csr9309.htm

Child Support Reports

September 1993

Introduction to the Issue

by Naomi Marr

The child support community is now only two years away from the date (September 30, 1995) when all states must have operational, automated statewide child support enforcement (CSE) systems. Mandated under the Family Support Act of 1988, this undertaking presents special challenges and opportunities, some of which we address in this special issue of Child Support Report.

Foremost in everyone's mind is the requirement that each system must be statewide and comprehensive. Here, we explain just what is required and give you a scorecard of progress to date. Critical to the effort, of course, is the conversion of cases from the existing system, whether automated or manual, to the new one. We look at the conversion experiences of four states to see just what problems state IV-D programs can expect to encounter and to explore various solutions.

As we implement statewide systems we must also keep in mind that good interstate communication and case processing are essential to a well-functioning program. Statewide systems and CSENet are now coming on-line across the country to handle these vital communication needs, so we provide a CSENet update here --from technical assistance to suggestions for enhancements.

This is an exciting time for technology, with new technologies emerging almost daily. One of these is Electronic Fund Transfer/Electronic Data Interchange (EFT/EDI). With mandatory wage withholding coming fast upon us in January, we see EFT/EDI as a critical element in the handling and processing of child support collections, and in another article, we bring you up to date on the experiences from our pilot states.

Hand in hand with EFT/EDI as the technology of choice for processing collections, is centralized collection and distribution of child support payments. A number of states are moving firmly in that direction and in this issue we report on the experiences of two of them.

Finally, the real world of working cases doesn't stop while we convert cases and develop and learn new systems. All normal functions go on--non-custodial parents must be located, asset information analyzed, and enforcement actions taken. We report on the experience of the Western Interstate Clearinghouse Automation Project in handling interstate locates as "quick locates."

Technology is an enabler to improve the child support program for millions of children in our nation. We hope you will find the articles in this issue of Child Support Report helpful as you learn and use technology in your everyday work. And let us hear from you about your experiences.

________________________________________________________________N aomi Marr is Director, Office of Information Systems/Child Support Information Systems, Administration for Children and Families.

Priority #1: Data Clean-up and Conversion of Cases

for Statewide Automated Systems

Perhaps one of the most difficult and most critical aspects of implementing a statewide system for child support is case conversion--the transfer of all case data to the new system from manual files and/or existing automated systems.

In general, states with successful conversion projects are distinguished by the fact that they are realistic about the time and effort involved, and therefore begin the task of data purification and case file clean-up early in the data conversion effort. When planning for conversion, time and resources are often underestimated. For accurate planning, CSE agencies must consider: the size of the caseload, the extent to which the child support program is fragmented among state or local entities, the level of existing CSE automation within the state, the quality of the data on existing systems and the number of additional data elements that need to be collected. Valuable lessons can be learned from states that have completed case conversion or are currently in the process of converting their files. The following descriptions illustrate how four states addressed these issues and successfully managed case conversion.

Arizona: Arizona's data conversion project was essentially a manual effort performed on-site, county by county, and included data clean-up and verification of payments and arrearages. Conversion specialists extracted case data from hardcopy files, performed a financial reconciliation of each case and calculated the debt before copying the demographic and financial case data onto data entry forms. The State stressed the importance of quality assurance and had several verification check points throughout the process. When its quality and accuracy were assured, the data was converted to the new statewide system.

When Arizona began its case conversion project, managers anticipated the entire project to be done in-house by CSE staff, augmented with temporary personnel. The State successfully converted the pilot offices using this approach. However, it became clear that to finish the work within the implementation schedule, contractor support would be needed; this was arranged for the remaining caseload. The project took 34 months to complete and a total of 266,657 IV-D cases were converted.

Arizona had an immediate return on its investment, since it was now able to collect on cases which had previously been labeled "non-workable" cases.

Massachusetts: Massachusetts' case conversion was complicated because child support data was spread among many state entities. Realizing that conversion would be labor intensive, the Commonwealth began working on it four years before the start of their transfer and implementation project.

The Massachusetts CSE program has been in the Department of Revenue (DOR) since 1987. At that time, to centralize all IV-D activities, it was necessary to convert all the child support data from the courts to a single DOR/CSE computer system. Reconciliation and purification of the data was a secondary objective.

The conversion effort was extremely complex because CSE activities were not supported by a single integrated computer system, but rather by several computer systems and numerous manual files containing contradictory information. Using only state staff, DOR/CSE initiated with the Trial Courts a project to reconcile and convert the case data, both manual and automated, in 84 Commonwealth courts. After a year of work, they saw that the effort would require contractor assistance to be completed in a timely manner. The contractor reconciled and converted 51,035 cases over a three-year period for a total cost of $5,272,629. Although the project was expensive and time-consuming, it successfully converted all child support data to a single DOR/CSE computer system. Today, DOR is able to implement some of its more innovated collection techniques, such as bank account attachments, because of this single converted file.

Rhode Island: Rhode Island, with an existing statewide CSE system, began its transfer and implementation project under more ideal conditions than most states. Rhode Island developed an effective two-phase approach to case conversion. Phase 1 involved the purification and automatic conversion of case data from the old CSE system, and Phase 2 consisted of the manual conversion of additional required data elements not maintained on the old CSE system.

A key feature of this approach was to have state staff focus on cleaning up the data on the old system before automatic conversion. Verification software developed by the implementation contractor edited the old CSE system files and produced error reports which enabled staff to efficiently identify and correct errors as they continued to perform on-going program operations. The purification process took about nine months to complete, then about 98 percent of the State's 61,000 IV-D cases were converted automatically.

In the last step, each case file was reviewed to manually convert additional data elements required by the new statewide CSE system. Rhode Island acquired contractor support for this task, which was completed in 9 months at a cost $1,165,744. Rhode Island completed statewide conversion, and received a conditional level II certification in January 1992.

Texas: Texas is now in the process of data purification and conversion. Although, like Rhode Island, Texas also had an existing statewide, automated CSE system, it lacked many of the data elements required by its new system. As soon as the State identified the ones it needed, it devised a data acquisition methodology and designed data collection screens to capture the new information through the existing system.

About 1,600 CSE field staff in 75 offices are involved in the data conversion effort, accelerated by hiring a number of temporary employees and by significant amounts of overtime among regular employees. While continuing to work their own caseloads, caseworkers add the pertinent new information to special datacollection screens on the system. Now, with the conversion effort intensifying as the implementation deadline nears, the State is focusing on obligated cases to ensure optimum collections.

Texas' target date for implementing its statewide system is April, 1994. The early conversion effort will allow almost the entire caseload of 800,000 to be automatically converted on that date.

Lessons Learned

o It is never too early to plan for case conversion. Do not underestimate the amount of time and effort it will take.

o Obtain accurate case load statistics early in the process and be realistic about anticipated case growth.

o Do not underestimate the amount of time case conversion will take.

o Establish a communication network and get everyone to buy into the effort. Schedule regular meetings with each jurisdiction from the beginning, include the vendor, and encourage local offices to participate in the conversion planning.

o Set up a financial reconciliation policy committee made up of CSE staff, clerks of the court and county attorneys. This committee should establish and maintain the financial reconciliation procedures which will be used convert the data.

o Remember that case conversion can be overwhelming as staff attempt to balance conversion efforts with on-going case processing. This added stress can affect performance and the ability to meet program standards.

For more information about case conversion in Arizona, contact Jeff Perry, (602)-264-0521; in Massachusetts, Kevin Sheehan, (617)-727-4483; in Rhode Island, Jack Murphy, (401)-277-2966; and in Texas, Gloria Hunt, (512)-440-5500.

Proposed Audit Regulations Published

A proposed rule published in the September 9 issue of the Federal Register revises the IV-D child support enforcement program and its audit regulations.

The proposed rule would: (1) amend the child support enforcement program regulations governing the audit of state IV-D programs and the imposition of financial penalties for failure to substantially comply with the requirements of title IV-D of the Social Security Act; (2) specify how audits will evaluate state compliance with the requirements set forth in title IV-D of the Act and federal regulations, including requirements resulting from the Family Support Act of 1988; and (3) redefine substantial compliance to place greater focus on performance and streamline Part 305 by removing unnecessary sections.

Consideration will be given to written comments received by November 8, 1993. Address comments to: Deputy Director, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Department of Health and Human Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20447, Attention: Director, Policy and Planning Division.

CSENet Begins Phase II: Interface with Automated Systems

Child Support workers are quickly learning the lesson that applies to most new ways of doing things: there is no substitute for hands-on experience. And results are starting to emerge from the twenty-four states that are exchanging interstate data via the Child Support Enforcement Network (CSENet).

These data exchanges with neighboring states are useful to states as they enter Phase II of CSENet and plan the automated interface between CSENet and their statewide systems. Users can see, for example, how CSENet's data elements, transaction formats

and edits fit into their interstate case processes and procedures.

The locate function can be a fruitful way to start using CSENet. Marcia Davis, CSENet coordinator for the State of Washington, reports that they were about to close a paternity case in which the only information that the initiating state had for the alleged absent parent was a name---no SSN or date of birth, both necessary items for submitting a case to FPLS. Washington submitted a "quick locate" request to Hawaii via CSENet, and within two days received a positive "hit" which gave them a full name, date of birth, SSN, home address, and employer for the alleged parent.

Help is Available

To help states in Phase II interface projects, the CSENet contractor is providing various kinds of technical assistance. For instance, work has begun on an Interface Guidance Document that will be distributed to all states. This publication will supplement the Electronic Format Specifications Document and provide the states with direction on how to integrate CSENet into their child support case management functions.

As expected, early users of CSENet have generated many questions about the interface with their automated statewide CSE systems. Also, they have submitted many useful suggestions on how the CSENet data elements, edits and formats can be improved. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is posting answers to commonly asked questions on the ACF automated bulletin board. Comments from users will also be placed on the bulletin board for review by the states.

ACF also plans to distribute the suggestions to the states for comment and prioritization. The agency will use the feedback to convene a CSENet Data Element User's group in early fall to review the suggestions and comments to determine if changes are needed.

Moving Right Along...

New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York and Virginia have received on-site technical assistance to assess their readiness for interfacing Child Support Enforcement Network (CSENet) workstations with their automated CSE systems. These states were selected because they are well-along in the process of designing the CSENet interface and mapping the CSENet data elements tothose in their statewide systems. The on-site visits also provided information needed to develop an interface guidance document and to give other states technical assistance.

Also, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Idaho, and Utah will have a one-day WICP/CSENet integration workshop prior to its Western Interstate Council meeting in October. As interest in CSENet grows, other workshops are being planned. The next CSENet steering committee meeting will be in Washington, D.C. on November 15-17, combined with a technical workshop for CSENet users to consider updates to CSENet software applications.

Finally, the Territory of Guam recently asked to be added to the network, and Brian Pollack, the Director of the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program in British Columbia, Canada, has expressed interest in CSENet. He believes that the while CSENet was originally designed to facilitate the exchange of interstate child support information across U.S. state boundaries, the same concept can be used to facilitate exchange of information among child support jurisdictions in different countries. He would like to work with U.S. Child Support Enforcement offices to determine the feasibility of expanding CSENet to include an exchange of child support information across U.S. and Canadian borders.

Questions about CSENet and requests for technical assistance on the interface between CSENet and a state's automated CSE system should be directed to the CSENet project manager, Robin Rushton, at (202) 690-1244.

[BOX]

To improve communications with state users, the following useful information regarding CSENet has been placed on the ACF Bulletin Board. States may access the Bulletin Board by modem at (202) 401-5800.

(W)hat is CSENet?

(S)tates Currently Using CSENet

(Q)& A on CSENet

(H)ow can we Improve CSENet?

(E)-Mail to CSENet Project Officer

(C)SENet Point of Contacts

(I)mprovements-suggested

(L)ist of CSENet Files

(D)ownload CSENet Files

Statewide Automated Systems: 1995 Is Upon Us

For many state IV-D programs, developing and implementing an automated statewide child support enforcement system (CSES) is the single largest, and perhaps the most challenging project they have ever undertaken.*

Although all 54 states and jurisdictions submitted approvable Implementation Advance Planning Documents (IAPD) by the mandated deadline of October 1, 1991, they found that moving from an approved IAPD on paper to an actual operational system is a huge challenge. For one thing, the magnitude of devising and implementing a statewide automated system in the amount of time given meant that a lot of learning was accomplished on the fly. Also, the concurrent development of CSES in all 54 jurisdictions has literally required greater resources than are currently available in the public and private sectors combined; this has resulted in inevitable delays.

Despite the challenges and frustrations, as state CSE programs approach the midpoint of the four year development window (1991-1995), systems professionals in the Administration for Children and Families' Office of Information Systems find encouraging developments. At this point 48 states and jurisdictions have completed the planning phase of their projects and 14 have completed the design phase. At least another fifteen are expected to complete design by October 1, 1993.

To give structured and consistent help to the states on their statewide systems, ACF developed and published the Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement: A Guide for States. The Guide addresses the requirements that comprehensive, automated, statewide child support enforcement systems must fulfill for federal certification. The purposes of the Guide are to:

o support the states in implementing compliant, operational systems before October 1, 1995;

o apply the same criteria equally to all states;

o set forth all functional requirements which state child support enforcement systems must execute in statewide processing; o ensure that these functions are being performed effectively and efficiently for the accurate and uniform application of policy; and

o ensure that federal reviews of state systems are conducted in a consistent manner and are well documented and substantiated.

ACF has informally assessed the probability of success of all jurisdictions in meeting all the requirements for statewide automation. Some have better prospects than others. In most cases the reason for high risk is the monumental case conversion effort that is required. Conversion is inevitably a labor- intensive and time-consuming activity. Other states are at risk because they have set very ambitious schedules with little room for slippage. With these states, cautious optimism for their success is the byword.

But, by and large, ACF is optimistic and encouraged by the prospect of so many states operating certified, statewide, comprehensive automated systems. The majority of states andjurisdictions have an average or better probability of success with making their statewide systems operational on time.

____________________________________________________________

*The Family Support Act of 1988 mandates the automation of all Title IV-D program requirements. ACF operationalized this mandate through the publication of regulation found at 45 CFR 307. The regulation governs enhanced funding for the acquisition and operation of comprehensive, statewide Child Support Enforcement [CSE] systems; includes the programmatic conditions and functional requirements required for states to qualify for funding of systems acquisitions; and sets forth ACF's oversight responsibilities.

[BOX]

By Definition...

A comprehensive system performs all functional requirements within required timeframes. It electronically interfaces with the systems of other agencies and organizations-151 federal, state, and private -151 to improve program management and operations.

A statewide system effectively and efficiently encompasses all political subdivisions and other organizations which provide child support enforcement related services.

An operational system contains, for each open case, all data necessary to manage the case and meet federal reporting requirements. It contains the data necessary to meet all processing requirements for certification.

An efficient and effective system must improve program management and administration; be integrated and appropriately apply computer technology; may not require duplicative application software development or application software maintenance; and costs must be reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial.

An integrated system must embody the following principles: the IV-D agency has the ability to control, account for, and monitor all factors in support collection and paternity determination processes; it is the sole system effort of the IV-D program within the state; there is no duplicative application software or duplicative data entry; there is a single application software development and maintenance effort and organization; all system components are electronically linked and the linkage is transparent to users.

Finally, the system must meet numerous processing requirements in the functional areas of: case initiation, locate, establishment, enforcement, case management, financial management, reporting and security and privacy.

Training

Wizards at Work in Indiana

"Rings," "clusters," and bullseyes" describe the configuration of an automation training program in Indiana where "wizards" in all of the State's 92 counties are the lead trainers. Wizards are caseworkers or supervisors assigned by county social services directors to become experts in the Indiana Client Eligibility System (ICES) system. ICES is a statewide initiative to automate the determination of benefits in several Indiana social service programs.

The system integrates the AFDC, Food Stamp, and Medicaid programs, determining eligibility and calculating benefits for each of them. Initiated in 1991, ICES was implemented at an 80 percent level in the State by August 1, this year, with over 50 percent of all cases converted.

The Wizards training approach is being piloted beginning October 1, in a modified form with Indiana's IV-D program, and the Indiana Support Enforcement Tracking System.

Operating within limited time and resources, Wizards is built on a train-the trainers proliferation model. With a wizard in each county (and one for every 20 ICES users in the larger counties) the State is divided up into clusters of counties organized in rings around the State capital, Indianapolis.

The first cluster of wizards was trained centrally in case conversion and operations. Then, they went back to their respective counties as ICES experts to teach the users. Wizards in cluster two counties did the same, while cluster one wizards "rolled forward" to assist them with their implementation. This "roll forward/roll back" training assistance has been used throughout the first seven county clusters, and will continue until implementation is complete.

Said Phil Canada, developer of the concept, "We have realized great success with this approach. Help desk calls have been reduced because wizards can handle problems and questions. Also, standardized procedures have been developed, which has increased the effectiveness of implementation." For more information, contact Cheryl Baxter, (317) 464-2360.

North Dakota Uses Video Training for Case Conversion

In keeping with the State's cost-savings approach to developing a comprehensive, statewide, automated system (total development costs will be about $1.7 million), North Dakota is using an interactive video system to train caseworkers on data pre-conversion.

Pat Conrad, the State's Systems Project Director, provided the training at the end of August from the host site, Bismarck College. The 60 state caseworkers traveled to one of seven regional sites - the community college located closest to their homes. Using an interactive video system with cameras and TV monitors at each training site, all participants at one site were able to interact with participants at all the other sites, as if they were all in the same room. During the training session,caseworkers asked questions which all of the other caseworkers heard and to which the instructor responded interactively.

The cost? $95 an hour for the interactive video system, plus $20 per hour per site. The benefits? All workers will get the same training and all will have the benefit of hearing all questions posed by other caseworkers. Also, travel time and per diem requirements are significantly reduced, if not eliminated.

For more information, contact Pat Conrad, (701) 221-5487.

Colorado and New York Start Centralized Payment Collection

and Distribution Systems

by Ann Slayton

Collection and distribution of child support payments can be complex and difficult. Payments must be matched and credited to the correct cases, the AFDC collections must be distributed, and non-AFDC collections disbursed promptly. Other activities include billing the paying parent and monitoring the payments on each case.

Distribution poses particularly thorny problems for state and local CSE agencies. Distribution rules are complicated, local jurisdictions may have inadequate computer resources, and accurate record-keeping often falls short. All of these problems can cause errors and delays in getting the support payments to custodial parents and their children.

Currently, state CSE programs use several different agencies for receiving and disbursing payments. However, these agencies, such as county court clerks, the central IV-D agency, or a central payment clearinghouse, may not be handling both IV-D and non-IV-D payments, or may not be conducting case monitoring or billing.

Clearly, there is a great need for effective and efficient collection and distribution of child support payments. And the need will intensify over the coming months for two main reasons. One, because of the anticipated surge in caseloads and payments from immediate wage withholding required for all new support orders issued in a state after January 1, 1994. [See "States Tackle Immediate Wage Withholding in Non-IV-D Cases," CSR July 1993.] And two, because of the need to simplify the withholding process for employers, so they will not have to send checks to and keep track of non-IV-D custodial parents, or cut checks and mail them to multiple state agencies.

Handling large numbers of payments, maintaining internal controls, and decreasing the risk of errors and delays, can be done more effectively when states designate only one point for receiving, accounting for, and disbursing child support payments.

Colorado and New York have embarked on initiatives to apply technology to centralized collections operations.

Colorado's Family Support Registry

Colorado's, Family Support Registry (FSR) provides a single point of contact for any IV-D case payment or inquiries from parents, employers, and other state CSE agencies. Now in the pilot phase, which began in July, the system is operating in six counties, comprising 25 percent of the State's payments, which number about 30,000 month and total $6.5 million. The FSR is expected to begin statewide implementation in spring 1994.

The challenge for Colorado, a county-administered state, was to create a system that accurately supports reconciliation and the transfer of funds between the FSR and the 63 judicial jurisdictions and county CSE units. Before the pilot began, Colorado authorities estimated that workers spent over 78,000 hours per year on activities that were duplicative. Another10,000 hours were spent traveling to the 54 jurisdictions where courts maintained records manually, and staff had to copy needed information from ledger cards, compile the data, then write the reports mandated by state and federal requirements.

In designing the FSR, the State has completely reengineered the payment processing function and integrated it into the CSE program. Payment processing is conducted under contract to a fiscal agent and local CSE units maintain control while taking advantage of technology and economies of scale to enhance productivity. Under the old system, payments for most IV-D cases are held by the courts a minimum of eight days, and for non-IV-D cases up to 21 days. Under the new centralized system, the FSR will deliver a two-day turnaround. Also, the registry will soon be using electronic funds transfer and the National Automated Clearing House standard for receiving direct deposits from employers and other state CSE agencies.

The FSR has a central customer service unit that handles inquiries from parents, employers, and the general public. A 24-hour automated voice response system informs parents about payments made and account balances, and paying parents can authorize their child support payments by phone.

New York's Centralized Processing

In calendar year 1990, the 58 support collections units (SCUs) in New York managed 291,000 payment accounts, processing 5,300,000 individual payments totalling $360.5 million. In the same year, impelled to improve efficiency and reduce costs, the New York legislature passed a law requiring a centralized payment and distribution system for all 58 local districts.

The New York centralized collection project now being piloted, began in March 1993 in two districts, and expanded to 11 districts in June. The pilot districts comprise about 26 percent of the State's 352,000 cases with support orders. The processing is being performed by a private fiscal agent under contract to the State Department of Social Services(DSS). The contractor actually began working in January 1993 to develop procedures, design forms and notices, and establish its operational facility.

The test period runs through March 1994, and is being assessed by an independent evaluator. If the evaluation shows that the centralized system is cost-effective and meets standards for accuracy, timeliness, and accountability, the contract will continue with statewide implementation beginning in June 1994.

Under the pilot, noncustodial parents and employers send child support payments directly to the fiscal agent, which records each payment, then transmits the payment information electronically each day to the DSS Child Support Management System (CSMS) to update the collection account records. Each morning, CSMS provides an electronic datafile to the fiscal agent containing disbursement information, which the fiscal agent uses to print and mail support checks.

[CSMS is New York's automated on-line child support case management and accounts tracking system. It is operated through mainframe computers in Albany and New York City. Each district support collection unit manages its enforcement caseload with atelecommunications link between its office's computer terminals and the mainframe.]

New York's contractor also designed and operates an interactive voice response system, the Child Support Information Line (CSIL) which provides information to a large volume of callers. Information on the most recent collections and disbursements is updated daily by CSMS and is provided to callers on a 24-hour basis. It also describes general child support program services and gives the addresses of local district child support units where services are available.

Before and After

Before centralization of collections and disbursements in the pilot districts, support payments were sent to each SCU for processing and entering into CSMS, then CSMS returned an electronic datafile to SCUs each morning for the printing and mailing of checks. Notwithstanding the automated system, the initial steps in processing payments were strictly manual, and very labor-intensive. This has been the case with the CSMS accounting module since it was developed in 1978.

In the years since CSMS was first implemented, automation enhancements have been made to New York's IV-D program, which would have a great impact on collections. Says New York IV-D Director Joan Keenan, "We recognized that an ever-increasing number of payments would be sent to our SCUs. Our estimates indicated that they would reach over 8 million a year by 1994." Under these conditions, manual batch data entry of support payment information via local district terminals would no longer be efficient. New York began considering a centralized collection system.

The existence of state-of-the-art equipment (such as micro-encoding optical scanners), and electronic funds transfer meant that payments could be processed into a daily data file for subsequent automated posting and updating of CSMS account records. Using such features to process a high volume of payments at a central collection point can take advantage of economies of scale that other methods used with payments being received in a single district cannot. This results in considerable cost savings and improved operational efficiency.

________________________________________________________________F or more information about Colorado's centralized system, call Craig Goellner, (303) 866-5728; for New York's, call Jim Wimet, (518) 473-0574.

[BOX]

Collection and Distribution Under Statewide Systems

States will be intensifying their efforts to centralize collection and distribution of child support payments as they work toward implementing their statewide systems, for which the following collection functions are required:

o automatically bill all cases other than those with income withholding in place;

o automatically process all payments received;

o support the acceptance and disbursement of payments using EFT technology;

o be uniform statewide, accepting and maintaining all financial information and performing all relevant program calculations;

o distribute collections in accordance with federal and state regulations; and

o generate notices to AFDC and former AFDC recipients regarding support collections received, and to the IV-A agency regarding collections received on behalf of AFDC recipients.

EFT/EDI: Most Favored Remittance Technique

The potential efficiency of electronic transmission of child support payments holds the promise of moving this technique into the front ranks for CSE agencies, employers, and payroll processors.

Pilot projects in Iowa and Nebraska tested the use of Electronic Funds Transfer/Electronic Data Interchange (EFT/EDI) technology for transmitting wage withholding payments. They showed that EFT/EDI can eliminate the preparation and transmission of checks by employers; eliminate manual posting and deposit of checks by the IV-D agencies; and, due to the speed of electronic transmissions, reduce "mail time" to less than two days. Employers using EFT/EDI will be able to combine wage withholdings with other electronic payment transactions, such as direct deposit of employees' salaries and tax payments.

With these positive outcomes in mind, and the fact that the federal child support systems regulations require that each state's automated system be capable of receiving and disbursing funds using EFT technology, OCSE is promoting the use of EFT/EDI by employers and encouraging state CSE agencies to accept EFT/EDI deposits prior to implementing their statewide automated systems. One OCSE work group comprised of employers, child support enforcement agency personnel, and personnel from financial institutions and the payroll industry developed a standard EFT/EDI format. It has been approved by the National Automated Clearing House Association and the American Banker's Association EDI Council. Another OCSE workgroup is developing a standard income withholding form which incorporates the EFT/EDI elements.

In June, OCSE sent to all state IV-D Directors the EFT/EDI format and the results of the EFT/EDI pilot projects conducted in Iowa and Nebraska. The agency is encouraging IV-D programs to accept wage withholdings using EFT/EDI technology as soon as an employer indicates a willingness to use it. Even if state systems are not currently capable of accepting an electronic tape, hard-copy information can be supplied by the IV-D agency's bank. The money will be deposited sooner and the IV-D agency will receive standardized information in an easily understood format. Conference calls providing technical assistance to states in this area are scheduled for late Fall

Software Becoming Available

Some payroll processing firms and payroll software developers are modifying their offerings to include a CSE component. Certainly, the more widely available the software is, the more it will be used by employers, and OCSE is reaching out to companies that provide payroll software and payroll processing services, encouraging them to add a child support module to their products. The American Payroll Association and the American Society of Payroll Managers have both volunteered to help.

While state CSE agencies will be expected to make contact with the employers who currently remit wage withholdings within their state, OCSE expects to communicate with employers about EFT/EDI child support transmission through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Small Business Association. The American Banker's Association will also be contacted to encourage banks to offer services/technical assistance to both the employers and IV-D agencies which they serve.

Finally, all federal agencies are under a mandate to eliminate paper transactions, and EFT/EDI allows them to put this objective into action. The Department of the Treasury has agreed to help OCSE promote EFT/EDI with federal agencies.

With employers' increasing use of EFT/EDI technology, the transfer of wage withholdings will be moved out of the "paper age" and into the age of automation. And although early experience with EFT/EDI has been limited to income withholding, the hope is that eventually, nearly all child support collections will be transmitted electronically. For more information about EFT/EDI, contact OCSE's Pat Hagen, (202) 401-5684.

In the column below, excerpted from the June issue of West Virginia's newsletter, Child Advocate News & Views, State IV-D Director Martha Hill rallies her staff for case conversion.

From the Director

Priorities tend to change daily, depending on which external force is making the greatest demand. The devilishness of priorities is that they usually are not our own! There is always someone else quite willing to tell you what you should be doing.

As part of a large, federally-mandated state agency, many of our CAO [Child Advocate Office] priorities are dictated by statute, budget, and federal and state regulations. However, for the next six months, the real CAO priority must be data conversion. This process includes cleaning up our existing files, closing cases when appropriate, and working through "dormant" files.

In the long run, the efforts we make over the next few months will make the automation procedure more effective. If we put garbage into OSCAR, that is what we will get out...

Local offices are not alone in this priority. For example, the Q.C. unit will also have as its priority the conversion to OSCAR. Their focus until December will be case maintenance and they will make their rounds to the local offices to assist in this function. The distribution and locate units will likewise be preparing their work for the new system. Our central accounting office will be reviewing their records for accuracy, balancing books, etc...

OSCAR will be like most things in life, the better prepared you are, the easier it is. Our hard work now will pay off in the future, both in terms of worker satisfaction with OSCAR as well as the CAO's ability to provide services to the public.

[BOX]

The EFT/EDI Path

Using EFT/EDI, employers or their payroll processors, would create an Automated Clearing House (ACH) tape transmitting child support wage withholdings and accompanying identifying information. The payment and identifying information would travel from the employer's bank, through the ACH using the Federal Reserve Banking system. The monies would be deposited on account at the IV-D agency's bank, and the identifying information transmitted to the IV-D agency for accounting, distribution and disbursement. In the long-run, the identifying information would be electronically transmitted to and processed by the IV-D agency. However, the availability of the information in a hardcopy, standardized format should lead to improved processing in the short-run.

Locate

Quick Locates: Open and Closed Within Days

in Washington State

by Marcia Davis

In 1987, the Western Interstate Clearinghouse Project (WlCP), a child support enforcement communications network joined five states, Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Utah. The electronic link has proven to be efficient, cost effective and fast, allowing a locate request to be opened, responded to and closed within days.

How does WICP work?

All five states agreed to exchange interstate requests to locate absent parents, and to establish and enforce child support orders via this network and to do "quick locates" only. [For a description, see CSR, Oct. '91.] Automated sources used for quick locate in Washington are the IV-A and IV-D programs; Employment Security/Unemployment, and Department of Licensing. If necessary, other sources such as the Departments of Revenue and Corrections are accessed.

How long does a quick locate stay open in Washington State?

The typical life of a quick locate in Washington State is four days or fewer. Upon receipt of the locate request, a computer case is set up; by the next day automated sources are manually checked and the case is then closed . The response is returned to the initiating jurisdiction electronically. If the requesting state decides to pursue the case as a formal interstate case, the "shell" computer case can be reopened.

What about quick locates to and from other states?

The Washington Central Registry receives and processes outgoing interstate locates from its county prosecutors and field offices usually with the FSA 206, the quick locate data sheet. The registry rarely sends a full locate request to another state. Again, when we receive an FSA 206 or its facsimile from a state outside the network, we check our automated sources and respond within days.

If we receive a full locate from another state (FSA 200), we must keep the case open for three years. In an effort to compress this time, we will ask the other state for permission to close the case earlier, but the response must be received in writing from the other jurisdiction... a time-consuming and costly process.

However, because of the overall efficiency of the quick locate plus team work, we do not have a locate backlog in Washington. There are four teams in the Central Registry with an alpha locate responsibility. If one team becomes overburdened, the other teams offer quick assistance.

We encourage all states to use quick locate, and to make agreements with neighboring states to facilitate effective use of the procedure.

__________________________

Marcia Davis is a Support Enforcement Officer 3, and Coordinator of CSENet/WICP in the Washington Office of Support Enforcement, (206) 586-3069.