Quiero saber acerca de...

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations for failure to participate. This new provision strives to strengthen State accountability for their E&T programs by requiring State agencies take additional steps to ensure SNAP
participants who are determined illsuited for an E&T component receive the targeted help they need to move toward self-sufficiency. The Department proposed several new processes to implement the provision, including a requirement that individuals with an illsuited determination receive a Notice of E&T Participation Change NETPC from the State agency soon after their illsuited determination.
The Department received 44
comments on this provision.
Commenters were generally supportive and believed the provision would ensure more participants are directed to activities most likely to help them move toward self-sufficiency. However, many commenters had questions and concerns on segments of the provision as proposed, most notably the term illsuited, the applicability of the provision to self-referrals and voluntary households, the NETPC requirements, and the inability to stop the ABAWD
time clock after an ill-suited determination.
Several commenters explained that the term ill-suited was insensitive and stigmatizing, and did not take a strengths-based approach to working with participants. A not-for-profit agency explained that people are not ill-suited for programs, but programs can be ill-suited for people. Another commenter explained there may be multiple reasons a referral from a State agency may not be successful, including a lack of an available slot or a lack of follow-up from the participant or provider, and believed these other reasons should also be communicated back to the State agency under a mandatory E&T program. Alternative terms like incomplete referral, revised referral, or reassigned referral were suggested. The Department agrees that a switch to different terminology for this situation could be less stigmatizing, but also notes ill-suited is the language used in the statute. For the purposes of the regulations, the Department will use the phrase provider determination in place of ill-suited determination. The Department also recognizes there are many reasons why a participant may not successfully complete a component, but for the purposes of this regulation the Department is finalizing language pertaining to individuals who are determined by the provider to not be a good fit for the component.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:02 Jan 04, 2021

Jkt 253001

Commenters also asked the Department to recognize a new referral is a significant burden on the time and hopefulness of a jobseeker, and can be a demoralizing process. Commenters spoke of the need for State agencies to have as much information as possible about E&T providers so that State agencies can make the best possible referrals, thus heading off instances when an individual and an E&T
program are not well-aligned. One workforce training agency explained it frequently receives referrals from the State agency for individuals who do not meet criteria for enrollment; this commenter believed a handbook for State agency staff which offered more information about available providers would be helpful. A not-for-profit agency that works with many E&T
providers suggested a more upstream solution to invest additional resources into data systems, as well as the development of robust and holistic intake and referral processes. The commenter encouraged the Department to support the development of these systems. The commenter further explained these data systems could support making a better match and facilitating the back and forth with a client when a provider determination is made. The Department agrees that E&T
participants must always be treated with care and respect, which is why State agencies should implement screening and referral processes that are both effective and efficient. The Department encourages State agencies to work with their providers to develop appropriate screening criteria so they only refer individuals who meet the providers criteria for enrollment. The Department also agrees that State agencies should consider developing data systems and other processes to improve their ability to screen and refer individuals to appropriate providers. The Department will continue to offer technical assistance to support State agencies in these efforts.
The proposed rule stated that the E&T
provider has the authority to determine if an individual referred to or participating in an E&T component should receive a provider determination for that E&T component. Two commenters urged the Department to make an addition to paragraph 7 CFR
273.7c18i to require the State agency to ensure E&T providers are informed, not only of their authority, but also their responsibility to make a provider determination for a particular E&T component. The commenters believed this addition would place an expectation on the provider to inform
PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

371

the State agency whenever an individual was not a good fit for the program component. The Department agrees that, not only do E&T providers have the authority to make a provider determination, the E&T providers must also have the responsibility to make this determination. The addition of responsibility more clearly lays out the Departments expectation that E&T
providers will identify individuals who are not a good fit and notify the State agency of the provider determination in accordance with 7 CFR 273.7c18i.
Commenters also shared that E&T
providers should have more guidance on what constitutes a provider determination, to ensure consistency among providers and to avoid discriminatory practices. Commenters also felt that E&T providers should be given guidance on how to approach the decision to make a provider determination with compassion and a spirit of assistance, acknowledging that some E&T participants, particularly ABAWDs, may face barriers that would make it hard for them to meet E&T
program expectations. For instance, providers should consider how to enable an individual to participate rather than immediately making an E&T
provider determination. Another commenter explained that, while the end goal of the provider determination may be to match a jobseeker with more appropriate programming, in practice the determination screens a jobseeker out of an available E&T component with the hope that the State agency will have another, better option available for the individual down the line. The commenter recommended that the Department take steps to make transparent the criteria that inform an E&T provider determination and to offer opportunities for feedback and revision of these criteria. In addition, the commenter was concerned that deferring sole authority to E&T
providers to make these determinations could result in a patchwork of unaligned and confusing approaches that are subject to staff discretion and, therefore, also subject to staffs implicit or explicit racial biases. The Department agrees that E&T providers should not indiscriminately refer E&T participants back to the State agency. The Department has long discouraged providers from creamingserving only participants that show potential for good outcomes. The Department encourages providers to make every reasonable effort to assist individuals participation in the training to which they have been referred, only making a provider determination if absolutely
E:FRFM05JAR2.SGM

05JAR2