirements for depreciation are found in 45 CFR part 95,
subparts F and G.
Comment: One commenter recommended that a clear timeframe for
review and assessment of the systems be provided to allow States to
view the process as cooperative, supportive and one that allows regular
feedback, technical support and a mechanism for State accountability.
Response: As indicated previously, technical assistance is
available to ensure that the process for APD review and approval and
subsequent system approval is as cooperative and supportive as
possible. Unlike the case with other State systems, the review process
established does not entail a certification requirement in order to
allow maximum flexibility. [[Page 26839]]
Comment: With respect to the submittal of Advance Planning Document
Updates, one commenter noted that meeting the timeframe for submitting
an APD may be problematic due to new Federal requirements,
identification of proposed project changes and the internal State
review process.
Similarly, another commenter expressed concern that the timeframe
will be difficult for some States to meet and encouraged ACF to
actively seek out States to which this section applied to ensure they
understand the importance of meeting this critical deadline.
Response: The regulations at 45 CFR 95.605(3)(b), indicate that a
State must submit an As Needed APD Update when significant changes are
expected to a project. We have identified and worked with the States
affected by this requirement and have either granted final or
conditional approval of their APD Updates. None of the concerned States
were adversely affected by this requirement.
Comment: On a miscellaneous issue, one commenter noted that
paragraph (b) has been reserved under 45 CFR 95.641 or 45 CFR 1355.55
and questioned this.
Response: The issue raised by the commenter merely speaks to a
regulatory drafting requirement. Under regulatory drafting rules it is
inappropriate to refer to a paragraph designated as ``(a)'' without
referencing a ``(b)'' cite. There are no plans to add to this section.
Failure to Meet the Condition of the Approved APD
Comment: One commenter thought that it was unclear whether
recoupment of enhanced FFP applies only to those components of the APD
that are required under 45 CFR 1355.53. States could develop an APD
that proposes to develop an automated system that included some
permissive components, develop required components and then fail to get
sufficient funding to complete the permissive components. States should
not be penalized for revising the APD downward as long as they meet the
minimum requirements.
Response: While we would hope that States would ensure that their
plans are realistic prior to submittal, States would not be penalized
in cases where optional automation plans were dropped, unless such
changes negatively affected either the cost-effectiveness of the system
or the State's ability to complete the project successfully. In such
cases, if a State pulled back on discretionary items, we would simply
recalculate funding to make the necessary adjustments.
Comment: Another commenter noted that Sec. 1355.56 provides that
failure to meet the conditions of these regulations may result in an
approved APD being suspended while at the same time recognizing that
penalties are provided for failure to comply with the AFCARS
regulations. The commenter was concerned that this could put States in
the position of being unable to meet AFCARS because of a loss of SACWIS
funding.
Response: We would like to clarify that the loss of funding
discussed with respect to Sec. 1355.56 refers only to enhanced funding
for SACWIS and good systems planning would ensure that no State is put
in the position of losing this funding.
We agree that there is a strong interrelationship between AFCARS
implementation and SACWIS development and for this reason have allowed
States to implement their SACWIS on a phased based to ensure that
AFCARS requirements are met expeditiously.
Cost allocation
Comment: One commenter expressed interest that we acknowledge that
systems transfer from another State may not be the best solution, but
shared development (and funding) program to program in the State be
encouraged.
Another asked that we provide more detail on cost allocation.
Response: We agree that systems transfer from another State may not
be the best solution in SACWIS design and, as indicated in the preamble
to the interim final rule, plan to be flexible in our consideration of
State analysis provided in the APD for not going this route in SACWIS
development.
For information regarding the effect of shared development on cost
allocation or for detailed specification of the cost allocation
requirement, please see our action transmittal, ACF-OISM-AT-95-001.
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Executive Order 12866 requires that regulations be reviewed to
ensure that they are consistent with the priorities and principles set
forth in the Executive Order. The Department has determined that this
rule is consistent with these priorities and principles. An assessment
of the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives
(including not regulating) demonstrated that the approach taken in the
regulation is the most cost-effective and least burdensome while still
achieving the regulatory objectives.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354)
which requires the Federal government to anticipate and reduce the
impact of rules and paperwork requirements on small businesses and
other small entities, the Secretary certifies that this rule has no
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
List of Subjects
45 CFR Part 1355
Adoption and foster care, Child welfare, Data collection,
Definitions grant programs--Social programs
45 CFR Part 1356
Adoption and foster Care, Administrative costs, Child welfare,
Fiscal requirements (title IV-E), Grant programs--social programs,
Statewide information systems
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 13.658, Foster
Care Maintenance, 13.659, Adoption Assistance and 13.645, Child
Welfare Services--State Grants)
Approved: April 5, 1995.
Mary Jo Bane,
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 45 CFR Parts 1355 and 1356
which was published at 58 FR 67939 on December 22, 1993, is adopted as
a final rule with the following change:
PART 1355--GENERAL
1. The authority citation for Part 1355 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 620 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 670 et seq.; 42
U.S.C. 1301 and 1302.
Sec. 1355.53 [Amended]
2. Section 1355.53(b)(3) is amended by replacing the reference to
``section 427'' in the first line with a reference to ``section 422.''
[FR Doc. 95-11909 Filed 5-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P