Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

40849

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 143 / Thursday, July 29, 2021 / Notices Response: ACL in coordination with ACLs grantee, the National Ombudsman Resource Center NORC
created in-depth training and training manuals on all aspects of NORS
reporting, including examples of narratives for both complaint examples and systems issues and does not believe that additional guidance is necessary.
See https ltcombudsman.org/omb_
support/nors.
The Maryland Ombudsman program also recommended the addition of a new complaint code in Facility Policies, Procedures and Practices Code J for emergency planning complaints. The Maryland Ombudsman program noted that there have been many instances of facilities needing to temporarily or permanently relocate residents for a variety of reasons from disasters to lack of appropriate staff in the building, facility closure, or the facility did not have an appropriate plan or did not have a plan at all.
Response: ACL will not add a new complaint code, but will modify complaint code J01 Administrative Oversight to be inclusive of emergency planning.
One recommendation was to include the addition of a county field e.g., Federal Information Processing Standard code. The commenter noted that although looking at differences/
variation between states is important and valuable, having the ability to look at differences/variation within each state would be immensely beneficial for the conduct of ACLs functions and
able to share systems advocacy data.
Additionally, while NORS is one part of measuring program effectiveness it is not the only way that ACL determines compliance with the Older Americans Act. ACL provides continuous technical assistance on matters of compliance, conducted in-depth review of states compliance with the Ombudsman program regulation, and worked with states to develop compliance plans. ACL
also has an on-going project to evaluate the effectiveness of the Ombudsman program and has gathered in-depth data on both state and local level Ombudsman programs ability to conduct systemic advocacy. See https
acl.gov/programs/program-evaluationsand-reports. In addition, the proposed data collection would be very burdensome on state and local programs to collect and report because the two recommended data elements include a sub-set of 10 possible elements to select and to keep track of the number of instances of each sub-set ultimately resulting in 20 new data elements. This type of data would not add meaningful information that would benefit ACL
considering the level of effort required of states to train on this type of data collection, adapt software and report.
Estimated Program Burden ACL estimates the burden associated with this collection of information as follows: Approximately 11,154 hours, with 52 state Ombudsman programs responding annually.

Respondent/data collection activity
Number of respondents
Responses per respondent
Hours per response
Annual burden hours
Total

52

1

214.5

11,154

Dated: July 23, 2021.
Alison Barkoff, Acting Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Aging.
FR Doc. 202116132 Filed 72821; 8:45 am BILLING CODE 415401P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Community Living
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

would allow for analytics to be shared with state ombudsmen and other programs nationwide.
Response: ACL does not accept this recommendation because of the level of burden necessary to gather and report this level of data.
NASOP made recommendations to broaden the types of activities reported on systems issues work performed by the State Long-Term Ombudsman, the Office and local Ombudsman entities.
NASOP asserts that this reporting element would provide needed depth and clarity about whether a State LongTerm Care Ombudsman has the necessary independence and resources to perform systems advocacy as required by the Older Americans Act. NASOP
proposes that data collected as narrative examples of Systems Issues is insufficient and does not have practical utility without additional data collection to explain the scope of a states work on systems advocacy. By only collecting two examples of a systems issue from each state, ACL has no objective means of determining a states compliance with the Act nor the independence of the Office. With our proposed addition data collection in Table 3, ACL will collect and provide the public with a more accurate picture of whether a state program is fulfilling the requirements of the Act.
Response: ACL does not agree with NASOPs assessment of the current data collection on systems advocacy for several reasons. First, the FY 2020 data is not yet final and ACL has not been
Notice of Federal Review of the Missouri Protection and Advocacy System P&A
Administration for Community Living, HHS.

AGENCY:
ACTION:

Notice.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 28, 2021

Jkt 253001

Representatives of the Administration on Disabilities AoD, Administration for Community Living ACL, will be conducting a federal review of the Missouri Protection and Advocacy System P&A on September 1317, 2021. AoD is soliciting comments from interested parties on your experiences with the program, and strategies employed by P&A in meeting the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities and their families in Missouri. You are encouraged to share your experiences by way of email or telephone.
DATES: Comments must be submitted electronically or via telephone by September 22, 2021, 11:59 p.m. EST in order to be included in the final report.
Email: Katherine.Cargill-Willis@
acl.hhs.gov.
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 9990

Telephone: 2027957322.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Katherine Cargill-Willis, Administration for Community Living, Administration on Disabilities, 330 C Street SW, 1st Floor, Washington, DC 20201, 202795
7322.
Dated: July 23, 2021.
Alison Barkoff, Acting Administrator & Assistant Secretary for Aging.
FR Doc. 202116131 Filed 72821; 8:45 am BILLING CODE 415401P

E:FRFM29JYN1.SGM

29JYN1