Quiero saber acerca de...

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

374

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
A State agency operating a voluntary program noted that its State E&T
program had contracted with several E&T providers who operate multiple components, and found that such providers are able to re-assign individuals from one component to a more appropriate component without re-involving the State agency. The commenter explained how the E&T
provider enters the component change in the E&T data system and thus the State agency is informed. The State agency requested that the Department modify language to allow an E&T
provider offering multiple components approved by the State agency to move participants to a more appropriate component without referring the individual back to the State agency. The commenter believed granting E&T
providers this discretion would ensure an individual could move into a more suitable activity as soon as reasonably possible while maintaining continuity of case management services. The Department notes that section 6d4O
of the FNA refers to an individual being ill-suited for a component and not for an E&T program. However, the Department agrees with the commenter that, if an E&T provider makes a provider determination for one component and believes an individual would be a good fit for another Stateapproved component offered by the same provider, a reasonable next step would be for the E&T provider to enroll the individual in the second component. The Department believes that the intent of the statutory language was to give E&T providers a tool to refer individuals back to the State agency when an E&T provider makes a determination that it is unable to serve the participant well. As a result, if an E&T provider determines an individual is ill-suited for a component and there is a more suitable component available, the State agency will have the option to either require the E&T provider to refer the individual back to the State agency with a provider determination, if the individual is ill-suited for one component, or allow the E&T provider to switch the individual to another component without referral back to the State agency. In the latter case, the E&T
provider must inform the State agency of the new component. If an E&T
provider does not have a more suitable component, the E&T provider must refer the individual back to the State agency with a provider determination. The Department has added this language to allow State agency discretion at 7 CFR
273.7c18i.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:02 Jan 04, 2021

Jkt 253001

Several commenters, including State agencies operating voluntary E&T
programs, explained that implementing the ill-suited process, as described in the proposed rule, would be onerous and confusing for a voluntary E&T
program to operate, and would likely create unnecessary burdens for both participants and State agency staff. One commenter recommended that, for voluntary programs, the State agency require E&T providers to refer participants with a provider determination to other providers, but only if appropriate and desired by the participant. Commenters explained that, since voluntary participants cannot be sanctioned for failure to comply with E&T, it is not necessary to include voluntary households in the actions described at 7 CFR 273.7c18. The Department agrees that voluntary participants cannot be sanctioned for failure to comply with E&T, but also notes that the Act does not differentiate between voluntary and mandatory E&T
participants with regard to the ill-suited process. In addition, the Department believes there is value in requiring voluntary participants with a provider determination to be reassessed by the State agency to determine the next most appropriate action. As stated above, the State agency must be accountable to E&T participants and the efficient use of E&T resources even in voluntary programs. The State agency has a responsibility to properly screen individuals for participation in E&T and match participants to the most appropriate E&T component. The State agency must also ensure all participants, both mandatory and voluntary, are being adequately served by the States E&T providers.
The Department also received comments on the interaction between reverse referrals and provider determinations. A State agency explained that voluntary E&T
participants may be referred to a specific program by the State agency or they may self-refer to an E&T provider.
This State agency explained their E&T
program is structured so that all E&T
providers provide case management and case managers work with the participant to place them into the most compatible component. Using the proposed model, the State agency believed few individuals would be placed in a component where they are ill-suited.
However, the State agency wondered what would happen if an E&T
participant self-referred to an E&T
provider and the individual received a provider determination for that component. The State agency explained
PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

they would prefer that the E&T
provider, using their case management services, refer the participant to a more appropriate E&T provider, rather than back to the State agency, adding unnecessary complexity. The Department does not believe that the process described in the rule is inconsistent with self-referrals as described by this State agency, and the Department notes that self-referrals can occur in both voluntary and mandatory programs. Self-referrals also known as reverse referrals happen when a SNAP
participant identifies an E&T provider without being directly referred to that provider and independently asks to enroll in the program. The E&T provider must determine, by contacting the State agency, that the individual is a SNAP
participant and request the individual be formally referred by the State agency to the E&T component offered by the provider. If then referred by the State agency, the E&T provider may then enroll the participant in the component.
The Department would expect, as a best practice that, if a potential E&T
participant self-refers to an E&T
provider, the E&T provider would assess the individual for compatibility with the E&T components offered prior to sending a request to the State agency for a formal referral to their E&T
component. The Department reminds State agencies that E&T providers cannot enroll SNAP participants as E&T
participants unless the State agency has first screened individuals to determine if it is appropriate to refer them to E&T
and then refers them to the E&T
program in accordance with 7 CFR
273.7c2. If an E&T provider is asking the State agency to enroll walk-ins without first making sure the individual is a good fit for their program and is, in fact, a SNAP participant, and if the State agency is not scrutinizing self-referral requests from providers to ensure it is appropriate to refer individuals to the E&T program, then both the E&T
provider and the State agency are failing in their responsibility to ensure participants are matched to programs where they are likely to be successful.
The State agency has an accountability role to play in ensuring that selfreferrals should be officially referred to E&T and, if not, to assist the individual in finding a more appropriate program.
Several commenters expressed concerns with the Notice of E&T
Participation Change NETPC. Some commenters strongly recommended the Department make the NETPC optional for voluntary E&T participants or do away with the notice requirement entirely. A not-for-profit agency
E:FRFM05JAR2.SGM

05JAR2