[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 488-493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-208]


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

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: Announcement of availability of funds and request for 
competitive applications under the Office of Child Support 
Enforcement's Special Improvement Projects.

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

SUMMARY: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of 
Child Support Enforcement (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 March 6, 
2000. 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, S.W., 4th Floor, East Wing, Washington, D.C. 20447 (This is 
not the mailing address for submission of applications, see Part IV, 
B.); or accessible via OCSE's Website (www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/) 
under new announcements; or contact Jean Robinson, Program Analyst, 
phone(202)401-5330, FAX(202) 205-4315; 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 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 2000, we are

[[Page 489]]

looking for grants in the following priority areas:
    (a) Improve the management of Undistributed Collections (UDC) in 
order to decrease or maintain low UDC balances.
    (b) Foster collaboration between IV-D State agencies and partner 
entities and other states to improve interstate case processing.
    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 2000 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 States (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 2000.
Priority Area 1--Improving the Management of Undistributed Collections 
(UDC)
    1. Purpose: The purpose of this solicitation is to assist States to 
demonstrate new and or more effective methods, control procedures and 
models to decrease or maintain low UDC balances.
    2. Background and Information: Undistributed collections balances 
vary greatly in amount and differ from State to State. These amounts 
are often quite significant in relation to total child support 
enforcement collections. Most states have attempted to address this 
problem over the years, but OCSE audits in some states underscore the 
difficulty of States' achieving substantial and permanent reductions.
    3. Design Elements in the Application: In order to improve the 
management of UDC, OCSE is interested in projects which will provide a 
better understanding of the nature of undistributed collections and 
that develop effective/innovative processes to address at least one of 
the following key issues/areas:
    (a) Design a strategy to demonstrate how well a State can improve 
its UDC balances by using the State Parent Locator Service (SPLS) and 
Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) to determine locations of the 
custodial parent and ensure more timely disbursement of child support 
collections.
    (b) Develop effective methods to identify the nature/causes of UDC 
and develop approaches to reduce or eliminate them.
    (c) Develop cost-effective procedures to ensure that all UDC are 
identified and reported accurately and according to Federal guidelines.
    4. Project and Budget Periods: The project period for this priority 
area is up to 17 months.
    5. Project Budget: It is estimated that there will be three to five 
grants (ranging from $100,000 to $300,000 for a total of $800,000).
Priority Area 2: Fostering Improved Interstate Case Processing
    1. 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 required all States to adopt the Uniform Interstate 
Family Support Act (UIFSA) by January 1, 1998. 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 individuals representing UIFSA 
and the states to discuss and develop consensus methods for 
implementing administrative

[[Page 490]]

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:
    (a) Case Processing and the Courts: 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-D agencies for transmission to the Federal Case Registry? What 
are the barriers between IV-D agencies and the courts that lead to 
inefficiencies and ineffective interstate case processing and how can 
they be overcome? What processes have states put in place to make 
controlling order determinations, to reconcile arrears under multiple 
orders, and to notify affected parties, including courts in each state? 
How can these processes be improved?
    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.
    (b) Direct Withholding and Employers: 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 
is 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 in 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.
    (c) State Clearinghouse Model: What benefits would there be in 
establishing a State clearinghouse for handling requests from other 
states attempting direct enforcement other than wage withholding? 
States frequently encounter difficulties with the lien process and 
seizures in other states when attempting one-State interstate actions. 
At the same time, since the other State IV-D agency is not involved in 
these situations in the traditional way, they may not be able to 
provide adequate assistance. OCSE is interested in exploring 
alternatives to traditional methods of offering assistance to other 
states under direct enforcement for single or targeted remedies (e.g., 
lien registration, State lottery intercept, etc.). Different models for 
a clearinghouse could be proposed and the responsibilities and 
associated costs explored. Provision of selected services, such as 
enforcement counsel consultations, accessibility to local attorneys, 
intercession with local authorities, and intervention with non-
responding banks and financial institutions (rather than locate and 
discovery functions), should be considered.
    (d) Administrative Enforcement of Interstate Cases: With respect to 
high volume automated enforcement in interstate cases under PRWORA, 
what are promising 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?
    (e) Case Processing and Use of FPLS: 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? What new and 
effective interstate locate methods/ processes are 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? Are the levels of state 
automation and staffing adequate to deal with these new tools?
    (f) Tracking Outcomes for Data Matches: 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)?
    (g) Interstate Forms: 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 these forms be modified to better meet needs of 
States and other users? Are States able to use these forms 
electronically and how? What is needed to overcome barriers to 
electronic transmission through CSENet or other means?
    (h) Family Violence and Case Processing: 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 and 
appropriate 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. 
Similarly, IV-D agencies place a Family Violence Indicator flag on an 
individual's record in 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

[[Page 491]]

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.
    (i) International Child Support Enforcement: What types of 
collaborative activities between a state or states and foreign 
jurisdictions would improve international child support cooperation, 
encouraging other nations to adopt additional UIFSA-like procedures? 
UIFSA includes provisions which extend IV-D cooperation to foreign 
nations with substantially similar procedures to UIFSA. Variations in 
procedures between national systems will require additional measures to 
be developed and implemented. IV-D agency experience in working cases 
with other nations will be a crucial factor in development, 
promulgation, and training regarding innovative techniques crucial to 
improving international cooperation. Projects should demonstrate 
methods to improve other nations' judicial and child support agency 
cooperation (e.g., procedures not requiring the physical presence of a 
petitioner for rendition of a judgement determining parentage, methods 
of not charging a mother for costs of paternity testing unless a 
paternity allegation is proven to be groundless, utilizing electronic 
communication and currency transfer mechanisms to improve security and 
lower costs) between one or more states and foreign jurisdictions.
    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 $100,000 to $600,000) for a total of 
$800,000 for this priority area.
Other
    OCSE will target funding for projects which fall under the two 
priority areas described above. However, OCSE will also screen and 
evaluate smaller scale projects 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.
    Under this ``Other'' category, OCSE is particularly interested in 
(a) projects which focus on effective enforcement tools, foster 
cooperative relationships with law enforcement, or demonstrate other 
effective methods to increase collections; or (b) demonstration 
projects that test and evaluate model review and adjustment procedures 
that focus on one of the following four areas: (1) review and 
adjustment of child support orders at entrance and/or exit from the 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program; (2) review and 
adjustment of medical support orders; (3) targeting periodic review and 
adjustment by type of case; and (4) or targeting periodic review and 
adjustment of cases where the noncustodial parent is incarcerated or 
has no income.
    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.
    It is estimated that there will be up to ten grants to be awarded 
in the ``Other'' category up to $50,000 each, and the project and 
budget period will be up to 17 months; however, review and adjustment 
demonstrations may be funded at an increased level for a project period 
up to thirty-six months, with a budget period of 12 months; additional 
funding beyond the first 12 months will depend on the availability of 
future appropriations.

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 August 23, 1999, 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

[[Page 492]]

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: Lillian Cash, Grants Management 
Specialist, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W., 4th Floor, West Wing, 
Washington, D.C. 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 they 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 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.
(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, excluding 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

[[Page 493]]

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: Mary 
Nash, 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: 
Mary Nash, 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 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: December 25, 1999.
David Gray Ross,
Commissioner, Office of Child Support Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 00-208 Filed 1-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P