[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 226 (Monday, November 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82902-82905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26100]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families


Request for Information: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
(TANF) Implementation of Sections 302 and 304 of the Fiscal 
Responsibility Act of 2023

AGENCY: Office of Family Assistance, Administration for Children and 
Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

ACTION: Request for information (RFI).

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

SUMMARY: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), in the 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), invites public 
comments on the possibilities for design and implementation of the new 
pilot program and work outcomes measures of the Fiscal Responsibility 
Act of 2023 (FRA), in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
(TANF) program. The FRA requires HHS to carry out a pilot program for 
up to five states to promote accountability by measuring employment and 
earnings outcomes as well as additional indicators of family stability 
and well-being for TANF recipients. In addition, it requires all states 
to report the information necessary to calculate certain statutory work 
outcomes measures. ACF seeks input from partners to help understand 
some of the options, opportunities, and potential challenges associated 
with the development and implementation of the pilot program and the 
reporting of new statutory work outcomes measures applicable to all 
states.

DATES: Comments are due January 11, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit responses to [email protected]. Please 
include ``TANF FRA'' in the subject line of the email.

Guidance for Submitting Comments

     To ensure that your comments are clearly understood and 
properly contextualized, please identify the specific question or 
section of this notice that your comments address, as well as your 
experience or role that informs your response.
     You are encouraged to comment on any issues or concerns 
you believe are relevant or appropriate for our consideration and to 
submit written data, facts, and views addressing this subject, 
including but not limited to the questions below.
     You do not need to answer all questions listed--only the 
question(s) for which you have relevant information. The written RFI 
response should address ONLY the topics for which the respondent has 
knowledge or expertise.
     Wherever possible, please provide credible data and 
specific examples to support your views. If you cite academic or other 
studies, they should be publicly available to be considered.
     All submissions are public records and may be published on 
www.regulations.gov. Do NOT submit sensitive, confidential, or 
personally identifiable information.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1.0 Background

1.1 Pilot Program

    Section 302 of the FRA authorizes a pilot program under which HHS 
may select up to five states to test alternative performance metrics in 
the TANF program. Section 302 of the FRA provides that for the duration 
of the pilot projects, the work participation requirements shall not 
apply to the pilot states and instead, participating states will comply 
with agreed upon performance measures and benchmarks. In lieu of the 
work participation rate (WPR), state performance will be measured by 
(A) the percentage of work-eligible individuals who are employed during 
the 2nd quarter after exiting the TANF program; (B) the level of 
earnings of those individuals in the 2nd and 4th quarters after exit; 
and (C) other indicators of family stability and well-being as 
established by HHS. States that fail to meet agreed upon performance 
benchmarks for these measures will be required to enter into a plan 
with HHS

[[Page 82903]]

to either achieve the level of performance or adjust the benchmarks. In 
the event neither is accomplished, the state will no longer be 
permitted to participate in the pilot. The pilots will be in effect for 
six years, with the first year being used to establish baseline data.
    Since TANF was enacted in 1996, the chief measure of program 
performance has been the requirement that states meet WPR targets. The 
WPR measure the extent to which states engage families receiving TANF 
cash assistance in certain work activities for a specified number of 
hours each week each month during a fiscal year. A state must meet an 
overall (or ``all families'') and a two-parent work participation 
requirement or face a potential financial penalty. The WPR targets are 
50 percent for all families and 90 percent for two-parent families, but 
a state's individual targets equal the statutory rates adjusted 
downward by the number of percentage points by which the caseload has 
fallen since a base year for reasons other than changes in eligibility 
rules.
    Over time, states, members of Congress, and others have advocated 
for moving TANF beyond solely relying on the WPR as a means of defining 
the success of states in supporting TANF recipients in entering 
employment and gaining the skills they need for economic stability. 
Many have also noted that the WPR is a process measure rather than an 
outcome measure, as it measures only a state's ability to engage 
individuals in specified countable activities that lack research to 
support their connection to long term employment outcomes.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/report/measuring-employment-outcomes-tanf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While this performance standard structure has remained largely 
unchanged since 1996, in recent years there has been an increasing 
interest in alternative methods of measuring state performance in TANF 
and other human services programs.\2\ The FRA authorized pilots to test 
alternatives to the WPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See p.19 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45966; https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/report/measuring-employment-outcomes-tanf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an alternative to the WPR, states participating in the pilots 
would be measured against negotiated benchmarks for work outcomes and 
other indicators of family stability and well-being. The pilots will 
provide an important opportunity for selected states to demonstrate 
different approaches to measuring their performance in assisting 
families with low incomes. We encourage states to think about 
strategies for promoting and measuring economic success and family 
stabilization. ACF is interested in learning more about the 
opportunities that the pilot program presents for states. ACF is 
committed to a successful pilot program, one that results in useful 
information for policymakers and leads to a more effective TANF program 
that further benefits American families.

1.2 Work Outcomes Measures

    Section 304 of the FRA requires all states to collect and submit 
``the information necessary'' to determine four indicators of 
performance. These are:
     Employment in the Second Quarter after Exit: The 
percentage of individuals who were work-eligible individuals as of the 
time of exit from the program, who are in unsubsidized employment 
during the second quarter after the exit;
     Employment Retention: The percentage of individuals who 
were work-eligible individuals who were in unsubsidized employment in 
the second quarter after the exit, who are also in unsubsidized 
employment during the fourth quarter after the exit;
     Median Earnings: The median earnings of individuals who 
were work-eligible individuals as of the time of exit from the program, 
who are in unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after the 
exit; and
     High School Attainment: The percentage of individuals who 
have not attained 24 years of age, are attending high school or 
enrolled in an equivalency program, and are work-eligible individuals 
or were work-eligible individuals as of the time of exit from the 
program, who obtain a high school degree or its recognized equivalent 
while receiving assistance under the State program funded under this 
part or within 1 year after the exit.
    Section 304 specifies that to ensure nationwide comparability of 
data, HHS shall issue regulations governing reporting of the 
performance indicators after it consults with the Secretary of Labor 
and with states. This RFI is one of the ways HHS is consulting with 
states.
    The above measures are similar to some of the performance 
accountability measures required under the Workforce Innovation and 
Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA).\3\ The FRA does not specify which data 
sources should be used for the above measures. For the first three 
measures, ACF is considering requiring states to submit Social Security 
Numbers (SSN) of all work-eligible individuals who left TANF in a given 
quarter and ACF would then match those SSNs with quarterly wage records 
in the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH).\4\ ACF would then use 
the matched results to compute the first three work outcomes measures 
on behalf of states. This approach would allow for standardized 
measures and would not require states to initiate new data sharing 
agreements at the state level. ACF is interested in learning about 
alternative data sources, such as unemployment insurance quarterly wage 
records contained in the State Wage Interchange System (SWIS),\5\ as 
well as data sources that could be used to supplement standardized 
measures. Under WIOA, states are allowed to submit ``other information 
as is necessary to measure the progress of those participants through 
methods other than quarterly wage record information'' if quarterly 
wage records are not available for a participant.\6\ ACF has matched 
individual TANF case records with NDNH wage records since FY 2002 for 
the High Performance Bonus measures, and later for performance measures 
that are reported as part of the Congressional Budget Justification,\7\ 
but ACF has not calculated a high school attainment measure and so is 
looking for information about potential data sources and key 
considerations. Other areas include how to operationally define TANF 
exiters, which are defined in the statute as those who ``cease[ ] to 
receive assistance under the program funded by this part.'' However, 
many studies have defined an ``exit'' from TANF in different ways, 
taking churn into account; TANF ``leavers'' studies from the early 
2000s often defined a ``leaver'' as someone who has left cash 
assistance for at least two months, while WIOA defines a ``common 
exit'' as a participant not receiving Department of Labor-administered 
services for at least 90 days.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/performance/performance-indicators.
    \4\ See https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/training-technical-assistance/overview-national-directory-new-hires.
    \5\ See https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/performance/swis.
    \6\ See https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2017/TEGL_26-16_Acc.pdf.
    \7\ See TANF-ACF-PI-2002-01 (FY 2002 TANF High Performance Bonus 
(HPB): New Reporting Requirements) https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/policy-guidance/tanf-acf-pi-2002-01-fy-2002-tanf-high-performance-bonus-hpb-new-reporting; FY 2024 Congressional Budget Justification, 
p. 338 https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/olab/fy-2024-congressional-justification.pdf.
    \8\ See https://aspe.hhs.gov/tanf-leavers-applicants-caseload-studies and https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/performance/definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These work outcomes measures are intended to assist federal--and 
state--policymakers in better understanding

[[Page 82904]]

the effectiveness of TANF programs in promoting successful employment 
and credential attainment. As with the pilots, the work outcomes 
measures may inform future improvements to the TANF program. ACF is 
interested in hearing from states their thoughts on operationalizing 
these new measures including the potential administrative cost and 
burden involved.

2.0 Request for Information.

    Through this RFI, ACF is soliciting input and information from a 
broad array of stakeholders on how best to design and implement the FRA 
pilot program and the new work outcomes measures.
    This RFI is for information and planning purposes only and should 
not be construed as a solicitation or as an obligation on the part of 
ACF or HHS.
    We ask respondents to address the following questions. You do not 
need to address every question and should focus on those for which you 
have relevant expertise or experience. In your response, please provide 
a brief description of yourself or your organization.

3.0 Key Questions--Pilot Program

    3.1 What are the most important criteria a state should meet for 
selection into the pilot program, and why? Are there a minimum set of 
requirements a state should meet to be eligible for a pilot? If so, 
which ones? Are there aspects of state TANF programs that may increase 
their likelihood of success as a pilot? Are there aspects of state TANF 
programs that may impede their likelihood of success as a pilot? For 
example, if the benefit amounts or caseloads are low, full family 
sanction and family cap policies exist, etc. Is there particular past 
experience or past performance achievement that might be predictive of 
states' ability to successfully carry out a pilot?
    3.2 What factors might influence a state's decision whether to 
pursue participation in the pilot program?
    3.3 What technical assistance or supports would be helpful for 
states and service providers in designing and implementing pilots? What 
obstacles do you foresee and how can ACF provide assistance to overcome 
or manage them?
    3.4 What indicators of family stability and well-being, including 
alternative measures related to employment, for families participating 
in TANF should we consider measuring as part of the pilot? For example, 
should pilots include measures related to family poverty, interactions 
with the child welfare system, or other indicators related to child 
well-being? Please explain your reasoning. What data source(s) would be 
of most utility in tracking your recommended indicators? For example, 
if a state is interested in measuring job quality as an indicator of 
family well-being, would a state be able to measure that by tracking 
jobs with benefits such as a paid leave or employer contribution 
retirement plans? Should family income be included as a measure of 
family stability and well-being and, if so, what are the important 
components, who should be included, and what would be the most reliable 
and practical sources of data? Should any indicators be measured for 
all low-income families, irrespective of TANF participation, to 
evaluate whether a state's TANF program is successfully serving these 
families (e.g., the share of families living in deep poverty, taking 
into account all sources of income)?
    3.5 What factors (e.g., demographic, economic, policy, 
programmatic) should be considered when establishing performance 
benchmarks? In your experience, what are the most important factors and 
variables to take into consideration when developing statistical 
adjustment models for performance benchmarks?
    3.6 What information should be collected about the pilots to help 
evaluate and explain their level of success? Is there information HHS 
should collect to help determine how a successful pilot program may be 
replicated in a different state? Should the pilot program undergo a 
formal evaluation? If so, what form should it take? Please provide your 
reasoning.
    3.7 At what point(s) in the continuum of participation in a program 
should work and family well-being indicators be measured (e.g., while a 
family is still receiving assistance, upon exit, two quarters after 
exit, a year after exit)?
    3.8 What characteristics among pilot states (e.g., programmatic, 
geographic, economic, demographic) would be most helpful in providing 
useful and scalable results for TANF administrators and policymakers? 
What level of diversity among pilot sites (e.g., geographic, size, 
location) would be most helpful in providing relevant results across 
states?
    3.9 In what ways should equity be considered when implementing a 
pilot? Are there tools or resources needed to promote equity in pilot 
design, implementation, and evaluation? What factors or data points 
would you consider important to ensuring equity (avoiding disparate 
impacts) in the implementation of work and family well-being measures 
as part of the pilot? How do we ensure that the individual experiences 
of families that receive TANF cash assistance are considered in the 
pilot design, implementation, and evaluation?
    3.10 Are there similar past pilot efforts (federal, state, local) 
from which HHS should draw lessons learned in setting up this pilot 
project?
    3.11 Are there any other questions or issues related to the pilots 
for which you wish to provide comments?

4.0 Key Questions--Work Outcomes Measures

    4.1 In your experience, what data sources on employment and 
earnings are most accurate and practical for work outcomes measures 
similar to those required by the FRA? What do you see as advantages and 
limitations of matching with the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) 
at the federal level, as compared to the State Wage Interchange System 
(SWIS) or other alternatives? We are particularly interested in 
understanding the costs, timing, administrative burden, and reliability 
of different data sources.
    4.2 If given the opportunity, do you believe state agencies would 
have the interest and capacity to voluntarily submit supplemental wage 
information (similar to WIOA \9\) in addition to information needed for 
a match with the NDNH? If so, would states be more likely to submit 
supplemental individual-level data or aggregated outcomes measures 
using an alternative data source? We are interested in the rationale 
behind the preferred approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/advisories/training-and-employment-guidance-letter-no-26-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4.3 In your experience, what data sources are most accurate and 
practical for high school degree or secondary school diploma 
equivalency attainment? Is it feasible to reliably determine high 
school completion or secondary school diploma equivalency attainment 
for current and former TANF recipients using survey data? Please share 
the nature of your experience.
    4.4 When thinking about exit from the TANF program, what are the 
most important considerations? In what manner, if any, should the issue 
of ``churn'' be addressed? (That is, those cases that cycle off for 
short periods of time due to causes such as administrative errors, 
delays in redetermination, or sanctions.)
    4.5 We are interested in understanding the timelines involved in 
reliably reporting and calculating outcome measures. What operational 
issues affect the timing and availability of data for the work outcomes 
measures, including TANF caseload, employment

[[Page 82905]]

and earnings, and education data? For example, what is the earliest 
turnaround time for reliably reporting that a TANF case has closed? 
What are the timelines involved in matching and working with employment 
and earnings data and education data?
    4.6 What factors (e.g., demographic, economic, policy, 
programmatic) should be considered for presenting the work outcomes 
measures in context? Are there variables such as state economic 
conditions that may impact state outcomes and are outside a state TANF 
program's control?
    4.7 In what ways should equity be considered when implementing work 
outcome measures? What are the advantages of and/or possible 
difficulties associated with reporting data disaggregated by race, 
ethnicity, gender, age, disability, other demographic characteristics, 
or geography to enable equity analyses around work outcomes? \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/eo13985-vision-for-equitable-data.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4.8 What technical assistance or supports would be helpful for 
collecting data for work outcomes? What obstacles do you foresee and 
how can ACF and its partners provide assistance to overcome or manage 
those barriers?
    4.9 Please describe the characteristics of successful partnerships 
between the public workforce system and the TANF system that support 
the collection of data for the work outcomes measures required by the 
FRA?
    4.10 Please describe the specific steps for a state to begin 
collecting and reporting data and their estimated duration. For 
example, please estimate the timeframe for system changes to generate a 
list of SSNs of work-eligible individuals who left TANF in a given 
quarter.
    4.11 Are there any other questions or issues related to the work 
outcomes measures for which you wish to provide comments?
    4.12 HHS has determined that tribes are NOT required to report work 
outcomes measures as laid out in the Fiscal Responsibility Act. 
However, OFA is committed to supporting Tribal TANF programs that wish 
to voluntarily measure work outcomes for their caseloads. As we explore 
this possibility, what factors do we need to better understand? What 
training or technical assistance could support Tribal TANF programs 
interested in measuring work outcomes?
    Authority: Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.

Ann Flagg,
Director, Office of Family Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2023-26100 Filed 11-22-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-36-P