*This Guide is intended for use by States, Tribes, and Territories as a
tool to foster discussions of policies and practices, along with
implementation criteria, that may be employed to increase the collection
of current support and prevent and reduce arrears. The questions under
each topic are intended to assist readers in looking for methods to
optimize their processes.*

*Future topics will be distributed as separate documents and numbered
accordingly.*

*The Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) hopes you will
find this material useful in thinking about new approaches you might
take in your jurisdiction to improve your program results. . If you
would like more information about PAID, please contact your Regional
Program Specialist or email <PAID@acf.hhs.gov> to join the PAID
Workplace to learn more and share your ideas.*

**PAID In Full is a compilation of early intervention, order
establishment, locate, enforcement, and arrears management practices,
along with implementation criteria, that facilitate successful
outcomes.  The questions under each practice are intended to assist
readers in looking for methods to optimize their processes. The
questions are organized into three categories for consideration:
Organizational, Process, and Automation.**

**[Organizational Considerations]{.underline}**

-   Will your State system issue an automated income withholding order
    (IWO) even though the noncustodial parent (NCP) or custodial party
    (CP) has a Family Violence Indicator?

-   Has your State developed a policy for dealing with an NCP who has a
    second job? For example, when income is reported from a new employer
    and payments from a current employer are still being received, what
    action is performed by the caseworker/system?

-   Does your State have a process for identifying and handling reports
    of self-employment income? Is self-employment income handled
    differently if regular wages are already being withheld and
    collected?

-   Has your State identified a means for identifying and attaching
    bonuses paid to the obligor?

-   Policy Interpretation Question PIQ 03-10 (see
    <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/PIQ/2003/piq-03-10.htm>)
    permits use of debit authorization (automatically withdrawing
    payments from NCP financial account) in lieu of wage withholding.
     In addition, the programming code from Washington State's web-based
    debit authorization is available on the OCSE website.  Has your
    State considered debit authorization as a collection method for self
    employed?

-   When the obligor falls behind in current support payments, does your
    State have a policy that provides for automatic issuance of an IWO
    that will increase the child support obligation to include an amount
    to be applied toward arrears? Are there legal barriers or system
    barriers that could prevent such an automatic process?

-   Does your State centralize processes or have a specialized unit to
    handle IWO?

-   Has your State held discussions with your State Workforce Agency
    (SWA) to ensure all available data is being submitted to the
    National Directory of New Hires (NDNH)? For example:

    -   Does the SWA send in Quarterly Wage (QW) reports from prior
        quarters?

    -   Does the SWA submit the IWO address (ADDRESS 3) in addition to
        the physical address (ADDRESS 1) of the employer?

    -   Does the SWA send in full names of employees so that the Social
        Security Number (SSN) name combination can be verified? Does the
        SWA report a phone number for the employee?

    -   Does the SWA have a process in place to contact employers when a
        wage report sent to the NDNH returns results that the SSN is
        unverified?

**[Process Considerations]{.underline}**

-   Have you recently reviewed the selection criteria that is applied to
    reported income or New Hire reports to determine whether to automate
    the IWO or to alert the caseworker so that you can ensure you are
    making the best use of automation and staff resources?

-   Does the State system notify the caseworker of the cases that do not
    meet the automated IWO criteria and track the case action for
    compliance?

-   Does your State have processes in place to ensure all available data
    is captured from the New Hire reports? For example:

    -   Does the State Directory of New Hires (SDNH) have a process in
        place to contact employers when a New Hire report sent to the
        NDNH returns results that the SSN is unverified?

    -   Does your new hire system have edits to ensure all necessary
        data is reported by the employer? Is the wage report still sent
        to the NDNH, even with some missing data?

    -   Can employers readily report the IWO address (ADDRESS 3) or the
        employer's contact phone number?

    -   Are you monitoring employer compliance with the new hire
        reporting requirements? If so, what processes are in place?

    -   Have you identified an effective strategy for encouraging
        employer compliance?

-   Does your State system monitor employer compliance with IWO? Is
    there an automated process in place to detect an employer's
    notification that the IWO cannot be enforced?

-   How do caseworkers deal with income reported via the FPLS Annual
    Wage Record (AWR) response from the Social Security Administration
    (SSA) match? This information is reported to States as a result of
    an SSA external locate request and is returned in the Federal Case
    Registry (FCR) Locate Response record as Agency Code E01.

-   Do you have a way to ensure that payment for a non-IV-D order can be
    recognized at the State Disbursement Unit (SDU)?

-   Does your State have a policy for how to handle arrears only cases?
    Do you use the same enforcement techniques in arrears only cases as
    in cases that owe current support?

**[Automation Considerations]{.underline}**

-   Does your State system receive matches from your SDNH and the NDNH
    and determine, without staff intervention, which matches are
    eligible for automated IWO based on your State's criteria?

-   Does your State system generate IWO notices without caseworker
    intervention within two business days of receiving matches eligible
    for IWO, or track to ensure caseworkers have taken timely action?

-   Will your State system implement electronic income withholding
    orders (e-IWO), or are you making plans for e-IWO? What actions
    remain before your State can participate in e-IWO?

-   Does your State system automatically generate IWO notices when the
    court ordered amount is modified? Does your State system generate a
    "stop IWO" when the case is closed?

-   Does your State system use ADDRESS 3, which is specifically
    designated for income withholding, from the QW and New hire (W4)
    reports from the NDNH for IWO notices?

-   Does your State system generate IWO notices for out-of-state
    employers?

-   Does your State system automate income withholding when the
    SSA/State Verification and Exchange System (SVES) Title II income is
    reported?

-   How does your State system determine the SSA address to use for
    sending the IWO notice?

-   Does your State system send an IWO to the Prison when SVES Prisoner
    data is reported?

-   Does your State system automatically generate IWO notices to other
    States' Unemployment Insurance (UI) agencies that accept direct IWO?
    How do you maintain the list of States that will accept direct IWO
    for UI benefits?

-   Does your State system compare the employment data on the QW report
    to data resident in your State system to determine if increased
    /decreased income is being reported? Is an automated IWO or review
    and adjustment notice issued?

-   Does your State system recognize that the Federal Employer
    Identification Number (FEIN) on QW records changes for Reservists
    when they have been activated, and automatically issue the IWO?

-   Does your State system process SVES Title XVI information to pick up
    on reduced Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments due to
    employment or other income? Does your State try to set up income
    withholding on unearned income?

-   How is an employer linked to a person in your State system? Does
    your State system maintain an employer table?

> *Employer Table Considerations:*

-   Does your State system uniquely identify the employer using the FEIN
    as a searchable attribute, or use the FEIN as the unique identifier?

-   How does your State system identify an employer as a duplicate of
    one already reported? Are there processes in place to prevent adding
    a duplicate employer?

-   Does your State system allow multiple addresses for an employer?
    (e.g., site, IWO, medical support, etc.)

-   Is your State aware that some employers, for example, Department of
    Defense (DoD), require documentation be directed to different
    addresses based on purpose (e.g, IWO, NMSN)?

-   Does your State system allow more than one employer for a specified
    FEIN?

-   Does your State system allow multiple FEINs for a single employer?

-   Does your State system have sufficient data elements to indicate
    that income being reported has been previously reported so that
    duplicative information is filtered? (e.g., FEIN, Unique identifier,
    Zip code)

-   Does the employer data include an "effective date"? Is this date
    updated when the same employment is reported in successive quarters?

-   Does your State system (and caseworkers) distinguish among NDNH data
    returned from the different matching processes: NDNH-to-FCR,
    FCR-to-NDNH, NDNH locates? Do they recognize that current data is
    returned from the first and more historical data in the latter two?

-   Does your State system have sufficient data elements to indicate
    that income being reported has already been previously end-dated
    (e.g., FEIN, End-Date, Unique identifier)?

Benefits:

Automating IWOs

[[http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/newhire/library/training/tipstechniques.htm]{.underline}](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/newhire/library/training/tipstechniques.htm)

Additional resources:

Employer Database Conference call

[[http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/DCL/2002/dcl-02-11a.htm]{.underline}](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/DCL/2002/dcl-02-11a.htm)

**PAID In Full is a compilation of early intervention, order
establishment, locate, enforcement, and arrears management practices,
along with implementation criteria, that facilitate successful
outcomes.  The questions under each practice are intended to assist
readers in looking for methods to optimize their processes. The
questions are organized into three categories for consideration:
Organizational, Process, and Automation.**

**[Organizational Considerations]{.underline}**

-   Has your State considered the option of Cost of Living Adjustments
    (COLAs) for review and adjustment of child support orders?

    -   Does your State permit COLAs if both parties agree?

    -   For States opting to use COLAs, does your State system use
        indexes such as CPI to re-calculate the COLAs?

-   Does your State require personal service of process for the
    non-requesting client or can a notice be sent to the last known
    address?

    -   If personal service of process is required, does your State have
        no or a low fee for personal service of process and other costs
        related to review and adjustment?

-   Does your State publicize the criteria for modification of orders to
    reduce the number of requests that don't meet the minimum criteria?

    -   Has your State considered a web-based Qualifying for Review and
        Adjustment calculator tool to assist clients in determining if
        their case is eligible for modification? (e.g., Iowa)

-   Has your State worked with your courts to develop a streamlined
    process for review and adjustment?

-   Does your State allow consideration of downward modifications for
    incarcerated individuals?

-   Have you provided training to staff on review and adjustment
    policies and procedures?

-   Have you considered paying incentives (e.g., \$100) to counties or
    local offices for every support order reviewed? Minnesota paid an
    incentive and saw an increase from 204 orders reviewed before
    incentives to 1596 orders reviewed after incentives of which 70%
    were on TANF cases.

-   If your State is judicial-based, have you looked for opportunities
    to administratively streamline parts of your process?

**[Process Considerations]{.underline}**

-   Does your State send more frequent notices to Temporary Assistance
    for Needy Families (TANF) clients of the right to review than the
    required notices sent to clients once every three years?

-   If there are differences between how you handle review and
    adjustment for TANF and non-TANF clients, have you reassessed if
    those differences are needed?

-   Does your State have a policy of only processing downward
    adjustments upon request by a client or are downward adjustments
    processed automatically if the State system notes a change in
    earnings?

-   Does your State provide any specialized training or guidance to the
    caseworker related to processing downward adjustments to the child
    support order?

-   Does your State law or process permit downward modifications for
    incarcerated parents?

    -   If State law permits it, do you have an automated way to perform
        these downward modifications?

    -   Does your State offer pro se services to low-income individuals
        to assist in the modification process?

-   Have you analyzed the ease of access for an NCP to modify an order
    based on a change in circumstances? Do you provide a pro se option
    to the NCP that does not meet State criteria?

**[Automation Considerations]{.underline}**

-   How is the review and adjustment process triggered in your State?

    -   Does the State system automatically review updated wage
        information for the case to see if it exceeds State triggers for
        upward or downward modification?

    -   Does the State system search State New Hire and Quarterly Wage
        information or use national databases such as the NDNH (e.g.,
        for seasonal workers)? What other sources are used to verify
        changes in income?

    -   Does the State system automatically review your database
        (monthly batch runs) for cases that meet review and adjustment
        criteria?

    -   Does the State system look for criteria that may result in
        downward as well as upward adjustments?

-   Does the State system have screens for caseworkers to enter requests
    for review and adjustment from a party to the case?

-   Does the State system automatically generate the right to review
    notice or does the caseworker first have to enter a code into the
    system?

-   Does the caseworker have to customize the letter informing parties
    of their right to review?

-   How does your State system select a case for potential modification?

-   Does the State system conduct preliminary data analysis or coding?

-   Does the State system enter codes for TANF cases to monitor
    timelines?

-   How are non-TANF cases selected for potential modification? How are
    caseworkers notified about potential adjustments in support amounts?

    -   Does the State system send an alert? Generate a report?

    -   If not automated, does the worker enter a code to the State
        system to have the system generate notices to parties or
        employers regarding the potential for the order to be modified?
        To request financial data from case parties?

-   How does the State system support guideline or COLA calculations?

    -   Does the State system use imported wage data and then
        re-calculate?

-   How does the State system support modifying the support order?

    -   Is there a difference between administrative (e.g., enter a
        code) and judicial orders (e.g., caseworker must prepare a
        package)?

    -   Does the State system determine if the case in question has been
        submitted to automated locate sources? Or does the caseworker
        have to conduct a manual assessment?

    -   Does the State system or caseworker generate the notice of
        intent to close the case?

    -   Does the State system generate letters for submission to manual
        locate sources or does the caseworker have to generate letters
        to nonautomated locate sources?

    -   Does your State system support notification of worker, parties,
        courts, and employers about guideline calculation results?

-   If the decision is not to modify the order, how are the parties
    informed?

-   Does your State system update the case with the new order amount?

-   Does your State system match prison files and child support cases
    and automatically send a notice to the custodial party (CP) and
    noncustodial parent (NCP) that the order will be modified unless the
    CP objects?

Benefits:

Alaska had a Special Improvement Project (SIP) grant for Electronic
Modification of Orders (ELMO). Prior to this enhancement, the State
reviewed 7,000 orders annually. After implementing ELMO, they reviewed
23,655 annually. More than 68% of these reviews resulted in
modification. Most (90%) are upward modifications. The average
percentage change between prior and modified support award was 181%.
Alaska reduced the number of days to complete their administrative
process from 130 days to 85 days. Judicial reviews were reduced from
more than 180 days to 160 days.

Minnesota automated its COLA and has seen an increase in order
modifications every year since 2001. The average annual increase in
obligations ranged between \$163 and \$319

Additional resources:

For a more detailed automation discussion guide, please see *Automated
Systems for Child Support Enforcement: A Guide for Enhancing Review and
Adjustment Automation*.
[**http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/stsys/dsts_auto_review.html**](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/stsys/dsts_auto_review.html)

**PAID In Full is a compilation of early intervention, order
establishment, locate, enforcement, and arrears management practices,
along with implementation criteria, that facilitate successful
outcomes.  The questions under each practice are intended to assist
readers in looking for methods to optimize their processes. The
questions are organized into three categories for consideration:
Organizational, Process, and Automation.**

Organizational Considerations

-   Have you considered the benefits of centralizing the Financial
    Institution Data Match freeze and seize process?

    -   If your local offices are reluctant to agree to a centralized
        freeze and seize process, have you considered centralizing just
        the issuing of notices, customer service, or the processing of
        FIDM freeze and seize responses?

-   Do you provide a centralized point of contact for Financial
    Institutions related to the FIDM process?

-   Do you have training for workers to help them determine which
    matches are appropriate or require action to initiate freeze and
    seize?

-   Have you considered asking for additional legislative authority? For
    example, after its pilot, Florida requested early levy authority for
    noncustodial parents who were willing to waive the statutory wait
    period between lien and levy.

Process Considerations

-   Have you considered eliminating or lowering your threshold for
    freeze and seize action? Twenty-six percent of States/Territories
    have no minimum delinquency threshold. Another 26 percent have a
    threshold between \$100 and \$500.

-   Have you reviewed the types of financial accounts that you initially
    exempted from FIDM freeze and seize or the threshold you have set to
    determine if these thresholds or exemptions are still valid?

-   Has your State developed a process with those States that do have
    laws requiring financial institutions to process out-of-state
    notices to have the financial institutions' resident State affirm
    that your notices meet the due process requirements of those States?

-   Does your State accept and process a Uniform Interstate Family
    Support Act (UIFSA) Transmittal #3 or an Automated Enforcement of
    Interstate (AEI) request from a State that is requesting assistance
    in the FIDM freeze and seize process?

-   Does your State send Transmittal #3 requests to facilitate freeze
    and seize actions when financial institutions are not doing business
    in your State, not required by law to accept out-of-state notices,
    nor on the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement's (OCSE's)
    report of financial institutions that accept out-of-State notices?

-   Were your staff initially reluctant to process FIDM freeze and seize
    because of concern over the accuracy of the arrears balance? If so,
    have you considered using the same thresholds as offset which have
    certified arrears? If you initially required an audit of arrears
    balances, have you re-visited this requirement?

-   If your State exempts joint accounts from freeze and seize, have you
    considered requiring the joint account holder to appear in Court in
    order to obtain a release after the 2^nd^ freeze and seize action to
    discourage using the joint account to hide NCP assets?

-   Does your FIDM process require one or two steps for issuing the
    notice? Do you have to send a notice to freeze and a separate notice
    to seize? If two steps are required, is this by State law or based
    on State process?

-   Have you considered the ability of the customer service unit and/or
    caseworkers to handle the influx of calls when you schedule sending
    Freeze and Seize notices?

-   If capacity to handle an influx of FIDM related inquiries is not a
    factor, have you considered increasing the frequency of your FIDM
    freeze and seize processing?

Automation Considerations

-   Does your State system maintain a table indicating whether financial
    institutions outside the State will accept a direct levy?

-   Does your State system receive matches from your in-State or the
    Federal multistate match process and determine, without staff
    intervention, which matches are eligible for freeze and seize based
    on your State's criteria?

-   Does your State system generate freeze and seize notices without
    caseworker intervention as quickly as possible after receiving
    eligible matches in order to avoid changes in the arrears and
    account amounts?

-   Have you automated the "back-end" of the FIDM freeze and seize
    process?

    -   Does your State system automatically search to determine if
        payment(s) has been made on the case?

    -   Does your State system automatically remove the case from the
        FIDM match file, release the freeze action and/or stop the
        seizure based on changes in the NCP's circumstances?

-   Does your State system track compliance of in-state financial
    institutions and generate notices to those out of compliance and a
    tickler for staff follow up if the financial institution is
    unresponsive to the notice?

-   Does your State system electronically transmit freeze and seize
    notices to financial institutions?

-   Does your State system generate freeze and seize notices for
    financial institutions doing business in your State with
    out-of-state freeze and seize addresses?

-   Does your State system generate freeze and seize notices for
    financial institutions not doing business in your State, when the
    State the financial institution resides in requires them to process
    out-of-state notices?

-   Does your State system generate freeze and seize notices for
    financial institutions not doing business in your State if the
    financial institution is listed on OCSE's report of financial
    institutions that accept out-of-state notices?

-   If the other State where out-of-state FIDM assets have been located
    does not accept a direct notice and levy, do you use an AEI process?
    If so, is this automated?

-   Have you developed a filtering mechanism to ensure that your AEI
    FIDM freeze and seize request meets the criteria of the State in
    which the assets are located?

-   Have you considered using the FIDM match data for other purposes
    such as locate of delinquent obligors? This has proven cost
    effective for States that are required to pay the financial
    institution a fee for each match.

-   Have you considered having your State system save every FIDM
    document generated as a PDF file to avoid having the caseworker make
    hard copies of the document for the official file?

-   Have you considered automating the process of sending Freeze and
    Seize notices to avoid the caseworkers having to fold, stuff and
    postage each letter?

-   Does your State system accept Electronic Funds
    Transmittal/Electronic Data Transmittal (EFT/EDI) from Financial
    Institutions?

-   Have you considered using the core programming for FIDM freeze and
    seize for other enforcement remedies? For example, MS-FIDM is based
    on the offset process and in Florida, both lottery intercepts and
    driver's license suspensions are based on the core programming for
    FIDM.

Benefits:

Significant efficiency to the collections of arrears can be realized by
maximizing the technology available and streamlining the use of the
functional processes of FIDM freeze and seize. This has been
accomplished using a variety of approaches. Colorado has enhanced
automation of the match and accompanying freeze and seize process within
their Automated Child Enforcement System (ACSES) which also provides
obligor locate information to the Child Support Enforcement program. The
system has provided over \$6.5 million in collections since inception.
Notable enhancements to the system provided freeze and seize actions on
joint accounts, sole proprietorship accounts, and adjustment of the
target arrears threshold to \$1,000 across all orders. Another
enhancement excluded obligors who were currently paying from the
process, thereby minimizing the appeals process on Freeze and Seize
actions. These enhancements alone provided a 65% increase in collections
after implementation over the previous highest monthly collection
totals.

New York contracts with a vendor to conduct Financial Institution (FI)
matches with a state-supplied weekly inquiry file prepared by the
State's Child Support Management System (CSMS). This file is built using
front end selection criteria. The vendor conducts matches with FIs via
Method 1 and Method 2 practices, handles all FI outreach efforts,
agreements and customer service. New York has 100% instate FI
participation and over \$50 million in collections since inception. New
York ranked 9^th^ in average quarterly returned matches through MSFIDM
and 1^st^ in voluntary reported collections in 3Q2006 though 2Q2007.
Collections totaled \$14.6 million in that time frame.

Additional Resources:

The Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement is developing additional
guidance on enhancing the level of automation related to FIDM freeze and
seize processes. We have conducted on-site case studies of the process
in Florida and New York and plan additional case studies. The guidance
document will be available in Fall 2007. Please contact Robin Rushton at
<Robin.Rushton@acf.hhs.gov> for additional information.

**PAID In Full is a compilation of early intervention, order
establishment, locate, enforcement, and arrears management practices,
along with implementation criteria, that facilitate successful
outcomes.  The questions under each practice are intended to assist
readers in looking for methods to optimize their processes. The
questions are organized into three categories for consideration:
Organizational, Process, and Automation.**

Organizational Considerations

-   Does your front line staff have access to training on case closure?
    Is there clear guidance provided on what the acceptable criteria are
    and the requirements for each criterion before a case can be closed?

-   Do you concentrate your training and/or automation on the case
    closure reasons used in the majority of the cases? According to the
    Office of Inspector General, 95 percent of cases that are closed
    fall under only 6 of the Federal criteria, and they represent 96
    percent of the errors. The number one case closure criterion, (i.e.,
    no longer an order and arrearage less than \$500) represents 26
    percent of the closed cases. It is also the most easily automated.

-   Do you concentrate your training and/or automation on the most
    frequent case closure errors? According to OIG, the most common
    error is failure to provide the mandatory 60 day notification prior
    to case closure. An analysis of the State self-assessment reports
    for case closure indicate that other common errors are caused when
    staff use inappropriate reason codes, cases do not meet all of the
    requirements for closure, and there is insufficient documentation.

Process Considerations

-   What is your self assessment compliance score for closing cases? If
    you aren't meeting the target, do you have a corrective action plan
    to address deficiencies?

-   Do supervisors review cases before or following closure to determine
    if the case was properly closed?

Automation Considerations

-   Have you considered convening a focus group with stakeholders from
    policy, systems, training, self-assessment and field staff to pool
    their caseload and business practice knowledge and experience to
    identify the most desirable and feasible case closure criteria for
    automation?

-   How does your State search for cases that meet the regulatory case
    closure criteria?

    -   Does the State system automatically review your database
        (monthly batch runs) for cases that meet certain case closure
        criteria?

    -   If your case closure process is not automated, and your
        caseworkers determine readiness for case closure through case
        review, interviews and other manual procedures:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Can the caseworker enter a case closure reason code into the State
    system?

-   Does the State system provide a look up table of applicable closure
    criteria and its requirements?

-   Does the caseworker need to enter information about the review and
    interview into the State system? One screen or multiple screens?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   How does your State generate and mail a notice of intent to close
    the case?

    -   Does the State system automatically generate and mail the notice
        of intent to close?

    -   If the case closure process is not automated, does the
        caseworker have to first enter a code into the State system
        before the system generates the notice of intent?

    -   If the case closure process is not automated, does the
        caseworker have to customize the letter for notice of intent to
        close the case?

    -   Does the State system search for valid Custodial Parent (CP)
        mailing addresses?

-   How does your State track case closure criteria timeframes?

    -   Does the State system track the required 60 days or longer
        notice timeframe before closing the case?

    -   Does the State system prevent the case from being closed if the
        60 days (or longer) notice timeframe has not been met?

    -   Does the State system check to determine that the client has not
        responded to the notice before closing the case?

    -   Does the caseworker have to re-review the case after the 60 day
        timeframe has elapsed before submitting for closure?

-   For the most commonly used case closure criteria (i.e., no current
    order and arrears less than \$500) how does your State close the
    case?

    -   Does the State system search for cases with no support order and
        arrearages under \$500? If so, does the State system
        automatically start the case closure process or does it send an
        alert or report to a central unit, supervisor, or individual
        caseworkers?

    -   If the case closure process is not fully automated, does the
        caseworker have to review his/her caseload for cases that meet
        these criteria? Is there any ad hoc reporting capability
        available to the caseworker to assist in the review of his/her
        caseload?

    -   Does the State system or the caseworker search for additional
        State criteria (e.g., \$0 balance, child over 18 or
        emancipated)?

    -   Does the State system or caseworker verify that no other notice
        of intent to close has been sent on this case?

-   For the 2^nd^ most commonly used case closure criteria \[i.e.,
    unable to locate noncustodial parent (NCP)\] how does your State
    process the case closure?

    -   Does the State system review all cases where location of NCP
        (residence or employment) has been unsuccessful for at least a
        3-year period and flag those cases for possible case closure?

    -   Does the State system review all cases in which information on
        the NCP is insufficient to submit to automated locate sources
        and flag those cases for possible case closure?

    -   Does the State system or the caseworker determine if a case has
        been submitted to automated locate sources?

    -   Is there a requirement in your State for the caseworker to
        submit to un-automated manual locate sources before closure?

-   Does your State system conduct matches to determine if the NCP or
    putative father is deceased?

-   Does your State system check to see if a genetic test or court
    process has excluded a putative father?

-   Even if case closure is automated in your State, can a caseworker
    manually initiate case closure? For what reasons is manual closure
    allowed?

-   Have you considered giving caseworkers a "veto" providing a "do not
    close" code for use on a case by case basis that overrides automated
    closure procedures for one year? For another period of time?

Benefits:

The Commonwealth of Virginia conducted an analysis that showed a high
number of inactive child support cases in 1999. In response, the
Commonwealth using a combination of manual and automated case closure
processes closed 472,000 cases from December 1999 through September
2006.  Workers' individual caseloads dropped from an average of 1,400 to
1,000 cases.  Benefits include improving self-assessments and reducing
the denominator in performance incentives calculations.

Oregon automated the case closure criteria in 2002 when the case closure
regulations were finalized. In the first five months after programming,
the system closed five times the number of cases than it had the
previous year. In 2006, 50,841 cases were closed. This has saved labor
hours for caseworkers.

Additional Resources:

For a more detailed automation discussion guide, please see Automated
Systems for Child Support Enforcement: *A Guide for Automating Case
Closure*. Additional resources include an OIG report and PowerPoint
presentation at
[**http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/stsys/dsts_auto_closure.html**](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/stsys/dsts_auto_closure.html)