42 USC 671 (a) (20) requires a state to provide procedures for fingerprint-based criminal records checks of relative guardians and child abuse and neglect registry checks of relative guardians and adults living in the guardians' home before kinship guardianship assistance payments may be made.

42 USC 673 (b) (3) (C) provides that a child for whom kinship guardianship assistance payments are being made is categorically eligible for Medicaid in the same manner as a child for whom foster care maintenance payments are made.

Before the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 was adopted, 11 states operated subsidized guardianship programs as demonstration projects under federal waivers, including a Wisconsin program administered by the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare. The demonstration projects found that the availability of subsidized guardianship increases the number of children who exit foster care to permanent homes, maintains child safety, and saves money through reductions in out-of-home placement days and subsequent decreases in the administrative costs associated with supervising out-of-home care cases. For a synthesis of the findings of the subsidized guardianship demonstration projects, see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/programs_fund/cwwaiver/2011/subsidized.pdf.

Illinois and Michigan have subsidized guardianship programs. In Illinois, payment amounts are determined in the same manner as adoption assistance. In Michigan, payments amounts are determined in the same manner as foster care.

The rules will not affect small businesses. The Department's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator is Elaine Pridgen, elaine.pridgen@wisconsin.gov, (608) 267-9403.

The rules will affect children in out-of-home care, relatives of children in out-of-home care, tribes, and county departments of social or human services.

Jonelle Brom, Bureau of Permanence and Out-of-Home Care, Division of Safety and Permanence, (608) 264-6933, jonelle.brom@wisconsin.gov.

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA-2049 (R03/2012)	Division of Executive Budget and Finance 101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor P.O. Box 7864 Madison, WI 53707-7864 FAX: (608) 267-0372
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis

1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original   Updated   Corrected
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Chapter DCF 55, Subsidized Guardianship
3. Subject
Chapter DHS 163, Certification for the Identification, Removal and Reduction of Lead-Based Paint Hazards
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
GPR   FED   PRO   PRS   SEG   SEG-S
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
No Fiscal Effect X Indeterminate	Increase Existing Revenues Decrease Existing Revenues		Increase Costs Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget Decrease Cost
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
State's Economy X Local Government Units		Specific Businesses/Sectors Public Utility Rate Payers Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? Yes   X No
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
Procedures to implement a statewide subsidized guardianship program, including procedures to adjust the payment amount based on the circumstances of the guardian and the needs of the child.
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
To revise Ch. DHS 163 relating to training, certification and work practice requirements for lead-safe renovation activities in pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities. County Departments of Social Services Directors Tribal Chairpersons Tribal Social Service/Indian Child Welfare Directors Tribal Chairpersons
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
Walworth County
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
The rule's fiscal impact on counties is indeterminate because it will depend on the number of amendments entered into by the counties. The department received comments from Patricia Weeden, Ongoing Case Management Supervisor, Walworth County Department of Human Services. Comment: The level of county responsibility increases over time on cases in which we would normally no longer be involved. The rule requires the county to do a review of eligibility for payments annually or if there is a change of circumstances. This responsibility will increase in number the longer the rule is in effect. Department response: This is a statutory requirement. The annual review ensures guardians continue to meet eligibility requirements and prevents fraud. Comment: Counties will be required to continue to enter information in the ewisacwis system and keep open cases that would normally close. Department response: A subsidized guardianship case remains open for a service payment, not for case management or any other purpose. Comment: The county may be required to file a subsequent CHIPS petition in cases in which a substitute caregiver does not meet standards. Department response: A guardian's ineligibility for subsidized guardianship does not mean a CHIPS petition would need to be filed. A county agency is statutorily required to file a CHIPS petition if a guardian is no longer appropriately caring for a child in any circumstance. Implementation of the subsidized guardianship program does not impact this responsibility. Comment: Counties will also have to pay for background checks for interim caregivers and non-client residents. Department response: Federal law requires these background checks to be completed. County agencies are provided funds through the Children and Families Allocation that can be used to complete the necessary checks. Comment: If caregivers are licensed as a Level 2 provider, the costs of placement could increase and it is difficult for the county to anticipate how much and how often this provision would be used for budgetary purposes. Department response: If the child remained in foster care, the agency would be required to consider an adjustment of the rate every 6 months. For subsidized guardianship, a county is required to consider a rate adjustment on an annual basis if requested by the guardian, and there is a substantial change in the child's circumstances and increased needs as documented by a professional.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
Section 48.623 (7), Stats., directs the department to promulgate rules to implement s. 48.623, Stats., including the manner in which those payments may be adjusted periodically, in consultation with the guardian, based on the circumstances of the guardian and the needs of the child. Federal law requires states to adopt a process for guardians to request an adjusted payment amount.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
None.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
NA
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan have subsidized guardianship programs and determine foster care, subsidized guardianship, and adoption assistance payments in a similar manner.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Jonelle Brom				(608) 264 6933

*This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.

The Wisconsin Higher Educational Aids Board (HEAB) proposes an order to amend section HEA 5.04 (2) Talent Incentive Grant Eligibility, relating to the Wisconsin Talent Incentive Grant.

Pursuant to section 227.16 (2) (b), Stats., a public hearing is not required as the proposed amendment brings the existing rule into conformity with a statute.

Place Where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline for Submission: A public hearing and notice are not required under s. 227.16 (2) (b), Stats., however, written comments may be submitted by 4:00 pm on December 7, 2012 to John Reinemann at the Wisconsin Higher Educational Aids Board, 131 West Wilson Street, Suite 902, Box 7885, Madison WI 53707-7885, or by email to john.reinemann@wisconsin.gov at the Higher Educational Aids Board with a subject line of s. HEA 5.04.

Section 39.435 (2), Stats.

Section 39.28 (1), Stats.

Section 39.28 (1) The board shall administer the programs under this subchapter and may promulgate such rules as are necessary to carry out its functions.

Section 39.435 (2) The board shall award Talent Incentive Grants to uniquely needy students enrolled at least half-time as first-time freshmen at public and private nonprofit institutions located in this state and to sophomores, juniors and seniors who received such grants as freshmen. No grant under this subsection may exceed $1,800 for any academic year. The board may not award a grant to the same student for more than 10 consecutive semesters or their equivalent. The board shall promulgate rules establishing eligibility criteria for grants under this subsection.

Section HEA 5.04, Wis. Adm. Code, provides eligibility requirements for Talent Incentive Grants. Section HEA 5.04 (2) provides “Non-traditional student status criteria".

This proposed rule removes from s. HEA 5.04 the first item (item a) in Section 2 of the rule, which states an eligibility requirement for the Talent Incentive Grant. Item a reads, “The student is a member of one of the minority groups defined in s. 39.44 (1) (a), Stats."

Federal law, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulation at 34 CFR Part 100, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin by recipients of Federal financial assistance.

The change being sought is proposed at the request of the United States Department of Education – Office for Civil Rights, which notified HEAB in December 2008 that s. HEA 5.04 is not compliant with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The nature of the noncompliance is based in the lack of justification within s. HEA 5.04 for use of race and national origin as criteria for determining eligibility for the Talent Incentive Program (TIP).

(This notification resulted from a complaint filed with the Office of Civil Rights in September 2006. The nature of the complaint is that s. HEA 5.04 discriminates against non-minority students on the basis of race, by denying them an equal opportunity to participate in a financial aid program.)

After discussions with the Office of Civil Rights, HEAB achieved a resolution with the Office of Civil Rights by agreeing to eliminate the use of the race element in its non-traditional student status criteria, beginning in the 2010-2011 school year. The remaining criteria in s. HEA 5.04 remain in force, allowing the agency to administer the program. In addition, at the suggestion of the Office of Civil Rights, HEAB made changes to its forms, publications and web site which reflected the change in criteria. As an interim measure, HEAB also required that TIP applications submitted for TIP in the 2010-2011 school year include indication of one of the remaining criteria of disadvantage found in s. HEA 5.04. Finally, HEAB began the process of seeking the change now proposed to s. HEA 5.04, obtaining a signed statement of scope for the proposed change from the Governor in December 2011.

HEAB submitted documentation of its steps to the Office of Civil Rights and was notified in April 2012 that it is in compliance with the Title VI regulation cited in the complaint of September 2006.

The change being sought is proposed at the request of the United States Department of Education – Office for Civil Rights. Because the US Department of Education is a national agency, the standard that is driving the change to s. HEA 5.04 is applied nationally. The proposed change to the rule is in keeping with HEAB's effort to make its own administrative rules comply with federal law.

All the states adjacent to Wisconsin offer need-based grants or scholarships to post-secondary students, as does Wisconsin; each adjacent state has a program that compares to the Wisconsin Higher Education Grant (WHEG) and the Wisconsin Tuition Grant (WTG) as purely need-based grants.

Like its WHEG and WTG programs, Wisconsin's TIP program offers assistance to students based in part on financial need. The financial-need portion of the TIP program is not at issue and no changes to its criteria are being sought in this proposed rule change.

However, Wisconsin's TIP program also requires students to meet one criteria from a list of non-traditional (non-financial) student classifications that indicate potential disadvantage facing the student in pursuit of higher education. The non-traditional or non-financial criteria for qualifying for TIP could be a handicap, a shortfall in educational preparation, incarceration in (or recent release from) a correctional institution, a lack of family history of higher education, or an environment or academic background that deters the pursuit of educational plans.

Two of the states adjacent to Wisconsin do offer assistance to students based on potential disadvantages that go beyond simple financial need.

None of the states adjacent to Wisconsin employ race or ethnic minority status as a criteria or consideration for any of their educational-assistance programs, including those programs listed above.

In addition to the programs listed above, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan all offer scholarships or tuition waivers for students who are of at least ¼ American Indian ancestries. In each state, these programs are distinct from the above-listed programs and eligibility for the American Indian scholarships and tuition waivers depends upon a student's status as an enrolled member of a federally-recognized tribe or band. These programs are therefore not directly comparable to Wisconsin's TIP program; further, Wisconsin's Indian Student Assistance program is separate from TIP (and is not subject to the rule being proposed for change).

The change being sought was arrived at as part of a series of administrative steps taken by HEAB in consultation with the US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights.

HEAB has determined that neither eligible nor participating students would be appreciably affected by this proposed change. HEAB arrived at this determination through review of the criteria for the TIP program, and a comparison of demographic data of TIP participants and of successive classes of TIP students over several years.

HEAB anticipates no appreciable effect on small businesses as a result of this proposed change.

This proposed rule does not have a significant fiscal effect on the private sector.

This proposed rule does not have a significant effect on small business.

This proposed rule order will not have an effect on small business.

John Reinemann, Executive Secretary, Wisconsin Higher Educational Aids Board, 131 West Wilson Street, Suite 902, Box 7885, Madison WI 53707-7885, telephone 608-267-2206, email john.reinemann@wisconsin.gov.

This rule shall take effect on the first day of the month following publication in the Wisconsin Administrative Register, as provided in s. 227.22 (2) (intro.), Stats.

Not Applicable.

Attached.

SECTION 1. HEA 5.04 is amended to read:

HEA 5.04 Talent incentive grant eligibility. To be eligible for an initial grant award, a uniquely needy student shall be a Wisconsin resident, a first-time freshman and meet at least one criterion under sub. (1) and one criterion under sub. (2). The minimum award a freshman can receive will be $600 with the maximum being $1,800.

(1) Financial need criteria.

(a) A dependent student whose expected academic year parent contribution is $200 or less, or an independent student whose academic year contribution is $200 or less.

(b) The family of a dependent student or the student, if independent, is receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or Wisconsin Works benefits.

(c) The parents of dependent students or the student, if independent, are ineligible for unemployment compensation and have no current income from employment.

(2) Non-traditional student status criteria.

(a) The student is a member of one of the minority groups defined in s. 39.44 (1) (a), Stats.

(b) (a) The student is or will be enrolled in a special academic support program due to insufficient academic preparation.

(c) (b) The student is a first-generation post-secondary student, neither of whose parents graduated from a 4 year college or university.

(d) (c ) The student is handicapped according to department of workforce development, division of vocational rehabilitation records or according to the Special Needs or Disabilities Office on Wisconsin college or university campuses which use the Americans with Disabilities Act definition under 42 USC 12102 (2).

(e) (d) The student is currently or was formerly incarcerated in a correctional institution.

(f) (e) The student's environment or academic background is such that it deters the pursuit of educational plans.

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA-2049 (R03/2012)	Division of Executive Budget and Finance 101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor P.O. Box 7864 Madison, WI 53707-7864 FAX: (608) 267-0372
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis

1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original     Updated     Corrected
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Section HEA 5.04
3. Subject
Wisconsin Talent Incentive Grant
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
X GPR   FED   PRO   PRS   SEG   SEG-S			20.0005 (fd), 20.235 (1) (fd)
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
X No Fiscal Effect Indeterminate	Increase Existing Revenues Decrease Existing Revenues		Increase Costs Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget Decrease Cost
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
State's Economy Local Government Units		Specific Businesses/Sectors Public Utility Rate Payers Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? Yes     X No
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
Section HEA 5.04 is not in compliance with federal law (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). See text of rule for details.
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
Rule has been discussed with representatives from the University of Wisconsin System, the Wisconsin Technical College System, Wisconsin's tribal colleges, and the Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (WAICU).
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
None.
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
No substantive impact anticipated
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
Implementation would bring s. HEA 5.04 into alignment with federal law. The alternative would be to continue to ignore s. HEA 5.04's non-compliance.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
Implementation would bring s. HEA 5.04 into alignment with federal law, forestalling potential challenges to the program.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
The proposed change would make s. HEAB 5.04 compliant and consistent with federal law.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
See text of rule.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
John Reinemann, Executive Secretary				608-267-2206

*This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.

ATTACHMENT A

1. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Small Businesses (Separately for each Small Business Sector, Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)

Not applicable.

2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule's impact on Small Businesses

Not applicable.

3. Did the agency consider the following methods to reduce the impact of the Rule on Small Businesses?

Less Stringent Compliance or Reporting Requirements Less Stringent Schedules or Deadlines for Compliance or Reporting Consolidation or Simplification of Reporting Requirements Establishment of performance standards in lieu of Design or Operational Standards Exemption of Small Businesses from some or all requirements X Other, describe: Small business analysis is non-applicable.

4. Describe the methods incorporated into the Rule that will reduce its impact on Small Businesses

Non-applicable.

5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions

Rule removes a criteria from the current list of criteria used in the program. Removing the affected clause from the rule will prevent the affected criteria from being used in consideration of the program.

6. Did the Agency prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form)

Yes X No

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to sections 86.195 and 227.11 Stats., interpreting section 86.195, Stats., the Department of Transportation will hold a public hearing on an amendment to Chapter Trans 200, Wis. Admin. Code, relating to the erection of signs on public highways.