Quiero saber acerca de...

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations the next step. The Department Encourages State agencies to include appropriate protocols for the secure handling of personal or sensitive information in their agreements with providers, including any such protocols based on Federal or State law and guidance. E&T providers should follow their internal protocols, as well as any protocols outlined in their agreements with the State agency, consistent with applicable laws regarding secure handling of such information.
Several State agencies expressed concern with the section of the proposed rule that would require the State agency to be the entity that makes the choice among the four available actions. These State agencies agreed that rescreening the individual for mandatory participation in the E&T
program is the responsibility of eligibility workers, but they did not think eligibility workers would be the most appropriate group to refer the individual to another E&T component, workforce partnership, or another assistance program. One State agency suggested that case managers would be the most appropriate entity to make the re-referral and, in their State, case managers are embedded with E&T
providers. As a result, requiring the individual with a provider determination to go back to the State agency, rather than to their provider case manager, would be problematic because: The participant has an established relationship with their case manager not with an eligibility worker;
individuals will lose trust they have built with their case manager;
individuals will be forced to start over potentially causing them to disengage from the program; eligibility workers are not well-versed in the specific E&T components offered in the State; and case managers know more about the participants circumstances and are better able to recommend other appropriate next steps, including possible exemptions. The State agency recommended that the Department provide flexibility to allow individuals with a provider determination to go back to their case managers for next steps, while still allowing eligibility functions to remain with the eligibility workers. Several commenters stated that allowing case managers or staff associated with the E&T providers to rerefer the participant to another component would also reduce the number of times an individual bounces around to different offices, thereby reducing confusion and inconvenience.
Another State agency operating both a mandatory and voluntary E&T program
VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:02 Jan 04, 2021

Jkt 253001

explained that E&T providers are very capable of assigning the participant to a new component, referring the participant to another partner organization, reassessing the individual, and obtaining other assistance for the participant. Similarly, a second State agency operating a voluntary program explained that the proposed provision assumes that State agencies are not already implementing a no wrong door approach to service delivery. The State agency explained their existing process already allows for a no wrong door approach, which provides for rereferrals within the provider network and for participants to be screened for suitability before receiving services across multiple programs. The Department does not disagree that E&T
providers may, in some cases, have the necessary skills and capacity to reassess individuals and determine a more appropriate component. However, the Department believes, particularly with regard to mandatory programs, but also with voluntary programs, that the State agency, not other entities, must determine if a participant with a provider determination should actually continue to participate in E&T. Congress included, as one of the four options after an individual receives a provider determination, that the State agency reassess the individuals mental and physical fitness. The Department interprets this to mean that Congress intended for the State agency to only rerefer an individual to E&T or, at the participants discretion, refer to a workforce partnership the two methods of meeting a mandatory E&T
requirement, if the individual remained eligible for E&T. Only the State agency can determine if an individual is eligible to participate in E&T, and if it would be appropriate for the individual to do so.
A professional organization noted the proposed rule goes beyond what is specified in the Act to dictate that the decision regarding appropriate next steps after a provider determination is a function of eligibility staff. The commenter urged the Department not to assign this as a function of eligibility staff, and allow State agencies to identify which parties within the E&T
program are the most appropriate to be involved in the decision-making and communication with the clients. A State agency also asked the Department to clarify the difference between an eligibility function and the functions of State staff that are more directly engaged in E&T. When the Department refers to an eligibility function or eligibility staff, the Department is referring to the
PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

373

workers who make eligibility determination for SNAP benefits including determining exemptions from the work requirements and referring individuals to E&T as specified in section 11e6 of the FNA.
State E&T staff are those who evaluate participants suitability for certain E&T
activities and otherwise coordinate activities within the E&T program. The Department believes that the decision about which of the four actions to take at 7 CFR 273.7c18iB for an individual with a provider determination must be performed by an eligibility worker because only an eligibility worker can determine if it is appropriate, as a condition of eligibility, to refer someone to E&T in accordance with State agency criteria. Similarly, only an eligibility worker can re-screen an individual for exemptions from work registration as that determination is closely related to eligibility. While other State agency staff beyond eligibility workers could refer an individual to a workforce partnership or coordinate with other Federal, State, or local workforce or assistance programs, the Department does not think it is logistically or administratively feasible to split the decision-making authority at 7 CFR 273.7c18iB between eligibility and non-eligibility staff. That being said, the Department does believe that State E&T staff, case workers, and E&T providers likely have important information to share that may inform which of the four actions would be the most appropriate for an individual with a provider determination. The Department would encourage these staff to share this information with the eligibility worker to inform the eligibility workers decision. In addition, the Department believes State agencies must take greater accountability for individuals they refer to E&T programsboth in voluntary and mandatory programs. If an individual has already received a provider determination after an initial referral to an E&T program, the State agency must seriously consider if E&T is the most appropriate placement for the individual, or if another program, as described in 7 CFR 273.7c18iB4, would be a better use of a participants time. As described earlier, E&T provider staff are encouraged to provide the reason for the provider determination and make a recommendation regarding the best next action to the State agency, but ultimately the decision about the next action rests with eligibility staff in the State agency. In light of these explanations, no modification to the regulatory language is made.

E:FRFM05JAR2.SGM

05JAR2