[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8382-8388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4143]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
[Program Announcement No. OCSE 99SIP-1]


Child Support Enforcement Demonstration and Special Projects--
Special Improvement Projects

AGENCY: Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), ACF, DHHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The OCSE invites eligible applicants to submit competitive 
grant applications for special improvement projects which further the 
national child support mission, vision, and goals which are: all 
children to have parentage established; all children in IV-D cases to 
have financial and medical orders; and all children in IV-D cases to 
receive financial and medical support. Applications will be screened 
and evaluated as indicated in this program announcement. Awards will be 
contingent on the outcome of the competition and the availability of 
funds.

DATES: The closing date for submission of applications is April 20, 
1999. See Part IV of this announcement for more information on 
submitting applications.

ADDRESSES: Application kits (Forms 424, 424A-B; Certifications; and 
Administration for Children and Families Uniform Project Description 
[UPD]) containing the necessary forms and instructions to apply for a 
grant under this program announcement are available from: 
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support 
Enforcement, Division of State and Local Assistance, 370 L'Enfant 
Promenade, SW, 4th Floor, East Wing, Washington, DC 20447 (This is not 
the mailing address for submission of applications, See Part IV, B.); 
or contact Jean Robinson, Program Analyst, phone (202) 401-5330, FAX 
(202) 401-5559; e-mail, [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administration for Children and 
Families (ACF), OCSE, Susan A. Greenblatt at (202) 401-4849, for 
specific questions regarding the application or program concerns 
regarding the announcement.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This program announcement consists of four 
parts:

Part I: Background--program purpose, program objectives, legislative 
authority, funding availability, and CFDA Number.
Part II: Project and Applicant Eligibility--eligible applicants, 
project priorities, and project and budget periods.
Part III: The Review Process--intergovernmental review, initial ACF 
screening, competitive review and evaluation criteria, and funding 
reconsideration.
Part IV: The Application--application development, and application 
submission.
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13): Public reporting 
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 
hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and reviewing the collection 
of information.
    The following information collections within this Program 
Announcement are approved under the following currently valid OMB 
control numbers: 424 (0348-0043); 424A (0348-0044); 424B (0348-0040); 
Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (0348-0046); Uniform Project 
Description (0970-0139 Expiration date 10/31/00).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number.

Part I. Background

A. Program Purpose and Objectives

    To fund a number of special improvement projects which further the 
national child support mission to ensure that all children receive 
financial and

[[Page 8383]]

medical support from both parents and which advance the provisions of 
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
1996 (PRWORA). PRWORA strengthens the ability of the Nation's child 
support program to collect support on behalf of children and families. 
The law also enables the testing of child support innovations to 
improve program performance. For FY 1999, we are looking for grants in 
the following priority areas:
     Foster collaboration between IV-D State agencies and 
partner entities and other states to improve interstate case 
processing.
     Assist Tribal governments to plan and provide Child 
Support Enforcement (CSE) services to Native Americans and to evaluate 
effective program procedures and strategies.
     Develop planning grants and random assignment 
demonstrations to assess effectiveness of child support assurance 
projects.
    Specific design specifications for each of these priority areas are 
set forth under Part II.
    OCSE is committed to helping States make measurable program 
improvements that will enhance the lives of children. In addition 
Special Improvement Projects will also be considered which do not fall 
into one of the specified priority areas but which are in furtherance 
of efforts under the Government Performance and Results Act (i.e. 
designing a performance based program), and furthering the goals of the 
national child support enforcement program --all children to have 
parentage established; all children in IV-D cases have financial and 
medical orders; and all children in IV-D cases receive financial and 
medical support) and advance the requirements of the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 
(PRWORA).
    Applicants should understand that OCSE will not award grants for 
special improvement projects which (a) duplicate automated data 
processing and information retrieval system requirements/enhancements 
and associated tasks which are specified in PRWORA; or (b) which cover 
costs for routine activities which should be normally borne by the 
Federal match for the Child Support Program or by other Federal funding 
sources (e.g. adding staff positions to perform routine CSE tasks or 
providing substance abuse services;) OCSE also has the discretion not 
to award grants that duplicate existing demonstrations, special 
projects and/or contracts that cover similar project objectives and 
activities.
    Proposals should be developed with these considerations in mind. 
Proposals and their accompanying budgets will be reviewed from this 
perspective.

B. Legislative Authority

    Section 452(j), 42 U.S.C. 652(j) of the Social Security Act 
provides Federal funds for technical assistance, information 
dissemination and training of Federal and State staff, research and 
demonstration programs and special projects of regional or national 
significance relating to the operation of State child support 
enforcement programs.
    Section 453 (42 U.S.C. 653) of the Social Security Act provides 
Federal funds to cover costs incurred for the operation of the Federal 
Parent Locator Service.

C. Availability of Funds

    Approximately $2 million is available for FY 1999 for all priority 
areas. Refer to each priority area for estimated number of projects and 
funding. All grant awards are subject to the availability of 
appropriated funds. A non-Federal match is not required.

D. CFDA Number: 93.601--Child Support Enforcement

    Demonstrations and Special Projects.

Part II. Applicant and Project Eligibility

A. Eligible Applicants

    Eligible applicants for these special improvement project grants 
are State (including Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) Human 
Services Umbrella agencies, other State agencies (including State IV-D 
agencies), Tribes and Tribal Organizations, local public agencies 
(including IV-D agencies), nonprofit organizations, and consortia of 
State and/or local public agencies. The Federal OCSE will provide the 
State CSE agency the opportunity to comment on the merit of local CSE 
agency applications before final award. Given that the purpose of these 
projects is to improve child support enforcement programs, it is 
critical that applicants have the cooperation of IV-D agencies to 
operate these projects.
    Preferences will be given to applicants representing CSE agencies 
and applicant organizations which have cooperative agreements with CSE 
agencies. All applications developed jointly by more than one agency 
organization must identify a single lead organization as the official 
applicant. The lead organization will be the recipient of the grant 
award.
    Participating agencies and organizations can be included as co-
participants, subgrantees, or subcontractors with their written 
authorization.

B. Project Priorities

    The following are the specified priority areas for special 
improvement projects for FY 1999.
Priority Area 1.01: Fostering Improved Interstate Case Processing
    Purpose: The purpose of this solicitation is to assist States to 
demonstrate new and/or more effective methods, procedures and models to 
foster collaborative efforts between partner entities and states to 
improve interstate case processing.
    2. Background and Information: The child support provisions of 
welfare reform require all States to adopt the Uniform Interstate 
Family Support Act (UIFSA) by January 1, 1998. UIFSA replaced the 
Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), which required 
states to reciprocate in the enforcement of duties of support. Since 
rules weren't uniform among States, it made the interstate enforcement 
of support difficult in many cases. Thus, UIFSA provides for uniform 
rules, procedures, and forms for interstate cases. OCSE has been 
working with states to implement UIFSA and has also developed standard 
Federal interstate CSE forms compatible with UIFSA.
    OCSE organized forums across the country for representatives from 
the UIFSA and URESA states to discuss and develop consensus methods for 
implementing administrative enforcement, direct income withholding, 
discovery, long-arm, and paternity establishment in interstate cases. 
Subsequently, many states have managed to process interstate cases in 
an uniform manner. Although a great deal of progress has been made over 
the past couple of years, states are still facing many challenges in 
the implementation of UIFSA.
    3. Design Elements in the Application: In order to foster 
collaboration to improve interstate case processing under UIFSA, OCSE 
is interested in projects which develop effective/innovative strategies 
that address one or more of the following key issues/areas:
     What types of specific collaborative initiatives/methods 
between the courts and IV-D agencies would assist in processing 
interstate cases more efficiently and what procedures could help them 
more effectively use available UIFSA remedies and associated forms? How 
are States ensuring that the required data elements are correctly 
secured from courts and reported to IV-

[[Page 8384]]

D agencies for transmission to the Federal Case Registry.
    Too often IV-D agencies and the courts do not have procedures to 
notify each other when taking actions on interstate cases, resulting in 
duplicate efforts and delays. Thus, we want to identify collaborative 
initiatives/methods that help build communication, avoid duplicate 
efforts and delays in processing interstate cases.
     What are the benefits and pitfalls of using direct 
withholding under UIFSA compared to interstate income withholding from 
IV-D agency to IV-D agency in different States? What are solutions to 
any problems encountered? What happens if there's an obligor contest in 
a direct withholding case? Is abandoning the direct withholding the 
best solution or are there ways to resolve these issues through the IV-
D agency in the employer State that preserves the direct withholding? 
What impact does direct income withholding have on other services 
required in a case? Does it work to do direct withholding and initiate 
an interstate IV-D case for other necessary enforcement action? In 
addition, what approaches are being used by IV-D agencies to encourage 
and foster employer cooperation of wage withholding for interstate 
cases? Currently, state IV-D agencies are educating employers on using 
Federally mandated forms for income withholding for their child support 
cases but more needs to be done to encourage employers' compliance for 
interstate cases.
     What are the more cost-effective methods/approaches for 
interstate service of process? Projects should demonstrate whether in-
house, or privatization or another approach is more cost-effective and 
efficient for service of process in interstate cases.
     With respect to high volume automated enforcement in 
interstate cases under PRWORA, what are exemplary practices for 
integrating these requests from other states into the assisting State's 
own data matching and attachment of assets (such as for financial 
institutions data matches and levies) in instate cases? What is the 
best way to avoid making these cases full blown interstate IV-D cases 
while being able to provide the data match and seizure of assets in an 
automated way and to keep track of information required to be reported 
on these cases?
     How is the Federal Parent Locator System (FPLS) data being 
integrated into the basic business functions of child support 
enforcement (i.e., intake, paternity establishment, order 
establishment/modification, enforcement and collections) to improve 
these business functions? How are more effective interstate locate 
methods/processes being developed through this integration of FPLS 
data? How are these methods being implemented in an automated fashion? 
How are caseworkers being sold on the advantages of using ``new'' FPLS 
data?
     What approaches are being used by IV-D agencies to monitor 
results, measure progress and manage interstate case processing more 
efficiently? The wealth of data provided from the National Directory of 
New Hires and the Federal Case Registry must be organized and managed 
in order to track results and program benefits. What methods have been 
adopted by States for tracking outcomes of data matches and how have 
results been utilized to demonstrate program benefits (i.e., program 
methodology, benefit calculation methodology, reports, management 
information process, and performance measurements).
     With respect to use of interstate forms for withholding, 
imposition of liens and issuance of administrative subpoenas under 
PRWORA, are there exemplary techniques for maximizing successful use of 
these tools in interstate cases? Are there potential problems that 
arise in their use and tested solutions to those problems?
     How can we ensure consistency in policy and procedures in 
cases affected by both the Family Violence Indicator and UIFSA section 
312 (nondisclosure of information in exceptional circumstances) to 
ensure consistent decision-making for interstate cases? In the UIFSA 
process, tribunals order information not to be released where a finding 
has been made that the health, safety, or liberty of a party or child 
would be unreasonably put at risk by the disclosure of identifying 
information.
    Whereas, with the Family Violence Indicator, a flag will be placed 
on a case by the State Case Registry where there is a protective order 
in place or where the State has reasonable evidence of domestic 
violence or child abuse and the disclosure of such information could be 
harmful to the custodial parent or the child of such parent. Projects 
should develop approaches to demonstrate how best to coordinate these 
different decision-making processes for interstate cases? Projects 
should identify the benefits/impact of the approach on States' case 
processing? In addition, how can we provide courts with sufficient 
information upon which to base their override decisions of the Family 
Violence Indicator? Currently in the interstate context, one State will 
not know the basis for a decision of another State to flag a case with 
the Family Violence Indicator, and this lack of information may prove 
difficult for judges faced with requests to override the indicator.
    4. Project and Budget Periods: Generally, project and budget 
periods for these projects will be up to 17 months. OCSE will consider 
projects up to 36 months, if unique circumstances warrant. If OCSE 
approves a project for a time period longer than 17 months, OCSE will 
provide funding in discrete 12-month increments, or ``budget periods.'' 
Funding beyond the first 12-month budget period is not guaranteed. 
Rather, future funding will depend on the grantee's satisfactory 
performance and the availability of future appropriations.
    5. Project Budget: It is estimated that there will be one to four 
grants awarded (ranging from $300,000 to $1 million) for a total of 
$1.2 million, for this priority area.
Priority Area 1.02: Tribal Child Support Enforcement Services
    Purpose: The purpose of this solicitation is to foster the 
development and improvement of child support enforcement programs on 
tribal reservations. We intend to obtain information regarding 
innovations in the effective delivery of child support enforcement 
services to Native American children and their parents for 
dissemination nationally.
    2. Background and Information: The provision of title IV-D child 
support services on Tribal lands can be a challenge for both Native 
American custodial parents, noncustodial parents and their children who 
need support and for tribal governments and courts which have 
traditionally lacked funding for providing such services. Often, tribal 
sovereignty and a lack of jurisdiction have prevented States from 
providing such services on tribal lands.
    There has been recent progress by a number of tribes who developed 
CSE programs, cooperative agreements with States, improved the ability 
of tribal courts to handle support cases, development and enactment of 
tribal child support, etc.
    With the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Congress gave the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services authority to prescribe regulations to provide 
direct IV-D funding to tribes.
    OCSE wants to both build on previous efforts by furthering the 
development of tribal child support programs and

[[Page 8385]]

services and assist tribes who wish to prepare for the implementation 
of direct funding in the future.
    3. Design Elements in the Application: Based on previous 
developments and pending availability of direct IV-D funding to tribes, 
OCSE wants to encourage further improvements to child support 
capabilities on Indian lands. Some examples of the areas where 
approaches may be focused include:
     Adding to existing capability of a tribal child support 
program, e.g., expanding services to all tribal members in need of 
services, wage/income withholding.
     Legislative Development and/or Enactment. Some tribes may 
need to establish a legal framework for the operation of a future child 
support program or if a model code is available, that code must be 
enacted by tribal councils.
     Training for program staff, tribal court judges. 
Implementation of newly enacted child support codes and establishment 
of services may include orientation and training for responsible 
officials and staff.
     Planning. Tribes may have enacted child support codes but 
need to plan implementation of a program that provides services. This 
might include looking at automated systems, identifying staff, shaping 
roles and responsibilities between organizations such as the support 
program and tribal courts.
     Cooperative Agreements/Building Partnerships. Again, 
formal relationships may need to be established between tribal courts 
and the child support staff. Tribes may want to explore agreements with 
state or local governments that have experience and capabilities such 
as training, automated systems, location, etc. Cooperation between 
State and tribal governments may be necessary for effective child 
support enforcement when cases involve more than one jurisdiction.
     Tribal Statewide or Regional Institutions. A tribe or 
tribes and/or an intertribal council or a regional council of tribes 
may wish to design a partnership demonstration addressing child support 
issues of common concern on an intrastate, statewide or regional basis.
     Privatization. States and tribes may seek to develop 
innovative approaches through contracts with third parties to provide 
IV-D services on Tribal lands.
    Where a partnership is being proposed between one or more tribes, a 
regional tribal council and a tribe or a state and a tribe, include a 
letter of support/cooperation from an appropriate official of the 
partnering entity/organization.
    4. Project and Budget Periods: Generally, project and budget 
periods for these projects will be up to 17 months. OCSE will consider 
projects up to 36 months, if unique circumstances warrant. If OCSE 
approves a project for a time period longer than 17 months, OCSE will 
provide funding in discrete 12-month increments, or ``budget periods.'' 
Funding beyond the first 12-month budget period is not guaranteed. 
Rather, future funding will depend on the grantee's satisfactory 
performance and the availability of future appropriations.
    5. Project Budget: It is estimated that there will be three grants 
awarded for a total of $150,000 for this priority area.
Priority Area 1.03: Child Support Assurance
    1. Purpose: The purpose of this solicitation will be to obtain 
information on the feasibility of, and innovative methods of 
establishing a child support assurance program. We will be particularly 
interested in projects that will provide replicable models.
    2. Background Information: The concept of child support assurance 
builds upon the basic tenets of child support enforcement. All parents 
who do not live with their children are expected to help provide for 
them. A child with a living, nonresident parent would be entitled to 
benefits equal to either the child support paid by the nonresident 
parent or a socially assured minimum payment, whichever was higher. If 
the obligor pays less than that amount, the difference would be made 
up, in this case, by the demonstration project.
    3. Design Elements: Elements we would like to see included in 
proposals include, but are not limited to the following:
     Feasibility Study(ies): A number of factors would have an 
impact upon the possibility of sustaining a child support assurance 
project beyond a demonstration.
     For example, what would the net cost of such a program be? 
Would differences in State financing of their IV-D programs effect the 
funding/public support and/or perception of a child support assurance 
program?
     What type of training and/or administrative support is 
needed to implement child support assurance?
     What types of legislative and/or policy changes would be 
needed?
     Are there caseloads that, because of their compositions, 
would be better/not as well suited, for child support assurance 
demonstrations?
     How would child support assurance be best integrated into 
the changes that the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act 
of 1996 made to the IV-D program?
     Demonstration Project(s): We are interested in 
demonstrations that would test a number of variables that could be 
included in a child support assurance program such as:
     What is the optimal assured benefit level? At what level 
is the benefit enough to serve as an incentive for families but not too 
much to be cost prohibitive for States? Typical benefit levels are 
amounts sufficient to raise a family above the poverty line, $1,000--
$3,000 per child with increases for additional children.
     Should the benefit be a universal or means tested program? 
As originally conceived, child support assurance would be a universal 
program because it may serve as a greater incentive for obligors to 
work. On the other hand, means testing is one way to target public 
dollars to those in greatest need. We would be interested in 
demonstrations that test both hypotheses.
     What is the effect upon TANF rolls of a comprehensive 
child support assurance strategy? Does participation in a child support 
assurance program help to move families off of TANF to self-
sufficiency?
     What types of requirements should there be for 
participating in a child support assurance project? Should 
participation be limited to parents participating and/or making 
progress in fatherhood programs, work programs, parenting classes, 
substance abuse/remedial education programs?
     Does participation in a child support assurance program 
serve as an incentive to work?
     What should be the impact of receipt of child support 
assurance when determining eligibility of other government programs 
including TANF?
    4. Project and Budget Periods: The project period for this priority 
area is thirty-six months. The budget period will be for 12 months. 
Funding beyond the first 12-month budget period is not guaranteed. 
Rather, future funding will depend on the grantee's satisfactory 
performance and the availability of future appropriations.
    5. Project Budget: It is estimated that $250,000 will be available 
per year for this priority area. The number of grants to be awarded 
will depend upon the quality of the applications received.
    Other: OCSE will target funding for projects which fall under the 
three priority areas described above. However, OCSE will also screen 
and evaluate smaller scale projects (up to

[[Page 8386]]

$50,000 per project) to cover projects outside the scope of these 
priority areas, consistent with the legislative authority described 
under Part I.B., subject to the availability of funds. Eligible 
applicants should describe how the special improvement project will 
improve the effectiveness of the child support program and promote a 
new focus on results, service quality, management/organizational 
innovations, outreach or public satisfaction.
    Applicants should understand that OCSE will not award grants for 
special improvement projects which a) duplicate automated data 
processing and information retrieval system requirements/enhancements 
and associated tasks which are specified in PRWORA; or b) which cover 
costs for routine activities which should be normally borne by the 
Federal match for the Child Support Program or by other Federal funding 
sources (e.g. adding staff positions to perform routine CSE tasks or 
providing substance abuse services;) OCSE also has the discretion not 
to award grants that duplicate existing demonstrations, special 
projects and/or contracts that cover similar project objectives and 
activities. The project and budget period will be up to 17 months. It 
is estimated that there will be up to eight grants to be awarded (up to 
$50,000 each).

Part III: The Review Process

A. Intergovernmental Review

    This program is covered under Executive Order 12372, 
``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,'' and 45 CFR Part 100, 
``Intergovernmental Review of Department of Health and Human Services 
Programs and Activities.'' Under the Order, States may design their own 
processes for reviewing and commenting on proposed Federal assistance 
under covered programs.

    Note: State/territory participation in the intergovernmental 
review process does not signify applicant eligibility for financial 
assistance under a program. a potential applicant must meet the 
eligibility requirements of the program for which it is applying 
prior to submitting an application to its single point of contact 
(SPOC), if applicable, or to ACF.

    As of November 20, 1998, the following jurisdictions have elected 
not to participate in the Executive Order process. Applicants from 
these jurisdictions or for projects administered by federally-
recognized Indian Tribes need take no action in regard to E.O. 12372: 
Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa , Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, 
Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New 
Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, 
Vermont, Virginia, Washington.
    Although the jurisdictions listed above no longer participate in 
the process, entities which have met the eligibility criteria of the 
program may still apply for a grant even if a State, Territory, 
Commonwealth, etc. does not have a SPOC. All remaining jurisdictions 
participate in the Executive Order process and have established SPOCs. 
Applicants from participating jurisdictions should contact their SPOCs 
as soon as possible to alert them of the prospective applications and 
receive instructions.
    Applicants must submit any required material to the SPOCs as soon 
as possible so that the program office can obtain and review SPOC 
comments as part of the award process. The applicant must indicate the 
date of this submittal (or the date of contact if no submittal is 
required) on the Standard Form 424, item 16a. Under 45 CFR 100.8(a)(2), 
a SPOC has 60 days from the application deadline to comment on proposed 
new or competing continuation awards.
    SPOCs are encouraged to eliminate the submission of routine 
endorsements as official recommendations. Additionally, SPOCs are 
requested to clearly differentiate between mere advisory comments and 
those official State process recommendations which may trigger the 
``accommodate or explain'' rule.
    When comments are submitted directly to ACF, they should be 
addressed to: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration 
for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Office 
of Grants Management, Attention: Lionel Jay Adams, 370 L'Enfant 
Promenade, SW., 4th Floor, West Wing, Washington, DC 20447.
    A list of the Single Points of Contact for each State and Territory 
is included with the application materials for this program 
announcement.

B. Initial ACF Screening

    Each application submitted under this program announcement will 
undergo a pre-review to determine that (1) the application was received 
by the closing date and submitted in accordance with the instructions 
in this announcement and (2) the applicant is eligible for funding.
    It is necessary that applicants state specifically which priority 
area they are applying for. Applications will be screened for priority 
area appropriateness. If applications are found to be inappropriate for 
the priority area in which are submitted, applicants will be contacted 
for verbal approval of redirection to a more appropriate priority area.

C. Competitive Review and Evaluation Criteria

    Applications which pass the initial ACF screening will be evaluated 
and rated by an independent review panel on the basis of specific 
evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria were designed to assess 
the quality of a proposed project, and to determine the likelihood of 
its success. The evaluation criteria are closely related and are 
considered as a whole in judging the overall quality of an application. 
Points are awarded only to applications which are responsive to the 
evaluation criteria within the context of this program announcement. 
Proposed projects will be reviewed using the following evaluation 
criteria:
(1) Criterion I: Objectives and Need for Assistance (Maximum 25 points)
    The application should demonstrate a thorough understanding and 
analysis of the problem(s) being addressed in the project, the need for 
assistance and the importance of addressing these problems in improving 
the effectiveness of the child support program. The applicant should 
describe how the project will address this problem(s) through 
implementation of changes, enhancements and innovative efforts and 
specifically, how this project will improve program results. The 
applicant should address one or more of the activities listed under the 
``Design Elements in the Application'' described above for the specific 
priority area they are applying for (refer to Part II.B. Project 
Priorities). The applicant should identify the key goals and objectives 
of the project; describe the conceptual framework of its approach to 
resolve the identified problem(s); and provide a rationale for taking 
this approach as opposed to others.
(2) Criterion II: Approach (Maximum: 30 points)
    A well thought-out and practical management and staffing plan is 
mandatory. The application should include a detailed management plan 
that includes time-lines and detailed budgetary information. The main 
concern in this criterion is that the applicant should demonstrate a 
clear idea of the project's goals, objectives, and tasks to be 
accomplished. The plan to accomplish the goals and tasks should be set 
forth in a logical framework. The plan should identify

[[Page 8387]]

what tasks are required of any contractors and specify their relevant 
qualifications to perform these tasks. Staff to be committed to the 
project (including supervisory and management staff) at the state and/
or local levels must be identified by their role in the project along 
with their qualifications and areas of particular expertise. In 
addition, for any technical expertise obtained through a contract or 
subgrant, the desired technical expertise and skills of proposed 
positions should be specified in detail. The applicant should 
demonstrate that the skills needed to operate the project are either on 
board or can be obtained in a reasonable time.
(3) Criterion III: Evaluation (Maximum: 30 points)
    The applicant should describe the cost effective methods which will 
be used to achieve the project goals and objectives; the specific 
results/products that will be achieved; how the success of this project 
can be measured and how the success of this project has broader 
application in furthering national child support initiatives and/or 
providing solutions that could be adapted by other states/
jurisdictions. A discussion of data availability and outcome measures 
to be used should be included. Describe the collection and reporting 
system to be used. For applications under Priority Area 1.03--Child 
Support Assurance, a randomly assigned control group is preferred and 
applicants should describe the ongoing and retrospective evaluation of 
the project that will be used.
(4) Criterion IV: Budget and Budget Justification (Maximum 10 points)
    The project costs need to be reasonable in relation to the 
identified tasks. A detailed budget (e.g., the staff required, 
equipment and facilities that would be leased or purchased) should be 
provided identifying all agency and other resources (i.e., state, 
community other program--TANF/Head Start) that will be committed to the 
project. Grant funds cannot be used for capital improvements or the 
purchase of land or buildings. Explain why this project's resource 
requirements cannot be met by the state/local agency's regular program 
operating budget.
(5) Criterion V: Preferences (Maximum 5 points)
    Preference will be given to those grant applicants representing IV-
D agencies and applicant organizations who have cooperative agreements 
with IV-D agencies.

D. Funding Reconsideration

    After Federal funds are exhausted for this grant competition, 
applications which have been independently reviewed and ranked but have 
no final disposition (neither approved nor disapproved for funding) may 
again be considered for funding. Reconsideration may occur at any time 
funds become available within twelve (12) months following ranking. ACF 
does not select from multiple ranking lists for a program. Therefore, 
should a new competition be scheduled and applications remain ranked 
without final disposition, applicants are informed of their opportunity 
to reapply for the new competition, to the extent practical.

Part IV. The Application

A. Application Development

    In order to be considered for a grant under this program 
announcement, an application must be submitted on the forms supplied 
and in the manner prescribed by ACF. Application materials including 
forms and instructions are available from the contact named under the 
ADDRESSES section in the preamble of this announcement. The length of 
the application, including the application forms and all attachments, 
should not exceed 20 pages. A page is a single-side of an 8\1/
2\'' x 11'' sheet of plain white paper. The narrative should be typed 
double-spaced on a single-side of an 8\1/2\'' x 11'' plain white paper, 
with 1'' margins on all sides. Applicants are requested not to send 
pamphlets, maps, brochures or other printed material along with their 
application as these are difficult to photocopy. These materials, if 
submitted, will not be included in the review process. Each page of the 
application will be counted (excluding required forms and 
certifications) to determine the total length.
    The project description should include all the information 
requirements described in the specific evaluation criteria outlined in 
the program announcement under Part III.C. The Administration for 
Children and Families Uniform Project Description in the application 
kit provides general requirements for these evaluation criteria (i.e., 
Objectives and Need for Assistance; Approach; Evaluation; Budget and 
Budget Justification).

B. Application Submission

    1. Mailed applications postmarked after the closing date will be 
classified as late and will not be considered in the competition.
    2. Deadline. Mailed applications shall be considered as meeting an 
announced deadline if they are either received on or before the 
deadline date or sent on or before the deadline date and received by 
ACF in time for the independent review to: U.S. Department of Health 
and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of 
Grants Management, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Attention: 
Lionel Jay Adams, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W., 4th Floor West, 
Washington, D.C. 20447.

    APPLICANTS MUST ENSURE THAT A LEGIBLY DATED U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 
POSTMARK OR A LEGIBLY DATED, MACHINE-PRODUCED POSTMARK OF A 
COMMERCIAL MAIL SERVICE IS AFFIXED TO THE ENVELOPE/PACKAGE 
CONTAINING THE APPLICATION(S).

    To be acceptable as proof of timely mailing, a postmark from a 
commercial mail service must include the logo/emblem of the commercial 
mail service company and must reflect the date the package was received 
by the commercial mail service company from the applicant. Private 
Metered postmarks shall not be acceptable as proof of timely mailing. 
(Applicants are cautioned that express/overnight mail services do not 
always deliver as agreed). EXPRESS/OVERNIGHT MAIL SERVICES SHOULD USE 
THE 901 D STREET ADDRESS INSTRUCTIONS AS SHOWN BELOW.
    Applications handcarried by applicants, applicant couriers, or by 
other representatives of the applicant using express/overnight mail 
services, will be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they 
are received on or before the deadline date, between the hours of 8:00 
a.m. and 4:30 p.m., EST, addressed to the U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Attention: 
Lionel Jay Adams, Office of Grants Management, Office of Child Support 
Enforcement, and delivered at ACF Mailroom, 2nd Floor (near loading 
dock), Aerospace Building, 901 D Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20024, 
between Monday and Friday (excluding Federal holidays). The address 
must appear on the envelope/package containing the application. ACF 
cannot accommodate transmission of applications by fax or through other 
electronic media. Therefore, applications transmitted to ACF 
electronically will not be accepted regardless of date or time of 
submission and time of receipt.
    3. Late applications. Applications that do not meet the criteria 
above are considered late applications. ACF shall notify each late 
applicant that its

[[Page 8388]]

application will not be considered in the current competition.
    4. Extension of deadlines. ACF may extend an application deadline 
when circumstances such as acts of God (floods, hurricanes, etc.) 
occur, or when there are widespread disruption of the mail service, or 
in other rare cases. Determinations to extend or waive deadline 
requirements rest with ACF's Chief Grants Management Officer.

    Dated: February 5, 1999.
David Gray Ross,
Commissioner, Office of Child Support Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 99-4143 Filed 2-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P