Final Rule - Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Reviews [Binder] [1]
Images (73)
Showing first 60 of 73 pages.
दस्तावेज़
| id |
id
621038369
|
|---|---|
| contentType |
contentType
document
|
| source |
source
import
|
Source image fields (6)
Extracted text
OCR Page 1 of 73Alexander S. Keenan
11/10/99 02:11:48 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Lori Schack/OMB/EOP@EOP
current
CC:
Nicole R. Rabner/WHO/EOP@EOP
Subject: Child Welfare regulation comments
not in compl.
remedy
Lori - here are my comments. Thanks
Major Issues
old-anmal
1. Frequency of Reviews (pg. 338)
Given the problems in the child welfare system -- e.g., numerous systems are currently under court order
-- five years between reviews is too long. Proposed change: At least initially, annual reviews should be
conducted. States that perform consistently well after several years of reviews could thereafter be
reviewed once every three years. A similar arrangement existed under the previous review system (old
section 427). OMB staff recognize that additional resources will be required to support an increased level
of monitoring.
2. Penalties (pgs. 374-375)
The penalties in the revised regulation should be on par with those for other ACF programs, such as child
support and TANF. They should also be sufficient to cause the states to take notice, especially when the
penalties are far below the maximum amount. Proposed change: Increase the maximum allowable loss of
administrative funds from 1.4 percent to 4 or 5 percent, while maintaining the 14% maximum loss of IV-B
funds. Even at this level, penalties would still be very modest for states with the worst possible
performance: e.g., a state that is found non-compliant in seven outcomes and seven systemic areas
would lose a net total of only 2 to 2.5 percent of admin. funding if corrective measures are not completed
within 2-3 years.
3. Public disclosure of review findings
transparency
data
The Department needs to describe how it will make public the findings from its on-site reviews and the
state assessments. HHS is already required to prepare an annual report listing state-specific
30-50
performance on a range of measures; perhaps the report could be expanded to include information on the
reviews and the current status of state corrective actions. At a minimum, it should be possible to report
these findings and current status without mentioning state names.
Other edits (new text in bold)
1. Add language to S. 1355.32(c)(3) on page 340 as follows:
(3) If the additional information and inquiry indicates to ACF's satisfaction that the State is operating in
substantial conformity, ACF will not proceed with any further review of the issue addressed by the
inquiry. This inquiry will not supplant the periodic reviews conducted by ACF under S.
1355.32(b)(1)(i).
2. Add language to S. 1355.33(c)(1) on page 344 as follows:
(1) The on-site review will cover specific areas shall cover foster care and adoption programs,
and such other programs as ACF and the State my wish to review of the State's child and family
services continuum. It will be jointly planned by the State and ACF, and
Relations
belongs_to