**Administrative and Judicial Processes for Establishing Child Support
Orders**

**Final Report**

Prepared for

Department of Health and Human Services\
Office of Child Support Enforcement

Prepared by

Karen N. Gardiner, The Lewin Group\
John Tapogna, ECONorthwest\
Michael E. Fishman, The Lewin Group

June 2002

**Administrative and Judicial Processes for Establishing Child Support
Orders**

Final Report

Prepared for

Department of Health and Human Services\
Office of Child Support Enforcement

Prepared by

Karen N. Gardiner, The Lewin Group\
John Tapogna, ECONorthwest\
Michael E. Fishman, The Lewin Group

June 2002

Table of Contents

**Executive Summary [1](#executive-summary)**

A. Background [1](#background)

B. Methodology [1](#methodology)

C. General Findings [2](#general-findings)

D. Topics for Further Study [6](#topics-for-further-study)

I. Introduction [8](#introduction)

A. Background [8](#background-1)

B. Purpose of the Study [9](#purpose-of-the-study)

C. Methodology [11](#methodology-1)

II\. Child Support Establishment: Taxonomy of State Processes
[12](#child-support-establishment-taxonomy-of-state-processes)

A. Background [12](#background-2)

B. Taxonomy Elements [14](#taxonomy-elements)

C. Taxonomy Findings [16](#taxonomy-findings)

III\. Nine State Comparison [19](#nine-state-comparison)

A. State Selection and Methodology
[19](#state-selection-and-methodology)

B. Key Findings [20](#key-findings)

1\. Comparison of State Performance
[20](#comparison-of-state-performance)

2\. Notification of Order Establishment
[22](#notification-of-order-establishment)

3\. Service of Process [23](#service-of-process)

4\. Income Imputation [25](#income-imputation)

5\. Deviation from the Guidelines [26](#deviation-from-the-guidelines)

6\. In-Person Meetings [28](#in-person-meetings)

7\. Default Orders [29](#default-orders)

8\. Award Amount Revelations [30](#award-amount-revelations)

9\. Forum for Contested Orders [30](#forum-for-contested-orders)

10\. Appeals [31](#appeals)

11\. Attorney Involvement [32](#attorney-involvement)

12\. General Role of the Courts [32](#general-role-of-the-courts)

C. Summary [33](#summary)

IV\. In-Depth Review of Five States
[35](#in-depth-review-of-five-states)

A. Findings: Administrative States [36](#findings-administrative-states)

1\. Similarities [36](#similarities)

2\. Structural Differences. [40](#structural-differences.)

3\. Differences: Order Establishment Procedures
[41](#differences-order-establishment-procedures)

4\. Differences: Hearings Procedures
[41](#differences-hearings-procedures)

5\. Case Record Analysis [42](#case-record-analysis)

6\. General Perceptions [44](#general-perceptions)

B. Findings: Judicial States [45](#findings-judicial-states)

1\. Similarities [45](#similarities-1)

2\. Structural Differences [49](#structural-differences)

3\. Procedural Differences [49](#procedural-differences)

4\. Case Record Analysis [51](#case-record-analysis-1)

5\. General Perceptions [53](#general-perceptions-1)

C. Quasi-judicial state: Elements of both processes
[54](#quasi-judicial-state-elements-of-both-processes)

1\. The Administrative Process: Uncontested Orders
[56](#the-administrative-process-uncontested-orders)

2\. The Judicial Process: Contested Orders
[57](#the-judicial-process-contested-orders)

3\. Case Record Analysis [58](#case-record-analysis-2)

4\. General Perceptions [59](#general-perceptions-2)

D. Summary [59](#summary-1)

V. Conclusion [62](#conclusion)

A. General Findings [62](#general-findings-1)

B. Topics for Further Study [66](#topics-for-further-study-1)

Acknowledgements

There are many people we would like to acknowledge for their help with
this project.

Vicki Turetsky at the Center for Law and Social Policy served as a
consultant to the project. In this capacity, she created the framework
for the state process taxonomy and served a key role in helping to
classify states. Her assistance did not end there, however. For the
nine-state study, she helped us think through what types of information
to request from the states and gave us input on how to structure the
state reports. For the site visits, she helped us design protocols that
ensured we collected similar information from each states. She also
reviewed the final report and offered insightful comments. Her
assistance on the project was very much appreciated.

Stephanie Laud at The Lewin Group and Charisa Flaherty at ECONorthwest
analyzed the administrative data from five states. At Lewin, Julia
Graffam spent many hours formatting the document and always kept a sense
of humor about her.

The IV-D directors and their staffs in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, Montana, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia provided information
about their establishment processes, were available for telephone
interviews, and reviewed our state write-ups. Additionally, staff in
Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts and Oregon organized site visits
for us and were consummate hosts.

Finally, work on this project was funded by the Office of Child Support
Enforcement in the Department of Health and Human Services. The project
benefited from the oversight and assistance of James Rich, the OCSE
project director, and Gaile Maller, the director of research.

# Executive Summary {#executive-summary .unnumbered}

## Background

While the federal government has mandated the use of a number of
enforcement techniques, states and localities still have considerable
flexibility in designing the processes by which they establish child
support. States have discretion in terms of shaping and running their
child support programs. In many states, courts play a key role in child
support order establishment, as well as other aspects of the program. In
others, executive-branch agencies establish orders administratively.

In the most general terms, an administrative process is one in which the
IV-D agency establishes support orders, often without a hearing. If an
order is contested, the tribunal for hearing the case is in the
executive branch, and the presiding officer is a non-judge, such as a
hearing officer; attorney involvement is limited. Through Federal
Financial Participation (FFP), program outlays, including staff
salaries, are matched at a rate of 66 percent. In judicial processes,
the order is established in the court. While IV-D agency staff play a
large role in this process (e.g., locating parents), the order is
generally established on a specified court date. A judge or judge
surrogate (e.g., magistrate) presides. Contested orders are also heard
in court. Attorneys play a central role, often representing the IV-D
agency before the court. Judges' salaries and travel costs are not
eligible for federal matching dollars.

Despite the widespread use of the terms "judicial" and "administrative,"
no study has tried to define each process---or a range of quasi-judicial
processes. The 50 states and the District of Columbia each has its own
order establishment process with its own set of "players." This study
seeks to go beyond the administrative/judicial dichotomy and explore the
nuances of state child support establishment processes.

This study addressed the following questions:

-   What key characteristics define administrative and judicial
    processes, as well as the host of hybrid (quasi-judicial) processes?
    Is it possible to classify state processes into four or five key
    categories or types?

-   Are there similarities, as well as differences, between the
    processes?

-   How do cases progress through each of the process types? Are there
    differences in the number of people or agencies involved in the
    process? Do clients perceive the processes as fair and accessible?

-   Do cases appear to move more quickly through one process or another?

## Methodology

To answer the study questions, the Lewin Group and ECONorthwest team
undertook three principal tasks:

*Development of a taxonomy of judicial and administrative processes*.
Building on work already completed by the Center for Law and Social
Policy (CLASP) and other research groups, the research team assessed the
characteristics of judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative
processes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

*In-depth review of processes in nine states*. We selected nine states
that span the continuum of processes for in-depth review. For each
state, we examined a number of program characteristics, including intake
process, service of process, income determination, stipulations,
hearings, and appeals. Through this task, we identified areas of
variation between judicial and administrative states, as well as
variations among states with similar processes. The states were Arizona,
Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maine, Montana, Oregon, Texas, and
Virginia.

*Site visits to five states*. Drawing from our taxonomy and in-depth
review of state processes, we selected five states for site visits. Two
were classified as highly judicial (Arizona and Massachusetts); two were
highly administrative (Maine and Oregon). One was classified as
quasi-judicial (Colorado). In each state, we met with a number of
stakeholders, including state-level officials, local office caseworkers,
district or county administrators, and court officials. Interview
protocols ensured that similar types of information were collected at
each site.

In addition to interviews, for each state we reviewed a sample of cases
to determine the length of time between a case opening and order
establishment. We also identified how much time elapsed between the case
opening date and a number of milestones, such as in-person meetings and
date of service.

## General Findings

When we began this project, we classified states in terms of this
two-dimensional system. Through our project activities---creation of a
taxonomy to further classify states along a continuum of administrative
and judicial, in-depth studies of nine states, and site visits to five
states---we modified our understanding of what it means to be
"administrative" and "judicial". The project activities revealed nuances
that render the simple administrative/judicial labels overly simplistic.
Similarly, there is a tendency to presume that either an administrative
or judicial process produces superior program outcomes. We did not
attempt to systematically address this question in this study.[^1]
However, we did explore program performance across the five measures
outlined as part of the Child Support Performance Act of 1998 (paternity
establishment, cases with orders, collections on current support, cases
paying towards arrears, and cost-effectiveness) for the nine states we
studied in-depth. We also examined the timing of award establishment for
the five states we visited. With regard to performance, we found:

-   Among the nine states we reviewed in-depth, program performance
    across the key measures varied significantly, both within type of
    process (i.e., administrative, quasi-judicial, judicial) and between
    the types of processes. However, we found no systematic pattern with
    regard to the effectiveness of any type of process.

-   Among the five states we visited, our review of administrative data
    found that four of the states (the two administrative and two
    judicial states) had comparable establishment time frames. The
    quasi-judicial state had a shorter timeframe.

We found that variation in the practices within broad clusters of
processes is more significant than previously understood. As a result,
it may be very difficult to meaningfully categorize states as
administrative or judicial and ascribe program performance to those
categories.

The project consisted of three key activities:

*Development of National Taxonomy*. We explored the forum where
uncontested and contested child support orders are established, who
presides when an order is contested, and the extent to which attorneys
are used by the IV-D agency. We found that order establishment processes
fall along a continuum, ranging from highly judicial (court forum, judge
presides, attorneys involved) to highly administrative (IV-D agency sets
order without hearing, limited attorney involvement).

*Nine-state document review and interviews*. Through a in-depth review
of legal documents, policy documents, and training materials, we
explored a number of establishment milestones. These included
notification of the non-custodial parent, service of process, in-person
meetings, imputation of income, establishment of default orders, process
for contested orders, and general role of the court. We looked at three
judicial states (Arizona, Massachusetts, Texas), four administrative
states (Maine, Montana, Oregon, Virginia), and two quasi-judicial states
(Colorado, Iowa). In terms of the establishment milestones, we found
that "clusters" of administrative, judicial, and quasi-judicial states
shared certain practices. For instance:

-   Service of process varied according to forum. All three of the
    judicial states and both quasi-judicial states rely primarily on
    in-person service, while the administrative states were more likely
    to use certified mail.

-   The timing of the revelation of the order amount differs by process.
    The administrative states reveal the order amount early in the
    process; two of the four states include the proposed order amount in
    the first correspondence with the non-custodial parent. The judicial
    states reveal the order amount on the court date, while the
    quasi-judicial states are mixed.

-   Deviations from state child support guidelines differed by forum,
    with caseworkers in administrative states having more discretion to
    deviate than their counterparts in judicial or quasi-judicial
    states.

-   The use of in-person meetings also differed by forum. All of the
    judicial states have some mechanism for meeting with one or both of
    the parents, while none of the administrative states did so. The
    quasi-judicial states were mixed.

-   Use of attorneys differed by forum. They were involved in all
    aspects of order establishment in the judicial states and rarely
    involved in the administrative ones. They handled court-related
    business in the quasi-judicial states.

Some establishment steps were not related to process. For example:

-   Imputation of income was not related to forum. All states use
    databases to determine if there are wage records for the
    non-custodial parent. In the absence of financial information, seven
    of the nine states (all three judicial states, three administrative
    ones, and a quasi-judicial state) impute the minimum wage for a 40
    hour week, while one administrative state and one quasi-judicial
    state impute income at a higher level.

During the nine-state review, we also began to understand how states
*within* administrative and judicial clusters differ from each other.
For instance:

-   Not all administrative states use certified mail to serve
    non-custodial parents. One of the four relies primarily on in-person
    service.

-   Not all administrative states allow caseworkers to deviate from
    guidelines.

-   Quasi-judicial processes differ in terms of contact with
    non-custodial parents and court involvement. Colorado holds
    negotiation conferences as a matter of course, while Iowa will
    schedule a conference only if a parent contests the order. Moreover,
    contested orders in Colorado are referred to the court. In Iowa,
    parents have the option of a IV-D negotiation conference or a court
    hearing.

-   While all judicial states hold in-person meetings, the timing of the
    meetings differs. One state gives counties the option of scheduling
    a negotiation conference in advance of the court date, while the
    other two meet with parents on the date of the hearing only.

-   For contested orders, we found diversity within the administrative
    states in terms of where the tribunal is located. Hearing officers
    were housed in the IV-D agency, the IV-D umbrella department, or an
    entirely different department.

*Site visits**.*** Through our site visits, we encountered additional
nuances and discovered that the a process can differ across offices
within a state and be determined by the preferences of IV-D and court
staff. Our general findings include:

[Simply knowing a state's process does not always give an observer a
sense of how the support order establishment process will unfold from
the client\'s perspective]{.underline}. For example

-   The judicial forum ensures only that the process will be linked to
    the court calendar and that parties will have to interact with court
    clerks. It does not ensure that a client will see a judge or enter a
    courtroom. For instance, some orders in Arizona are stipulated in
    pre-hearing negotiation meetings between the attorney and parents
    because this is the preference of the attorney involved. Other
    attorneys in the state take all of their cases before the judge.
    Similarly, in Massachusetts, on the day of the hearing, IV-D staff
    first try to reach an agreement with the parents in an effort to
    avoid a hearing and expedite the entry of the support order.

-   Administrative processes exhibited differences in terms of contact
    with parents. In Oregon, caseworkers attempt to contact parents
    early in the process and if appropriate, deviate from the state
    guidelines. In Maine, the administrative process is more formulaic.
    Caseworker deviations are possible but rare. One staff person noted
    that he would prefer to let the hearing officer handle a situation
    where the non-custodial parent disputed the order amount.

[Judicial processes incorporate administrative practices]{.underline}.
Key practices include:

-   Caseworkers do a considerable amount of case research prior to the
    court date. In Arizona, caseworkers check databases to learn about
    non-custodial parent earnings and presence of other child support
    orders. Massachusetts IV-D staff gather income information from
    databases and financial statements sent to the non-custodial parent.

-   Attorneys try to get the parties to stipulate to orders. In
    Massachusetts, an attorney or non-legal staff person meets with the
    parents on the day of the hearing, collects any outstanding
    financial statements, and calculates the order amount. The parents
    can agree to the order on the spot. Only contested cases go before
    the judge. Thus, the process is somewhat similar to an
    administrative process in that IV-D staff calculates the order and
    the parents sign off. However, the forum (courthouse) and timing of
    the hearing is different. We found a similar process in Maricopa
    County, Arizona. Attorneys have the option of meeting with the
    parents on the day of the hearing to attempt to work out an order.
    Only the contested cases go before a judge.

[Caseworkers in administrative states have considerable
authority]{.underline}. Both administrative and judicial states agreed
that caseworkers in administrative states have more responsibility. In
Maine and Oregon, caseworkers draft the proposed order. They collect
financial information and have the authority to deviate from the
guidelines. In Oregon, there are 16 categories of allowable deviations.
Caseworkers in Maine also have the authority to deviate from the
guidelines if they can show that the guidelines would result in an order
that is not equitable or just. Staff also have a role in contested
cases. Caseworkers in Maine represent the IV-D agency before the
administrative hearing officer. In Oregon, program supervisors believe
the increased authority was not only appropriate given staff
qualifications but contributes to a higher degree of job satisfaction.
The administrative states suggest that this produces a number of
benefits: It frees up IV-D attorney time for tasks that require legal
expertise, controls costs, and ensures buy-in from line workers who are
empowered because their knowledge and skills are utilized.

[County-administered states exhibited variations in process across
offices]{.underline}. In Arizona, Colorado, and Oregon, counties
administered all or part of the child support program. In each state,
processes differed somewhat by county. In Arizona, for example, an
attorney in Maricopa County generally holds pre-trial negotiation
conferences with clients at the courthouse. In the majority of cases,
she negotiates a settlement and the case does not go before a judge. In
Pima County, however, negotiation conferences are rare. Staff noted that
they have little time on the day of the hearing to meet with parents and
suggested that the commissioner is the best person to determine the
order amount, not the attorney. In Oregon, state case managers establish
and enforce support administratively, while the establishment processes
for non-TANF cases by county case managers vary across the state, and in
one case, even within the same office. Rural counties with smaller
populations also rely on judicial processes in establishing orders for
non-TANF clients while larger counties used the administrative process.
In Colorado, we found county differences in terms of whether IV-D
caseworkers calculate debt owed to the state or retroactive support.
There was also variation in the level of custodial parent participation
in the process. Some Colorado counties invite custodial parents to the
negotiation conferences while others do not. In Massachusetts and Maine,
staff report the processes do not vary much by county. The child support
programs are state-administered. Guidance on how a case flows through
the system comes from the central office.

[Analysis of case flows suggests administrative and judicial states are
meeting the expedited timeframes for support order
establishment]{.underline}. For each of our site visit states, we
requested data to illustrate the flow of cases through the establishment
process. Our analyses of four of the five states (Arizona,
Massachusetts, Maine, and Oregon) show roughly comparable establishment
timeframes. These states establish the large majority of cases within
one year, with a sizable clustering of establishments within six months.
Our simple analysis of Colorado data suggests the state processes
establishment cases somewhat faster than its counterparts. Some of the
difference may relate to caseworkers' quick action on the case
subsequent to locate and very specific timeframes for case conferences,
which are enforced by the state's automated system. Colorado's estimated
timeframes may also benefit from a more routine reclassification of
cases with failed service into locate status. If caseworkers fail to
reclassify cases (from establishment to locate status) in which a
non-custodial parent has eluded service, it can give the appearance that
the state's establishment process is slower than it actually is.

## Topics for Further Study

This project documented key differences and similarities between states
that use an administrative process to establish child support orders,
those that use a judicial-based forum, and those that use a process that
mixes the two. Through that documentation, we have a better sense of the
range of establishment practices used across the country. Areas for
further study include:

*Is there a relationship between the child support order establishment
process and measures of program effectiveness?* The 1998 Child Support
Performance and Incentive Act (CSPIA) links incentive payments to state
child support agencies based on performance in five areas: paternity
establishment, order establishment, collections on current support due,
cases paying towards arrears, and cost-effectiveness. Another study the
Lewin Group is conducting for the Office of Child Support Enforcement
(OCSE) uses the taxonomy to explore the association between order
establishment process and performance on the CSPIA indicators.

*Are higher default order rates related to forum or other features of
the establishment process?* Child support staff noted that default
orders were common (typically in the range of 20 to 35 percent); they
could not pinpoint an exact figure. They also expressed concern about
the ability of non-custodial parents to pay orders established through
default. An interesting future study would focus on whether default
orders are more common in certain types of child support establishment
processes. For example, are administrative or judicial states more
likely to issue default orders?

*Does a state's imputation method contribute to its default order rate?*
In the absence of reliable information about the non-custodial parent's
earnings, states use a variety of methods to attribute income. The most
common method in our nine-state study was imputing the minimum wage for
a 40-hour week. Other states used the state average wage for all workers
or the average wage for parents in the IV-D system. Arguments exist in
support and in opposition to each method.

*Do states with in-person meetings have better compliance with child
support order payments?* States that hold in-person conferences note
that such meetings offer the opportunity to educate the non-custodial
parent about the child support process and obtain buy-in. If a parent
understands why timely child support is important, staff suggest that
they will be more likely to pay support. Other states suggested that
requiring meetings is unnecessary because a large proportion of
non-custodial parents comply with the process, and efforts to meet with
them adds an expensive step to the process.

*Would county- or office-level experiments reveal information about
effective practices independent of forum?* Our site visits revealed a
great deal of intrastate variation in states that have
county-administered child support programs. Future research could use
analysis of intrastate variation to learn about effective elements of
order establishment processes.

*Does the timing of the revelation of order amounts affect contests?*
The states we visited differed in terms of when they reveal the order
amount. The administrative states tended to reveal the amount early in
the process, and staff suggested this gave parents time to "mull over"
the award amount and whether to contest it. The judicial states tended
to reveal the amount at the court on the day of the hearing. If a parent
wishes to contest the order amount, he or she must do so that day.
Future research could explore whether states that reveal the order
amount on the day of the hearing have a higher level of contested orders
than those states that reveal the amount earlier in the process.

*Do links to the courts in administrative states improve parental
responses to the order establishment process?* Officials in
administrative states suggested that non-custodial parents take notices
from a court more seriously than those from executive branch agencies.

*Can the clarity of notices and orders improve compliance with the
establishment process?* Interviewees were nearly unanimous in their
views that the clarity of their orders could be improved. Research
should identify best practices in the area and determine whether the
clarity of notifications and orders can improve program performance.

# Introduction

## Background

Since the child support enforcement program was created in 1975 (Title
IV, Section D of the Social Security Act), policy makers, researchers,
and advocates have sought ways improve its performance. Attention has
focused on how to establish orders more quickly and, once an order is
established, how to collect the amount due. The passage of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996
renewed interest in child support enforcement, because in addition to
work, regular child support payments were viewed as a key to helping
single-parent families become self-sufficient.

States have discretion in terms of shaping and running their child
support programs. In many states, courts play a key role in child
support order establishment as well as other aspects of the program. In
others, executive-branch agencies establish orders administratively.
Seeking ways to improve the performance of the child support enforcement
system, Congress has enacted a number of laws to widen the scope of
administrative processes---both to establish and enforce child support
orders.

In 1984, Congress adopted the child support amendments, which mandated
states to implement administrative or judicial *expedited* processes for
establishing and enforcing child support orders. An expedited judicial
process reduces the time it takes to establish an order by giving
authority to a "judge surrogate" to take testimony, evaluate and make
initial decisions, enter default orders, and approve stipulated
agreements. Then, in 1993, Congress required expedited processes for
paternity establishment.[^2]

The *expedited* standards that directly affect state choices around
administrative processes are that:[^3]

-   Within 90 calendar days of locating the alleged non-custodial
    parent, the IV-D agency must establish an order for support or
    complete service of process (or document unsuccessful attempts to
    serve process).

-   The IV-D agency must resolve 75 percent of all pending cases in 6
    months.

-   The IV-D agency must resolve 90 percent of cases in 12 months.

To meet these timeframes, states had to design means to speed cases
through overburdened court systems or simply bypass the court systems
altogether. A number of states adopted full *administrative* processes,
which authorized IV-D agencies to establish and enforce IV-D orders with
very limited judicial involvement. Other states developed quasi-judicial
systems that allocated certain tasks to the IV-D agencies and others to
the courts.

Until 1996, expedited processes were not synonymous with administrative
processes. That is, the federal government was concerned that states
meet the specified, expedited timeframes but did not prescribe an
administrative or judicial process. With the enactment of PRWORA,
Congress showed a preference for administrative processes for certain
establishment and enforcement actions. Specifically, the law mandated
that states give the IV-D agencies the authority to order genetic tests,
subpoena financial documents, request wage information, order income
withholding, and seize lump-sum payments to satisfy arrearages.

During the development of PRWORA, the Clinton Administration argued that
enactment of the administrative processes would have a greater impact on
collections than any other enforcement tool in the bill, including the
new hire registry and license revocation measures. Although the argument
of strong impacts was persuasive, the Administration lacked empirical
data to support it. Despite the lack of data, the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO)---based largely on the testimony of state IV-D
directors---estimated that the provision would generate more than \$750
million in new collections in Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 alone. In doing so,
CBO implicitly agreed that the administrative processes were the single
most effective tools in the bill.

Another development that has spurred additional state focus on
performance is the new incentive payment structure passed in 1998.[^4]
The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act (CSPIA) revised the
incentive structure to reward states for performance in five areas:

-   Paternity establishment;

-   Establishment of child support orders;

-   Collections on current support due;

-   Cases with collections on arrears (past support due);

-   Cost effectiveness (i.e., total collections divided by total
    administrative costs).

Linking incentive payments to specific areas may renew state interest in
assessing whether administrative or judicial processes are more
efficient in establishing and enforcing orders.

## Purpose of the Study

While the federal government has mandated the use of a number of
enforcement techniques, states and localities still have considerable
flexibility in designing the processes by which they establish child
support. In the most general terms, an administrative process is one in
which the IV-D agency establishes support orders, often without a
hearing. If an order is contested, the tribunal for hearing the
contested case is in the executive branch, and the presiding officer is
a non-judge, such as a hearing officer; attorney involvement is limited.
Through Federal Financial Participation (FFP), program outlays,
including staff salaries, are matched at a rate of 66 percent. In
judicial processes, orders are established in the court. While IV-D
agency staff play a large role in this process (e.g., locating parents),
the order is generally established on a specified court date. A judge or
judge surrogate (e.g., magistrate) presides. Contested orders are also
heard in court. Attorneys play a central role, often representing the
IV-D agency before the court. Judges' salaries and travel costs are not
eligible for federal matching dollars.

Judicial and administrative processes each have their supporters.
Proponents of the judicial process note that it provides more protection
for the legal rights of the non-custodial parent and offers a wide range
of enforcement activities (e.g., civil contempt and the possibility of
incarceration). The perceived drawback of the judicial process, however,
is that it can be cumbersome, time consuming (given that it is tied to
court schedules), and expensive (it relies on judges, magistrates, and
attorneys as opposed to caseworkers). Supporters of the administrative
process note that it can be quicker because it does not involve filing
an order with the court clerk, awaiting a signature of a judge, or
working around a court schedule.[^5] Some argue that the lack of
formality results in a lower degree of compliance with the order once it
is established.

Despite the widespread use of the terms "judicial" and "administrative,"
no study has tried to define each process---or a range of quasi-judicial
processes. The 50 states and the District of Columbia each has its own
establishment process with its own set of "players." This study seeks to
go beyond the administrative/judicial dichotomy and explore nuances of
state child support establishment processes.

This study addressed the following questions:

-   What key characteristics define administrative and judicial
    processes, as well as the host of hybrid (quasi-judicial) processes?
    Is it possible to classify state processes into four or five key
    categories or types?

-   Are there similarities, as well as differences, between the
    processes?

-   How do cases progress through each of the process types? Are there
    differences in the number of people or agencies involved in the
    process? Do clients perceive the processes as fair and accessible?

-   Do cases appear to move more quickly through one process or another?

The focus of this study is whether *order establishment* varies
according to state process, and if so, how. As such, we examined only
one aspect of the child support process. Other facets that are likely to
vary according to state process, such as enforcement, are not addressed
here. It is important to note that the speed in which a case moves
through the order establishment process does not imply non-custodial
parent compliance with the resulting order.

## Methodology

To answer the study questions, the Lewin Group and ECONorthwest team
undertook three principal tasks:

*Development of a taxonomy of judicial and administrative processes*.
Building on work already completed by the Center for Law and Social
Policy (CLASP) and other research groups, the project team assessed the
characteristics of judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative
processes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. States were
"scored" on a number of criteria, including the forum for uncontested
and contested orders and, in the latter cases, the type of presiding
officer. We used the resulting taxonomy to select states for in-depth
review.

*In-depth review of processes in nine states*. We selected nine states
that span the continuum of processes for in-depth review. For each
state, we examined a number of program characteristics, including intake
process, service of process, income determination, stipulations,
hearings, and appeals. Through this task, we identified areas of
variation between judicial and administrative states, as well as
variations among states with similar processes. The states were:

-   Arizona

-   Colorado

-   Iowa

-   Massachusetts

-   Maine

-   Montana

-   Oregon

-   Texas

-   Virginia

*Site visits to five states*. Drawing from our taxonomy and in-depth
review of state processes, we selected five states for site visits. Two
were classified as highly judicial (Arizona and Massachusetts); two were
highly administrative (Maine and Oregon). One was classified as
quasi-judicial (Colorado). In each state, we met with a range of
stakeholders, including state-level officials, local office caseworkers,
district or county administrators, and court officials. Interview
protocols ensured that similar types of information were collected at
each site.

In addition to interviews, we reviewed a sample of cases for each state
to determine the length of time between a case opening and order
establishment. We identified how much time elapsed between the case
opening date and a number of milestones, such as in-person meetings and
date of service.

# Child Support Establishment: Taxonomy of State Processes

## Background

Our first project activity involved classifying states according to
their order establishment processes. The taxonomy was used to provide a
rank-order of processes for all 50 states and the District of Columbia
and to guide our selection of states for in-depth study. This broad,
macro view of processes was based on secondary sources. Our goal for
this activity was not to collect detailed information on order
establishment but to construct a method to classify states. Some factors
we explored in classifying state processes were:

-   *Ministerial functions*: To what extent does the IV-D office
    establish support orders without a hearing?

-   *Forum*: Where is the order established? Is it the judicial or
    executive branch? Does the forum differ if the order is contested?

-   *Presiding officer*: If the order is contested, is the presiding
    officer a judge, a non-judge attached to the court, or an executive
    agency hearing officer?

-   *Attorney involvement*: does an attorney represent the IV-D office
    in the order establishment process?

We used responses to the 1997 CLASP survey of state IV-D directors to
lay the foundation for our state classification exercise. The CLASP
survey asked IV-D directors, or their designated staff, to identify the
key "players" in their child support programs. Two questions
specifically asked about the entities that are involved in establishing
support obligations in uncontested and contested cases. For purposes of
this study, an uncontested case is one in which the parties generally
follow the standard establishment process and do not appeal the state's
decision to a review agency or governing body. In a contested case, one
or both of the parties disagree with a preliminary outcome in the
establishment process and requests a review of the guidelines finding.
Directors were instructed to check off entities from a list (see
***Exhibit II.1***).

Exhibit II.1: Possible Child Support "Players"

> The state IV-D agency
>
> State Attorney General (elected or appointed?)
>
> State Office of Administrative Hearings
>
> County welfare offices
>
> District attorneys (elected or appointed?)
>
> Judges
>
> Judicial officers (such as clerk of court or court administrator,
> elected or appointed?)
>
> Private attorneys/law firms
>
> Other private contractors
>
> Others (explain)

Many states checked multiple players, indicating that they employ a mix
of judicial and administrative elements. To clarify state processes, we
incorporated information from other sources. Specifically, we consulted
the following studies:

-   The National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA)
    Interstate Roster and Referral Guide,[^6] which provided profiles of
    each state's regulations and procedures on support order
    establishment;

-   West Virginia Bureau for Child Support Enforcement study of state
    administrative processes,[^7] which included profiles of Colorado,
    Maine, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, South Carolina, and Virginia;

-   Canada Department of Justice study of expedited child support, [^8]
    which included profiles of Alaska, California, Colorado,
    Connecticut, Maine, Montana, Oregon, Texas, and Washington; and,

-   Policy Studies, Inc., report on Minnesota's administrative process.
    [^9]

After completing a draft of the taxonomy, we shared it with the state
IV-D directors to solicit feedback. A response form asked whether we
classified their states correctly and if there were any elements missing
from the taxonomy. Twenty-one states replied.[^10]

## Taxonomy Elements

Using these sources, we developed a continuum of state policies, ranging
from highly judicial to highly administrative. As ***Exhibit II.2***
indicates, we assigned state processes into one of seven categories.
Each category is described below.

![](media/image1.wmf)Exhibit II.2: Child Support Continuum

*Judicial forum, judge presides*. This is the most judicial process. The
tribunal is in the court. A judge hears cases and sets the orders.

*Judicial forum, non-judge presides*. States in this category have
tribunals in the judiciary---either the court or an administrative
office of the court. However, the presiding officer is not a judge, but
an appointed magistrate, master, or another type of hearing officer,
such as an administrative law judge. This judicial officer holds
hearings and sets orders.

*Administrative forum, office of administrative hearings (OAH) or
attorney general (AG)*. States in this category have tribunals in the
executive branch of government, although not in the same agency that
houses the child support division. The presiding officer could be an
administrative law judge or another type of hearing officer.

*Administrative forum, IV-D umbrella agency*. In this category, the
tribunal is located in an agency that houses the IV-D unit (e.g.,
Department of Social Services, Department of Revenue), but not in the
IV-D agency itself. The presiding officer is generally not an
administrative law judge, but some other type of hearing officer.

*Administrative forum, IV-D agency*. Some states use IV-D staff to
convene hearings and set orders. Like the previous category, the hearing
officer is generally not a formal administrative law judge. Often child
support workers conduct hearings.

*Administrative forum, consent order*. Some states make significant use
of consent orders---the IV-D agency creates an order using guidelines
and the non-custodial parent signs the consent if he or she accepts. In
some states, the consent order is finalized by a IV-D administrative
hearing officer, while in others it goes to the court for sign-off and
only becomes official when signed by a judge. We classify a state in
this category if the majority of orders are set by the consent process,
regardless of whether the order requires IV-D hearing officer or
judicial sign-off.

*Administrative forum, no hearing*. States using this most
administrative forum create orders administratively without any hearing.
IV-D staff set orders.

*Attorney involvement in process*. In addition to the seven categories
just described, we examined whether the IV-D office is represented in
the proceedings by an attorney (e.g., district attorney or attorney
general). Our theory is that states that use attorneys extensively have
more formal, judicial-like processes.

*Uncontested and contested orders*. States often use different forums
and players depending upon whether the order is uncontested or
contested. For example, a state may have an administrative process for
uncontested cases and a judicial process for contested ones. Thus, we
identified the type of process used for contested and uncontested cases
in every state.

To classify states across the spectrum of judicial, quasi-judicial, and
administrative processes, we developed a scoring system. For example, we
assigned seven points to a full judicial forum (court-based, judge
presiding), and one point to a full administrative process (IV-D
office-based, no hearing). We use the scores to classify states. It is
important to note that a high score is not better than a low score or
vice versa. In addition to scoring the processes associated with both
contested and uncontested orders, we assign additional points if an
attorney represented the IV-D agency in the establishment processes. For
example:

-   A state that uses a judge to set both uncontested and contested
    orders received a score of 14. If attorneys represent the IV-D
    agency for both types of orders, the score was 16.

-   A state that set uncontested orders without a hearing (1 point),
    used IV-D staff to hear contested orders (3 points), and did not use
    attorneys received a score of 4.

-   A state that used a consent process for uncontested orders would get
    a score of 2. If judges in the courts heard contested orders, the
    score would be 7. If attorneys represented the state agency in
    contested cases only, the state received an extra point. This
    state's total score would be 10.

Some states were difficult to classify in one of the seven categories.
Many of the state feedback forms had multiple boxes checked for
uncontested and contested orders. In some cases, states had multiple
levels of hearings (e.g., the first hearing occurs within the IV-D
agency and the subsequent hearing within the larger department). In
these instances, we based scoring on the entity that had the ultimate
decision (in the example above, it would be the higher-level agency). In
other states, the order establishment process differs by county, with
judges hearing cases in some counties and magistrates hearing cases in
others. For these states, we classified the state by the process used in
highly populated counties. Still other states have both administrative
and judicial processes operating side by side. We classified the state
according to which process was used to establish the majority of orders.
There were also questions about how to treat consent or stipulated
orders. For instance, some states have stipulation conferences at the
IV-D agency. If the parents agree to the order, the order might be
signed by a caseworker or judge, but no further action is necessary on
the part of the parent. In other states, there is a process similar to a
consent order that occurs in the court. Parties appear on the date of
their child support order establishment hearing, meet with an attorney,
and may agree to the order amount, in which case they do not have a
hearing before the judge. Some states suggested that this constitutes a
consent process. We chose to classify such states as judicial states
because the conference is tied to the court calendar.

## Taxonomy Findings

As ***Exhibits II.3 and II.4*** indicate, taxonomy scores range from 16
to 4. For the purpose of this study, we define any state that has a
score of 14 or above as "highly judicial." States with these scores
generally establish all orders in a judicial forum and use IV-D
attorneys for both uncontested and contested cases. States that score
under 10 are classified as "highly administrative." These states
generally set uncontested orders without a hearing, through a consent
process, or through hearings within the IV-D agency. Contested cases are
heard in an administrative forum; attorney involvement is uncommon.
States in the 10 to 14 range are classified as "quasi-judicial" because
they employ a mix of administrative forums for uncontested orders and
judicial forums for contested ones. Some also use attorneys for both
types of processes.

***Exhibit II.3*** provides details on each state's score. As it shows,
uncontested orders (marked "U") are more likely to be established
administratively than contested ones. About 37 percent of states use an
administrative forum to establish uncontested orders. However, only
about 20 percent of states use an administrative forum to establish
contested orders (marked "C"). Thirty-seven states use IV-D attorneys in
their order establishment process. Most of these states (81 percent) use
attorneys in both uncontested and contested orders.

***Exhibit II.4*** demonstrates that when uncontested orders, contested
orders, and attorney involvement are combined, the majority of states
cluster towards the judicial end of the taxonomy. Forty-five percent of
states have scores of 14 or above, while 23 percent have scores of nine
or below.

Exhibit II.3: Taxonomy Classification

  --------------- ---------- ----------- ---------------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- ------------ -------
                  Judicial               Administrative                                                          
                  Forum                  Forum                                                                  

                  Judge      Non-Judge   OAH or AG (5)    Non-IVD   IVD        Consent   IVD Sets  Attorney     Score
                  Presides   Presides                     Hearing   Conducts   Order (2) Order     Represents   
                  (7)        (6)                          Officer   In-House             without   IVD Agency   
                                                          (4)       Hearings             Hearing   (1,1)        
                                                                    (3)                  (1)                    

  Alabama         U, C                                                                             U, C         16

  Alaska                                                  C                              U                      5

  Arizona         U, C                                                                             U, C         16

  Arkansas        C                                                            U                                9

  California                 U, C                                                                  U, C         14

  Colorado                   C                                                 U                   C            9

  Connecticut                U, C                                                                  C            13

  Delaware                   U, C                                                                  C            13

  District of     U, C                                                                             U, C         16
  Columbia                                                                                                      

  Florida                    U, C                                                                  U, C         14

  Georgia         U, C                                                                             U, C         16

  Hawaii                                 U, C                                                      U, C         12

  Idaho           U, C                                                                             U, C         16

  Illinois        C          U                                                                     U, C         15

  Indiana         U, C                                                                             U, C         16

  Iowa            C                                                            U                   U, C         11

  Kansas                     C                                                  U                   U,C         10

  Kentucky        U, C                                                                             U, C         16

  Louisiana       C          U                                                                     U, C         15

  Maine                                                   C                              U                      5

  Maryland                   C                                                 U                   U, C         10

  Massachusetts   U, C                                                                             U, C         16

  Michigan                   U, C                                                                  U, C         14

  Minnesota                  U, C                                                                  U, C         14

  Mississippi     U, C                                                                                          14

  Missouri                                                C                              U         C            6

  Montana                                                           C                    U                      4

  Nebraska        C          U                                                                     U, C         15

  Nevada                     U, C                                                                  U, C         14

  New Hampshire              U, C                                                                               12

  New Jersey                 U, C                                                                               12

  New Mexico                 U, C                                                                  U, C         14

  New York                   U, C                                                                  U, C         14

  North Carolina  C                                                            U                   U, C         11

  North Dakota    U, C                                                                             U, C         16
  --------------- ---------- ----------- ---------------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- ------------ -------

Exhibit II.3: Taxonomy Classification (continued)

  -------------- ---------- ----------- ---------------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- ------------ -------
                 Judicial               Administrative                                                          
                 Forum                  Forum                                                                  

                 Judge      Non-Judge   OAH or AG (5)    Non-IVD   IVD        Consent   IVD Sets  Attorney     Score
                 Presides   Presides                     Hearing   Conducts   Order (2) Order     Represents   
                 (7)        (6)                          Officer   In-House             without   IVD Agency   
                                                         (4)       Hearings             Hearing   (1,1)        
                                                                   (3)                  (1)                    

  Ohio                                                             C          U                   C            6

  Oklahoma                              C                U                                        U, C         11

  Oregon                                C                                               U                      6

  Pennsylvania              U, C                                                                               12

  Rhode Island              U, C                                                                               12

  South Carolina C                                                 U                                           10

  South Dakota              C                                                 U                   C            9

  Tennessee      U, C                                                                             U, C         16

  Texas                     U, C                                                                  U, C         14

  Utah                                                   C         U                              C            8

  Vermont                   U, C                                                                               12

  Virginia                                               C                              U                      5

  Washington                            C                                     U                   U, C         9

  West Virginia             U, C                                                                               12

  Wisconsin      C          U                                                                     U, C         15

  Wyoming                   U, C                                                                  U, C         14
  -------------- ---------- ----------- ---------------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- ------------ -------

Exhibit II.4: Taxonomy Spectrum

# Nine State Comparison

The taxonomy, although informative, is based on a limited number of
questions and sources. Using the taxonomy, we gained a sense of how many
states can be classified as judicial, administrative, or somewhere in
the middle. To improve our understanding of the complex differences in
processes across states, we conducted in-depth reviews of the order
establishment processes in nine states.

## State Selection and Methodology

We kept a number of factors in mind when choosing the states. We wanted
a selection of administrative, judicial, and quasi-judicial states. We
also sought regional diversity within each category. We gained
additional background information on the states by reviewing state
scores for the newly implemented performance indicators.

In consultation with the Federal Project Officer, we selected nine
states (see ***Exhibit III.1)***.

Exhibit III.1: Study States

We contacted each IV-D director to explain the nature of our study. IV-D
directors typically referred us to a senior staff person who compiled a
range of documents, including policy manuals, flow charts, training
materials, applications, guidelines, and program brochures. We also
obtained information about state performance on the five CSPIA
performance measures. The senior staff person answered follow-up
questions and reviewed our written summaries of the state's process.

For each state, we explored the following dimensions of the
establishment process:

-   *Notification of order establishment*: How are non-custodial parents
    notified that the child support agency is undertaking an action to
    establish an order?

-   *Service of process*: What is the formality of service (i.e., is it
    in-person or via mail)? What information is included in the service
    documents?

-   *Income imputation*: In the absence of financial information
    provided by the non-custodial parent, what sources of information do
    states use to attribute income for order establishment purposes?

-   *Deviation from guidelines*: Under what circumstances, if any, are
    IV-D agencies able to deviate from the guidelines?

-   *In-person meetings*: To what extent do IV-D agencies attempt to
    meet, in-person, with the non-custodial parent prior to establishing
    the order?

-   *Default orders*: Under what circumstances do states issue default
    orders, and how is income calculated for such orders?

-   *Contested orders*: What is the forum for contested orders?

-   *Appeals*: What is the forum for appeals?

-   *Attorney involvement*: Do attorneys represent the IV-D agency in
    uncontested or contested order establishment?

-   *General role of the court*: Are orders ultimately signed by a
    judge? Are they filed in court?

After reviewing state materials and interviewing staff familiar with
state policy, we drafted short reports for each state. We shared the
reports with our state contacts and asked for feedback. Copies of each
state report are included in ***Appendix A***.

## Key Findings

Below, we summarize the findings from our nine-state review. For each
establishment element, we explored similarities and differences between
process type and within process type. We found significant variation not
only between categories but within them.

### Comparison of State Performance

We began by comparing state performance on the five CSPIA measures
across judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative states. The findings
are reported in ***Exhibit III.2***. The measures are:

-   Paternity establishment[^11]

-   Order establishment[^12]

-   Current collections[^13]

-   Cases paying towards arrears[^14]

-   Cost effectiveness[^15]

As the Exhibit indicates, there is variation both within processes and
between processes. With regard to *paternity establishment*, eight of
nine states performed better than the national average (65 percent) in
2000. The differential ranged from 18 percentage points above the
average in Virginia to almost 41 percentage points in Massachusetts.

On *cases with orders,* administrative and quasi-judicial states all
scored above the national average (62.2 percent). In some of the states,
the margins were large: two administrative states (Maine and Montana)
and one quasi-judicial state (Iowa) scored over 20 percentage points
above the average. The remaining administrative and quasi-judicial
states scored between four and nine percentage points above average.
Massachusetts was the only judicial state to perform above the national
average (67 percent).

Exhibit III.2: State Performance

  -------------------- ----------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- --------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------------------ ------------
                       **Paternity                     **Cases with                **Current                     **Cases with                **Cost-Effectiveness**   
                       Establishment**                 Orders**                    Collections**                 Collections                                          
                                                                                                                 on Arrears**                                         

                       **1999**          **2000**      **1999**      **2000**      **1999**        **2000**      **1999**      **2000**      **1999**                 **2000**

  **Judicial**                                                                                                                                                        

  Arizona              22.41             69.26\*       49.00         57.37         42.24           44.65         46.73         50.67         3.27                     3.72

  Massachusetts        107.93            106.20        69.82         67.09         54.68           58.72         51.92         55.34         4.77                     3.50

  Texas                103.84            104.57        45.08         55.78         50.14           65.10         63.29         63.44         4.53                     4.96

  **Administrative**                                                                                                                                                  

  Maine                90.81             90.95         87.61         88.64         55.73           57.30         67.05         68.67         4.96                     4.90

  Montana              70.77             105.3         85.55         83.86         51.31           56.80         56.83         66.73         4.37                     3.58

  Oregon               84.22             89.36         66.89         66.29         58.94           59.65         56.18         55.49         6.10                     5.54

  Virginia             76.85             83.79         64.18         67.85         53.66           56.50         52.05         54.22         4.76                     5.00

  **Quasi-judicial**                                                                                                                                                  

  Colorado             89.14             103.39        71.52         78.11         47.27           50.72         59.03         62.51         3.71                     3.23

  Iowa                 101.80            92.7          85.96         85.90         49.47           62.37         60.44         54.76         5.29                     4.24

  ***Nat. Average***   ***64.39***       ***65.32***   ***59.80***   ***62.17***   ***52.63***     ***56.07***   ***54.83***   ***59.88***   ***4.44***               ***4.21***
  -------------------- ----------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- --------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------------------ ------------

\*Data deemed unreliable based on audit

On two measures, current collections and cases with collections on
arrears measures, states were very similar. The national average for
*current collections* was 56 percent in 2000. Two judicial states, one
quasi-judicial state, and all four administrative states performed
better than average. Unlike the paternity and order establishment
measures, the range of scores was more limited for current collections.
Oregon, at about 60 percent, had the highest collection percentage. The
other states clustered around 57 percent and 58 percent. Fewer states
scored above average on the *arrears* measure. The national average was
about 60 percent; one judicial state, one quasi-judicial state, and two
administrative states exceeded this threshold. The high performer,
Maine, scored 69 percent. Other states ranged from 62.5 to 67 percent.

Finally, administrative states appear to perform well on the
*cost-effectiveness measure*. The national average was \$4.21. Three
administrative states exceeded the average; Oregon, the highest scorer
of the group, exceeded it by \$1.33. One quasi-judicial and one judicial
state performed above average on this measure (Iowa and Texas,
respectively). Iowa's ratio was \$0.03 above the average, while Texas'
was \$0.75 above the mean.

A reliable evaluation of relationships between establishment processes
and state performance is not feasible for this limited number of states.
Moreover, such an evaluation is outside the scope of this study.
However, through a concurrent federal research project, the authors are
exploring relationships between state establishment processes and
performance in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.[^16] Through
this related research, we explore association between a state's
establishment process and its performance, while holding constant a
number of economic, demographic, and programmatic factors.

The remaining subsections focus on specific dimensions of the
establishment process.

### Notification of Order Establishment

There were more similarities than differences in terms of how states
notify the non-custodial parent of the intention to establish child
support. In all types of states, the first notice is generally service
of process. State officials suggested the first contact with the
non-custodial parent should constitute service of process; otherwise,
non-cooperative parents may attempt to evade subsequent service attempts
by moving and/or changing jobs. States varied, however, in the type of
information included in the notification of establishment. One key
difference was whether administrative process states were more likely to
include a proposed order amount in the first notification to the parent.

INFORMATION CONTAINED IN NOTIFICATION OF ORDER ESTABLISHMENT

+---------------+-----------+----------+---------+----------+----------+
|               | **Notice  | **In     | **      | **Pre    | **Noti   |
|               | to Appear | vitation | Request | liminary | fication |
|               | at a      | to       | for     | Order    | Con      |
|               | Judicial  | Appear   | Fi      | Amount   | stitutes |
|               | or        | at a     | nancial | Based on | S        |
|               | Admin     | V        | Affi    | Gu       | ervice** |
|               | istrative | oluntary | davit** | idelines |          |
|               | Hearing** | Conf     |         | Calcu    |          |
|               |           | erence** |         | lation** |          |
+---------------+-----------+----------+---------+----------+----------+
| [Judicial     | **X**     | **X**    | **X**   |          | **X**    |
| ]{.underline} |           |          |         |          |          |
|               | **X**     |          | **X**   |          | **X**    |
| Arizona       |           |          |         |          |          |
|               |           |          | **X**   |          |          |
| Massachusetts |           |          |         |          |          |
|               |           |          |         |          |          |
| Texas         |           |          |         |          |          |
+---------------+-----------+----------+---------+----------+----------+
| [Quasi        | **X**     |          | **X**   |          | **X**    |
| Judicial      |           |          |         |          |          |
| ]{.underline} |           |          | **X**   |          | **X**    |
|               |           |          |         |          |          |
| Colorado      |           |          |         |          |          |
|               |           |          |         |          |          |
| Iowa          |           |          |         |          |          |
+---------------+-----------+----------+---------+----------+----------+
| [A            |           |          | **X**   | **X**    | **X**    |
| dministrative |           |          |         |          |          |
| ]{.underline} |           |          | **X**   | **X**    | **X**    |
|               |           |          |         |          |          |
| Maine         |           |          | **X**   |          | **X**    |
|               |           |          |         |          |          |
| Montana       |           |          | **X**   |          |          |
|               |           |          |         |          |          |
| Oregon        |           |          |         |          |          |
|               |           |          |         |          |          |
| Virginia      |           |          |         |          |          |
+---------------+-----------+----------+---------+----------+----------+

-   There was variation in the judicial states. In Texas, the first
    contact with the non-custodial parents is service to appear in
    court. In Arizona, some counties send a letter to both parents
    inviting them to participate in a negotiation conference. The
    conference is not mandatory, and the letter does not constitute
    service. In counties that do not utilize the negotiation conference,
    the first notification is service. Finally, Massachusetts sends
    non-custodial parents a "welcome letter," which does not constitute
    service. It indicates the Department of Revenue is establishing a
    support order. This is followed by service.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In the two quasi-judicial states, the first notice is the service of
    process. Colorado sends a Notice of Financial Responsibility, which
    includes the date and time of the negotiation conference,
    information about debt owed to the state, and a request for
    financial information. Similarly, Iowa's Notice of Support Debt
    requests financial information but does not include a scheduled
    hearing.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The administrative states generally use service as the first
    notification to the non-custodial parent. In two states, Montana and
    Oregon, the documents report an order amount (see below). Maine
    sends a Notice of Proceeding to Establish Child Support and
    statement of resources, which constitutes service. Virginia, on the
    other hand, sends a letter and financial statement; service occurs
    later.

### Service of Process

Service of process formally alerts the non-custodial parent that an
order establishment process is underway. As noted above, most states'
first contact with the non-custodial parent is service. The two primary
methods are certified mail and in-person service (e.g., via sheriff,
private process server). Each method has its supporters. States that use
certified mail claim it is cost-effective and fast. States that rely on
process servers note that they have more confidence that the correct
individual will be served and notified of the child support order
establishment process. They fear that using a process other than
in-person service heightens the possibility that the wrong person was
served or that the correct person never received the paperwork.

We found variation in how judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative
states serve the non-custodial parent. Judicial states are more likely
to use process servers and in-person service; administrative states rely
heavily on certified mail.

-   All three judicial states rely on in-person service to some extent.
    Arizona contracts with process servers. The documents served include
    a complaint to establish support, a court date, and a financial
    statement that must be completed by the non-custodial parent. Texas
    sheriffs or constables serve non-custodial parents; documents
    include a complaint and a court date. In Massachusetts, a process
    server mails a copy of the notice to the non-custodial parent;[^17]
    additionally, the process server leaves a copy at the last and usual
    place of residence. The documents include a complaint and a
    financial statement.

-   The quasi-judicial states use in-person service (either process
    servers or sheriffs). In Iowa, as noted above, the papers served on
    the non-custodial parent request financial information. In Colorado,
    the Notice of Financial Responsibility alerts the non-custodial
    parent of the establishment process and identifies the time and date
    of the negotiation conference.

> METHOD OF SERVICE FOR MAJORITY OF CASES

+----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
|                            | **In-person**     | **Certified Mail** |
+----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| [Judicial]{.underline}     | **X**             |                    |
|                            |                   |                    |
| Arizona                    | **X**             |                    |
|                            |                   |                    |
| Massachusetts              | **X**             |                    |
|                            |                   |                    |
| Texas                      |                   |                    |
+----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| [Quasi                     | **X**             |                    |
| Judicial]{.underline}      |                   |                    |
|                            | **X**             |                    |
| Colorado                   |                   |                    |
|                            |                   |                    |
| Iowa                       |                   |                    |
+----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| [A                         | **X**             | **X**              |
| dministrative]{.underline} |                   |                    |
|                            |                   | **X**              |
| Maine                      |                   |                    |
|                            |                   | **X**              |
| Montana                    |                   |                    |
|                            |                   |                    |
| Oregon                     |                   |                    |
|                            |                   |                    |
| Virginia                   |                   |                    |
+----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
|                            |                   |                    |
+----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+

-   Two of the four administrative states (Maine and Oregon) rely
    primarily on certified mail to serve non-custodial parents. Two also
    have the option to use other methods. Montana serves non-custodial
    parents via certified mail, first class mail, or a process server,
    depending on the case. In Virginia, service most commonly occurs
    through a sheriff (65 percent of cases), followed by certified mail
    (20 percent) and in-person service at the child support office (15
    percent).

### Income Imputation

IMPUTATION METHOD IF NO INCOME DATA ARE AVAILABLE

+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+
|                 | Minimum wage    | Median Income  | Average Annual |
|                 | for a 40-hour   | for NCPs and   | Wage for all   |
|                 | week            | CPs on IV-D    | Workers in     |
|                 |                 | Caseload       | State          |
+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+
| [Judici         | **X**           |                |                |
| al]{.underline} |                 |                |                |
|                 | **X**           |                |                |
| Arizona         |                 |                |                |
|                 | **X**           |                |                |
| Massachusetts   |                 |                |                |
|                 |                 |                |                |
| Texas           |                 |                |                |
+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+
| [Quasi          | **X**           | **X**          |                |
| Judici          |                 |                |                |
| al]{.underline} |                 |                |                |
|                 |                 |                |                |
| Colorado        |                 |                |                |
|                 |                 |                |                |
| Iowa            |                 |                |                |
+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+
| [Administrati   | **X**           |                | **X**          |
| ve]{.underline} |                 |                |                |
|                 | **X**           |                |                |
| Maine           |                 |                |                |
|                 | **X**           |                |                |
| Montana^[a      |                 |                |                |
| ]{.underline}/^ |                 |                |                |
|                 |                 |                |                |
| Oregon          |                 |                |                |
|                 |                 |                |                |
| Virginia        |                 |                |                |
+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+

> ^[a]{.underline}^/Under certain circumstances, Montana caseworkers use
> the TANF grant to impute an order amount.

All states try to base child support order amounts on financial
information provided directly by the non-custodial parent. Most often, a
financial statement is included in the service documents.[^18] In the
absence of information provided by the non-custodial parent, states use
a number of methods to impute---or attribute---income. There are
competing theories on how best to impute income. States using the
minimum wage run a risk of underestimating the non-responsive parent's
true wage and setting an inappropriately low order. In such states, a
non-responsive parent may intentionally accept an imputed order based on
minimum wage---knowing that by providing full financial information, his
or her order would increase. By contrast, using the average annual wage
could overestimate the order amount for non-responsive parents, making
it difficult for the parent to pay. However, a high, imputed order may
get the parent's attention during the establishment phase and make them
more likely to come forward with his or her actual financial
information.

We found no clear pattern according to establishment process category.
Generally, states will first try to find reliable information on current
or past employment through Department of Labor (W-4) or Unemployment
Insurance records. States may also base imputations on the testimony of
the custodial parent, who may identify a specific wage or occupation. In
cases in which a custodial parent identifies an occupation, practices
vary in determining the related wage. For example, Oregon caseworkers
use occupational handbooks, while caseworkers in other states use
educated guesses about common occupations (e.g., convenience store
clerks, security guards). If the state truly has no data upon which to
base the imputation, most use the minimum wage for a 40-hour week to
impute income. Others use the mean wage in the state or the mean
earnings of the average parent in the IV-D system.

One administrative state (Montana), one quasi-judicial state (Colorado),
and three judicial states (Arizona, Massachusetts, and Texas) also
impute income if there is evidence of underemployment. For example, if a
non-custodial parent is qualified for employment at a higher wage than
he or she is currently earning (e.g., the parent has a plumber's license
but is working at a fast food restaurant), the caseworker or judge can
impute income at the higher rate. Moreover, if the non-custodial parent
is working part-time or seasonally, the caseworker or judge can
attribute full-time, year-round work unless the parent proves special
circumstances.

Imputation methods include:

-   Current employment. All nine states use state Unemployment Insurance
    and Department of Labor records to determine if the non-custodial
    parent is employed and his or her wage.

-   Past employment history. Eight states will impute income based on
    work history.[^19]

In the absence of reliable earnings information, states use:

-   Minimum wage for a 40-hour week (Arizona, Colorado, Massachusetts,
    Montana, Oregon, Texas, Virginia)

-   Average yearly wage, as determined by state Department of Labor
    (Maine)[^20]

-   Median income for parents in the IV-D caseload (Iowa)[^21]

-   Maximum TANF payment or the child's actual needs, as alleged by the
    custodial parent (Montana)

-   Information about education or skills (Massachusetts)

### Deviation from the Guidelines

All states use guidelines to determine child support orders.[^22]
Guidelines generally take into consideration the needs of the child,
other dependents, and the ability of the parents to pay. Eight of the
states in our study use income shares guidelines, which bases the order
amount on both parents' income (Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, Montana, Oregon, and Virginia). One state (Texas) uses a
percent of obligor guideline, in which the number of children determines
what percent of the non-custodial parent's income will be paid in child
support.

In some cases, the non-custodial parent, custodial parent, or IV-D
agency may seek to adjust the order amount based on unique
circumstances. For example, if a non-custodial parent had a catastrophic
illness and accrued high medical bills, the IV-D agency may seek a lower
order amount. States differ in terms of how difficult it is to deviate
from the guidelines. Generally, states assume the guidelines produce the
correct child support order and report that deviations are rare.

Deviation from Guidelines

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
|                       | **Judges/Magistrates  | **Caseworkers and    |
|                       | Only**                | Higher Level         |
|                       |                       | Officials**          |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| [                     | **X**                 |                      |
| Judicial]{.underline} |                       |                      |
|                       | **X**                 |                      |
| Arizona               |                       |                      |
|                       | **X**                 |                      |
| Massachusetts         |                       |                      |
|                       |                       |                      |
| Texas                 |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| [Quasi                | **X**                 | **X**                |
| Judicial]{.underline} |                       |                      |
|                       |                       |                      |
| Colorado              |                       |                      |
|                       |                       |                      |
| Iowa                  |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| [Admini               |                       | **X**                |
| strative]{.underline} |                       |                      |
|                       |                       | **X**                |
| Maine                 |                       |                      |
|                       |                       | **X**                |
| Montana               |                       |                      |
|                       |                       | **X**                |
| Oregon                |                       |                      |
|                       |                       |                      |
| Virginia              |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

-   In the three judicial states, only judges can deviate from
    guidelines, and they do so only in specific cases. In Arizona, for
    example, judges deviate only if application of guidelines is
    inappropriate or unjust and the best interests of the child are
    taken into consideration. However, if the parties agree to a
    deviation during a negotiation conference or pre-hearing meeting,
    and put their agreement in writing, the judge may consider it. In
    Massachusetts, the court must adhere to the guidelines in
    establishing a support order. And, if the court enters an order that
    deviates for the guidelines, it must make written findings
    explaining why application of the guidelines are unjust or
    inappropriate. Texas court masters (who officiate at hearings) can
    take into account certain factors (e.g., age of children,
    visitation, child care expenses, education beyond secondary school,
    health insurance, and uninsured medical expenses) when determining
    whether to deviate from the guidelines.

-   We found mixed policies in the quasi-judicial states. In Colorado,
    only magistrates can deviate. In Iowa, however, the caseworker can
    deviate if the non-custodial parent, custodial parent, or children
    would incur substantial injustice, or if an adjustment is necessary
    to provide for the needs of the children. Examples of reasons for
    deviations include excessive health care costs, multiple
    non-custodial parent families, and if the non-custodial parent is on
    public assistance. A supervisor must approve deviations.

-   Caseworkers in administrative states generally have more authority
    to deviate. Oregon caseworkers appear to have the most discretion to
    deviate from the guidelines. The state recently expanded the
    caseworkers authority, and rules permit deviations in roughly 20
    categories, including the cost of visitation-related travel and
    parental education expenses. Both parents must agree to the deviated
    order amount. Oregon's Division of Child Support routinely
    disseminates examples of deviations to caseworkers across the state.
    In Maine, the caseworker can deviate from the guidelines if there is
    evidence that the amount derived from the guidelines is not
    equitable or just. Any deviation must be accompanied by a
    justification for the deviation (i.e., how it serves the best
    interests of the children). Montana caseworkers have limited
    authority to deviate from the guidelines. Virginia caseworkers can
    deviate in rare cases, such as when either parent has children from
    another family.

### In-Person Meetings

ROUTINE IN-PERSON MEETINGS FOR UNCONTESTED CASES

+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+
| [Judicial]{.underline}                      | Yes                    |
|                                             |                        |
| Arizona                                     | Yes                    |
|                                             |                        |
| Massachusetts                               | Yes                    |
|                                             |                        |
| Texas                                       |                        |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+
| [Quasi Judicial]{.underline}                | Yes                    |
|                                             |                        |
| Colorado                                    | No                     |
|                                             |                        |
| Iowa                                        |                        |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+
| [Administrative]{.underline}                | No                     |
|                                             |                        |
| Maine                                       | No                     |
|                                             |                        |
| Montana                                     | No                     |
|                                             |                        |
| Oregon                                      | No                     |
|                                             |                        |
| Virginia                                    |                        |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+
|                                             |                        |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+

Another area explored for this study is the extent to which IV-D
caseworkers or attorneys meet in person with non-custodial parents prior
to establishment of an order. On the one hand, meetings offer the
opportunity for IV-D staff to explain the child support process to
non-custodial parents as well as allow non-custodial parents to ask
questions or voice concerns. It also can help verify that the person for
whom the agency is establishing an order is in fact the non-custodial
parent. On the other hand, the in-person meeting adds another step---and
costs---to the child support process. It requires action on the part of
all non-custodial parents, regardless of whether they have concerns or
issues about the order amount. We found that in-person meetings are more
common in the judicial and quasi-judicial states than the administrative
ones.

-   All three judicial states hold in-person meetings. The forum is
    often the court. In Massachusetts, IV-D attorneys or non-legal staff
    meet with the parents prior to the hearing to discuss the case. They
    calculate the order amount and attempt to get the parties to agree
    to the amount. If an agreement is reached, there is no hearing. In
    Arizona, involvement in pre-hearing meetings varies by county and
    attorney preference. In addition to the on-site court meetings, some
    Arizona counties invite both parents to a voluntary stipulation
    conference. At the meeting, a IV-D caseworker calculates the order
    amount. Parents can sign the agreement, thus avoiding a court date.
    State staff note that stipulation conferences have a very high rate
    of success. When both parents attend, the stipulation rate is over
    85 percent.[^23] In Texas, the Court Master will ask at docket call
    whether any parents want to have a conference to work out issues.

-   The quasi-judicial states differ from each other in their approach
    to meetings. To the extent that meetings take place, they are more
    structured and formal than court-based meetings in the judicial
    states. In Colorado they are mandatory, while in Iowa they are one
    of two methods for dealing with contested orders (the other being
    the court). The negotiation conference is a central part of the
    Colorado order establishment process. All non-custodial parents
    receive a time and date for the in-person conference in the service
    documents. At the conference, the caseworker reviews financial
    information and calculates an order amount. It is also an
    opportunity to describe the child support enforcement process,
    explain the importance of paying orders, and answer any questions
    the non-custodial parent might have. In Iowa, an in-person meeting
    is not a routine part of the order establishment process. However, a
    non-custodial parent can try to settle a contested order through a
    negotiation conference.

-   In-person meetings are rare in administrative states. Three of the
    four states (Maine, Montana, and Virginia) have no in-person
    meetings. Oregon, however, notifies parents when they are served
    that they may contact a child support case manager. This may be done
    either in-person or by telephone. Non-custodial parents can also
    call their caseworkers.

### Default Orders

Default orders are entered when the non-custodial parent does not
respond to requests for financial information, or to requests to appear
at a negotiation conference or in court. The order is based on available
information (see Imputed Income above). Most of the states we studied do
not track the precise share of orders that are defaults, but
interviewees who were willing to guess typically placed the range at 20
to 35 percent of all orders.[^24]

There is a difference by process in terms of who can calculate the
default order amount, as well as whether additional review by a judge or
judge-surrogate is required.

-   In all three judicial states, the judge reviews the case information
    and issues an order. As noted above ("Imputed Income"), judges will
    use wage or occupational information if it is available. If not, the
    default order will be based on the minimum wage.

-   Caseworkers in quasi-judicial states determine the default order
    amount and then submit the orders to court for review. In Iowa, the
    IV-D caseworker will issue a default order using wage rate
    information or the median income of IV-D non-custodial parents. The
    order is sent to both parties, and each has time to contest the
    order amount. If neither party contests the order, an administrative
    support order is entered and submitted to a district court judge for
    signature. In Colorado, the IV-D agency will issue a default order
    if the non-custodial parent fails to appear at the negotiation
    conference. The order is filed with the court and reviewed by a
    magistrate.

-   In the administrative states, if the non-custodial parent does not
    respond to the proposed support order, it stands. In Montana, the
    IV-D worker will attempt to reach the parent by phone. If that is
    unsuccessful, a Notice of Default is sent to both parents by mail.
    The non-responsive parent has 10 days to respond. If there is no
    response, the original order stands. Virginia will summon the
    non-custodial parent to the district office to provide financial
    information. If he or she does not contact the child support office,
    an order is established using available information.

### Award Amount Revelations

We found key differences among the processes in terms of when the order
amount is revealed to the non-custodial parent. Two administrative
states, Montana and Oregon, reveal a proposed order amount in the first
correspondence to the non-custodial parent. Virginia's initial
notification, as indicated above, consists of a letter and financial
statement. The next step of the process, formal service, includes a
proposed order amount. Maine calculates the order after the parent has
been served and notifies him or her via mail. In contrast, the judicial
states reveal the order amount on the date of the hearing.
Massachusetts, for example, tries to stipulate orders in pre-hearing
meetings.

The quasi-judicial states differ on timing. Colorado, as noted above,
schedules negotiation conferences for all non-custodial parents. The
order amount is calculated during this in-person meeting. Iowa
caseworkers calculate the order amount based on returned financial
statements and state databases, then mails the proposed order. In this
sense, the state is similar to Maine.

### Forum for Contested Orders

If a parent disagrees with the proposed order amount, he or she can
contest the order. Judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative states,
by definition, have different forums for contested orders. There is
variation, however, in terms of who officiates at the hearings and when
the hearings occur.

-   Two of the three judicial states use judges to hear contested child
    support cases. In Massachusetts, the cases are heard by judges in
    the Probate and Family Court. All child support cases are heard on a
    specified day of the week (known as "block time"). Arizona uses
    commissioners to hear cases. Commissioners are similar to judges,
    except the presiding judge, rather than the governor, appoint them.
    Texas uses court masters to hear child support cases. As noted
    above, judicial states have in-person meetings on the court date. If
    parties agree to the order amount, they sign the order. If they
    contest it, they have a hearing before the judge or judge surrogate
    that same day.

-   In quasi-judicial states, if a parent contests an order, the case is
    referred to court; there is no executive branch tribunal. In
    Colorado, magistrates in the District Court hear child support
    cases. They do not have the same powers as judges (e.g., they cannot
    hear jury trials). Judges in the District Court hear Iowa child
    support cases. Unlike the judicial states, the hearing is scheduled
    for a later date. The amount of time that elapses is a function of
    the court calendar.

-   Contested orders in administrative states are heard in a wide
    variety of locations. In all states, a hearing officer presides. Two
    states locate the hearing officers in the same department that
    houses the IV-D agency, but not within the agency itself (the
    Department of Human Services and Department of Social Services in
    Maine and Virginia, respectively). In Montana, hearings are held in
    the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, which is part of the
    IV-D agency. Oregon uses hearing officers in an entirely different
    department (the Employment Department). Like the quasi-judicial
    states, time elapses between the request for a hearing and the
    hearing date. Unlike these states, the executive branch agency sets
    the hearing date; resolution is not tied to the court calendar.

### Appeals

If a parent is unsatisfied with the final agency action (i.e., the
parent contested the order and had a judicial or administrative hearing)
he or she can appeal to a different entity. In judicial and
quasi-judicial states, appeals of child support orders are generally
heard by a different court, while administrative states tend to have a
second-level administrative hearing before the case moves into the
judicial system.

-   In judicial states, appeals of court orders are referred to the
    Court of Appeals in both Arizona and Massachusetts. In Texas,
    however, parents can appeal the decision of the court master to a
    judge in the District Court. The higher level of appeal is the Court
    of Appeals.

-   Appeals of child support orders in both quasi-judicial states are
    heard by higher courts. The Court of Appeals hears cases in
    Colorado; the Supreme Court hears appeals in Iowa.

-   Three of the four administrative states have a second-level
    administrative hearing. New evidence is not introduced at these
    hearings. Rather, the hearing officer reviews the file and record of
    the previous hearing. An administrative appeal in Maine is heard by
    a different hearing officer; the next level of appeal is the
    Superior Court. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in
    Montana can be appealed within 20 days. The same ALJ considers the
    appeal. The next step is a judicial review by the District Court. In
    Oregon, parties can request a reconsideration of the hearing
    officer's decision, which is heard by a different hearing officer;
    the next level is a Circuit Court hearing. Virginia, however, does
    not have a second-level administrative hearing. Appeals to the
    hearing officer's decision are heard in the Juvenile and Domestic
    Relations District Court.

###  Attorney Involvement

As noted in the taxonomy section, our theory is that states that use
attorneys extensively have more formal, judicial-like processes. We
found extensive use of attorneys in the judicial states, limited use in
the administrative states, and use in court-level activities in the
quasi-judicial states.

-   In all three judicial states, attorneys are used at every stage of
    the establishment process. Even in Arizona's stipulation
    conferences, the attorney reviews the order, signs it, and files it
    in court. Arizona, Massachusetts, and Texas use attorneys to prepare
    court cases and argue the state's case in court. Attorneys also
    attempt to hold pre-hearing meetings with the parents in an effort
    to reach an agreement.[^25]

-   Attorney involvement is more limited in the two quasi-judicial
    states. Colorado does not use IV-D attorneys in uncontested cases.
    For contested cases, however, attorneys take the lead in preparing
    cases for the hearing and presenting the state's case before the
    court. Like the judicial states, the attorney will try to meet
    informally with both parties before the hearing and try to work out
    an agreement. In Iowa, attorneys are involved, to a limited extent,
    in all cases. For uncontested ones, they submit orders to District
    Court judges for signature and file the orders with the clerk of the
    court. Like Colorado, IV-D attorneys present the state's case in
    court for contested cases.

-   Attorney involvement in the four administrative states is very
    limited. Attorneys are not generally involved in the preparation of
    administrative orders or, if the case is contested, the
    administrative hearings process. In limited cases, they may help the
    caseworker prepare for the administrative hearing if there is a
    technical or legal question. If the case is appealed to court,
    however, attorneys represent the state.

### General Role of the Courts

One final area we examined was the overall role of the court in
establishment processes. This is not limited to the forum for
uncontested and contested orders, but whether judges or judge-surrogates
must review orders or whether orders must be filed in court. Proponents
of filing orders in court suggest that it is easier for other states to
find orders and to determine if parents owe child support for other
families. Moreover, when copies of the order are requested, they appear
on court letterhead with a file number. Others contend that filing
orders in court is an unnecessary and time-consuming step. Filing
administrative orders in court does not, by itself, improve coordination
because court files systems can be outdated and fragmented. A central
case registry operated by the IV-D agency could be equally useful.

-   In the judicial states, the courts, not surprisingly, play a central
    role. The court is the forum for determining orders. Judges or their
    surrogates sign orders, and orders are subsequently filed in court.
    Judges also preside over contested cases.

-   In the quasi-judicial states, IV-D attorneys submit uncontested
    orders to judges for signature and then the order, along with
    documentation, is filed with the clerk of the court. Also, as noted
    above, the court is the tribunal for contested cases in Colorado and
    Iowa.

-   Courts have a limited role in the administrative states. In rare
    instances, contested orders are appealed to courts. In addition, one
    state, Oregon, files orders with the court. They are not reviewed or
    signed by a judge. The other three administrative states do not file
    orders with the court.

## Summary

We began this task with a general understanding of what constitutes a
judicial and administrative state. As part of the taxonomy, we explored
the forum, the presiding officer for contested cases, and the use of
attorneys. However, review of nine states necessitated a more nuanced
categorization. Some aspects of the order establishment process differed
by forum. We also found areas where administrative and judicial states
had similar elements.

One question we explored is whether state administrative or judicial
processes tended to perform better on the incentive measures (i.e.,
paternity establishment, cases with orders, collection on current
support due, cases with payments on arrears, and cost-effectiveness).
There was little evidence to support the theory that one process might
have a comparative advantage over the other.

We also explored eleven areas where order establishment processes might
differ between judicial and administrative states. Areas where
establishment functions varied by process include:

-   [Service of process]{.underline}. All three of the judicial states
    and both quasi-judicial states relied primarily on process servers.
    All four of the administrative states utilized certified mail to
    some extent to serve parents, and two of the four used it
    exclusively. Only one administrative state reported that the
    majority of service was in-person.

-   [The timing of the revelation of the order amount]{.underline}. The
    administrative states reveal the order amount early in the process.
    Montana and Oregon include the proposed order amount in the first
    correspondence with the non-custodial parent. Virginia includes a
    proposed amount when the non-custodial parent is served, while Maine
    calculates the order after service. The judicial states reveal the
    order amount on the court date. The quasi-judicial states are mixed;
    Iowa collects financial statements and notifies parents via mail of
    the order amount while Colorado calculates the amount at the
    negotiation conference.

-   [Deviations from guidelines]{.underline}. Generally, caseworkers in
    administrative states have more discretion to deviate from the
    guidelines. Caseworkers and attorneys in judicial states defer to
    judges or their surrogates. The quasi-judicial states were split on
    deviations.

-   [The use of in-person meetings]{.underline}. All of the judicial
    states have some mechanism for meeting with one or both of the
    parents. The forum for the meeting might be the court or it might be
    a stipulation conference. One quasi-judicial state, Colorado, also
    used stipulation conferences. None of the administrative states had
    in-person meetings prior to order establishment for uncontested
    cases.

-   [Use of attorneys]{.underline}. Attorneys were involved in all
    aspects of order establishment in the judicial states and rarely
    involved in the administrative ones. They handled court-related
    business in the quasi-judicial states.

Some establishment steps were not related to process. For example:

-   [Imputation of income]{.underline}. All states used databases to
    determine if there are wage records for the non-custodial parent. In
    the absence of financial information, seven states (all three
    judicial states, three administrative ones, and a quasi-judicial
    state) impute the minimum wage for a 40 hour week, while one
    administrative state and one quasi-judicial state impute income at a
    higher level.

-   [Initial notification]{.underline}. For seven states, service of
    process is the initial notice that an order is being established.
    All nine states include a financial affidavit with the notice. The
    one difference was the inclusion of a proposed order amount in the
    initial notification documents. Two administrative states, but no
    judicial or quasi-judicial ones, included an order amount.

During the nine-state review, we also began to understand how states in
a general administrative or judicial cluster differ from each other. For
instance:

-   Not all administrative states use certified mail to serve
    non-custodial parents. Virginia relies primarily on in-person
    service.

-   Caseworker discretion to deviate from guidelines varies in
    administrative states. Oregon caseworkers have 16 categories in
    which to deviate. Caseworkers have more limited authority in other
    administrative states.

-   Quasi-judicial processes differ in terms of contact with
    non-custodial parents and court involvement. Colorado holds
    negotiation conferences as a matter of course, while Iowa will
    schedule a conference only if a parent contests the order. Moreover,
    contested orders in Colorado are referred to the court. In Iowa,
    parents have the option of a IV-D negotiation conference or a court
    hearing.

-   While all judicial states hold in-person meetings, the timing of the
    meetings differs. Arizona gives counties the option of scheduling a
    negotiation conference in advance of the court date, while
    Massachusetts and Texas meet with parents on the date of the hearing
    only.

-   For contested orders, we found diversity within the administrative
    states in terms of where the tribunal is located. Hearing officers
    were housed in the IV-D agency in Montana, in the IV-D umbrella
    department in Maine and Virginia, and in an entirely different
    department in Oregon.

# In-Depth Review of Five States

Our final project task was site visits to five states. Because these
states were a subset of the nine reviewed as part of Task 2 (in-depth
review), we already had an understanding of the basic order
establishment process. However, the information we gathered for the
previous task consisted of published reports, state training manuals and
policy documents, and limited phone conversations with state-level child
support staff. Our site visit goals were twofold:

-   To learn more about the nuances in the establishment process of each
    state, including variation by local office or county, and

-   To determine whether establishment processes that appear similar at
    a macro level (i.e., highly administrative or highly judicial) are
    in fact similar, or whether taxonomy scores hide more subtle
    differences.

***Exhibit IV.1*** lists the states we visited and the dates.

Exhibit IV.1: Site Visit States

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **Administrative**    | **Judicial**          | **Quasi-judicial**   |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Maine                 | Arizona               | Colorado             |
|                       |                       |                      |
| *August 21-23*        | *September 18-20*     | *April 2-4*          |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Oregon                | Massachusetts         |                      |
|                       |                       |                      |
| *September 11-13*     | *August 7-9*          |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

We spent three days on-site in each state. During our visits, we met
with a range of staff:

-   State IV-D staff, including the IV-D directors, policies and
    procedures staff, and data staff

-   County-level IV-D staff, including supervisors and caseworkers

-   IV-D attorneys

-   IV-D appeals-related staff

-   Court staff, including judges, judge surrogates, and administrators

We developed detailed interview protocols for each group of individuals
in advance of our visit. Although some aspects were customized to each
state, the questions generally remained the same to facilitate
comparison of findings. Below, we describe similarities and differences
within the administrative states and the judicial states. We also
describe how the quasi-judicial state we visited has elements similar to
both the administrative and judicial processes.

## Findings: Administrative States

### Similarities

The taxonomy scores for Maine and Oregon (5 and 6, respectively) suggest
that the states share many elements. As ***Exhibits IV.2 and IV.3***
depict, the order establishment process in the two states appear to be
similar in many ways. Common elements of both state programs include:

-   Non-custodial parents are served via certified mail. The notice
    explains the child support establishment process, the non-custodial
    parent's rights and responsibilities, and includes a financial
    statement that must be returned in a given time frame (20 and 30
    days in Oregon and Maine, respectively).

-   Caseworkers collect information about non-custodial parents'
    earnings from statewide databases. If the financial statement is not
    returned, caseworkers will search for information on past employment
    and may impute wages based on previous occupation. If no information
    is available, caseworkers in Oregon will impute the minimum wage;
    those in Maine can impute mean state earnings, but they do not have
    to. If there is evidence that the non-custodial parent is
    unemployed, caseworkers will often impute the minimum wage.

-   Caseworkers calculate the order amount and past support due.
    Non-custodial parents are notified via mail of the order amount.

-   Caseworkers can deviate from the guidelines. In Oregon, caseworkers
    are authorized to deviate, although deviations are rare. There are
    approximately 20 categories of deviations. Caseworkers we talked
    with noted that some of the more common deviations include union
    dues, child care expenses, braces, costs associated with visitation,
    and medical expenses. Oregon officials routinely collect and
    distribute case studies that detail the purpose and amount of
    guideline deviations. Caseworkers in Maine can deviate from the
    guidelines if there is evidence that the guidelines are inequitable
    and unjust. In both states, staff report that deviations are rare.

-   There is little contact with the non-custodial parent prior to
    calculating the order amount and no in-person meetings.

-   The tribunals for contested cases are in the executive branch. The
    state-level child support office reviews cases to ensure that the
    agency is a proper forum for a hearing (e.g., custody or visitation
    are not the reasons for the appeal) and then schedule hearings.
    Hearings focus on the order amount only and do not address issues
    pertaining to visitation or custody.

-   Hearing officers conduct the hearings.

-   Decisions are not announced at the hearing and are sent via first
    class mail to all parties.

-   If the non-custodial parent does not attend the hearing, the
    proposed order stands.

-   There is a second level of administrative hearings before the case
    goes to court.

-   Appeals to court are possible but rare.

-   IV-D attorney involvement is minimal in both uncontested and
    contested orders.

-   Judges, or judge surrogates, do not sign the final orders. In Maine,
    the district supervisor signs orders. In Oregon, the establishment
    worker does so.

Exhibit IV.2: Maine Establishment Process

![](media/image2.wmf){width="10.0in" height="6.252083333333333in"}

Exhibit IV.3: Oregon Establishment Process

![](media/image3.wmf){width="9.07986111111111in" height="5.6375in"}

Despite the similarities between the Maine and Oregon establishment
processes, there are some key differences. Some are attributable to the
structures of the state child support enforcement programs. Others are
procedural differences in the areas of order establishment or hearings.

### Structural Differences. 

One key difference between the states is the [entity that administers
the child support program]{.underline}.

-   In Maine, the program is state-administered. We observed little
    difference in the establishment process in the three localities we
    visited. Some establishment functions, such as locate, are housed in
    the central state office.

-   Oregon, on the other hand, has a state-administered program with
    both state and county offices. Thus, while the state determines the
    general rules of the establishment process, counties have some
    discretion in how they establish orders. For example, caseworkers in
    all counties conduct upfront case research in which they collect
    financial information on the non-custodial parent before drafting
    the order. Some counties actively call the non-custodial parent or
    send a letter requesting information; other counties expressed
    concern that the non-custodial parent might try to leave the area if
    he or she knows an order is being established. In another example,
    one county runs administrative and judicial processes side by side.
    While individual county case managers select a judicial or
    administrative process based on their backgrounds and preferences,
    all state case managers use an administrative process. Moreover, in
    Oregon, counties have different entities that establish orders for
    TANF and non-TANF cases. Public assistance cases are referred
    automatically to the Division of Child Support (DCS), located within
    the Department of Justice, for establishment and enforcement.
    Non-public assistance cases, however, are established and enforced
    through the county District Attorney's office. Custodial parents
    must apply for services.

Another key difference is [program universality]{.underline}.

-   Maine is a "universal" state. All child support orders are processed
    through the IV-D agency. If a court addressed child support as part
    of a divorce decree, the order is still enforced by the child
    support agency. Conversely, Oregon is not a universal state, so many
    orders remain outside the IV-D domain.

Finally, while both states hear contested cases in the executive branch,
[the tribunals are housed in different agencies]{.underline}.

-   Maine's tribunal is in the Department of Human Services (DHS), the
    agency that houses the IV-D agency. Hearing officers preside over
    cases relating to all DHS programs, including child care, TANF, and
    child support. About two-thirds of all cases are child-support
    related. Oregon's tribunal is in the Employment Department (ED),
    which is a separate agency from the one that houses DCS (the
    Department of Justice). ED originally established the hearing
    officer unit for appeals to the Unemployment Insurance program. Of
    the 11 ED hearing officers, 7.5 are dedicated to child support
    cases.

### Differences: Order Establishment Procedures

There are differences in [when the order amount is revealed]{.underline}
to the non-custodial parent.

-   In Oregon, the first document that the non-custodial parent sees,
    the Notice of Financial Responsibility (NFR), contains a proposed
    order amount. Prior to sending the NFR, the caseworker checks labor
    databases for current work or recent work history. If no information
    is available, the caseworker can contact the custodial parent for
    additional information about the non-custodial parent's earnings
    history. If no information is available, the minimum wage is
    imputed. The NFR constitutes service and includes information on how
    to request a hearing, as well as a financial affidavit. A copy of
    the NFR packet is sent, via regular mail, to the custodial parent
    and certified mail to the non-custodial parent. The parents have 20
    days to respond with new information. If valid information is
    provided, the order amount is amended. If there is no response, the
    proposed order stands.

-   In Maine, the first contact between the IV-D agency and the
    non-custodial parent is the Notice of Proceeding to Establish Child
    Support (NOPECS). The NOPECS does not contain information about the
    proposed order. It contains a financial statement; the non-custodial
    parent is allowed 30 days to return it. Otherwise, the order will be
    based on imputed income. Once the financial information is in hand,
    the caseworker calculates the order and mails a Notice of Proposed
    Support Order to both parents via first class mail.

After the order is created, [the filing process]{.underline} also
differs.

-   In Oregon, the establishment caseworker signs the order and files it
    in the court. In Maine, the district supervisor signs the order. It
    is filed with the central CSE office but not the court.

### Differences: Hearings Procedures

The timeframe for requesting a hearing is similar in both states (20 to
30 days). However, there are some procedural differences. For instance,
the states differ as to [which parent can request a
hearing]{.underline}.

-   In Maine, only a non-custodial parent can request a hearing. In the
    past, most custodial parents were welfare recipients and the state
    viewed child support as a vehicle for recouping welfare payments
    made to custodial parents. Thus, the state considered the custodial
    parent's interest to be limited. Today, many custodial parents have
    never been on TANF, but their ability to participate in the child
    support establishment process remains limited. Conversely, in
    Oregon, either parent can request a hearing. Custodial parent
    participation in the hearings also differs. In Maine, the custodial
    parent generally is not present for the hearing. In Oregon, both
    parents are encouraged to participate.

Another difference between the states is the [setting for the
hearing]{.underline}.

-   Most hearings in Maine are in person. Hearing officers travel to the
    district offices to conduct hearings on site. Each regional office
    has a designated hearings room. In Oregon, most hearings (98
    percent) are conducted over the telephone. A parent can request an
    in-person hearing, which is held at a regional employment office,
    but few do so.

Finally, there are different [roles for child support
staff]{.underline}.

-   In Maine, the caseworker who prepared the order attends the hearing
    and presents the agency's case. In Oregon, case managers do not
    routinely participate in the telephonic hearings. They do send
    written testimony to the hearing officer for inclusion in the
    record.

### Case Record Analysis

Neither Maine nor Oregon reported problems meeting the establishment
timeframes set in federal law. To gain a better understanding of how
cases move through the systems, we requested that each state provide a
census of new establishment cases for a two-week period. We then asked
the states to report major steps in the establishment process from the
verification of a postal address (that is, a confirmed locate) to order
establishment and ultimately wage withholding. To limit the imposition
on the states' staff, we requested a report with only those actions that
are automatically tracked by the computer system. Other actions, tracked
through manual computer entries, are not captured here.

***Exhibit IV.4*** reports our findings for Oregon. We tracked 71 new
cases with locate information that the state believed was highly
reliable. When a state has reliable locate information, a caseworker
enters a "movement to establish an order," at which point the federal
timeframes come into play. Federal law calls for 75 percent of cases to
be established within six months of locate and 90 percent of cases
within one year. The exhibit tracks the number of days between the
successful locate and five subsequent steps in the process: generation
of the NFR, first attempt to serve, service completion, issuance of an
order, and a movement to enforce.

![](media/image4.wmf){width="7.46875in"
height="3.9479166666666665in"}Exhibit IV.4: Oregon Order Establishment
Time Frames

For the typical or median case, 36 days passed between locate and the
generation of an NFR. A handful of cases show the NFR being generated
more than six months after the movement to establish, which suggests the
locate information on the case may not have been reliable.

The first attempt at service follows soon after the generation of the
NFR, with the typical case at 41 days following the movement to
establish. Service was complete for the typical case on the 86^th^ day,
so somewhat more than a month passes between the first service attempt
and service completion of the typical case. The data indicate that an
order was formally issued 136 days---or about 4.5 months---after the
state initiated the establishment process, particularly if there is a
contest to the pleading. The movement to enforce, which is usually
accompanied by a wage withholding order, is usually entered the same day
that the state issues the order.

The data from Maine followed 89 establishment cases that were opened
during July 1998 (see ***Exhibit IV.5***). Unlike Oregon, the Maine data
does not take into account that some activities are still in the locate
function and not establishment-related. Moreover, the Maine system does
not have codes that automatically recorded the key steps in the
establishment process. Caseworkers can enter a variety of codes to
indicate service, hearings requests, and enforcement. To facilitate our
analysis, IV-D staff grouped a number of codes into three keys steps in
the process: service of the notice, generation of a proposed support
order, and order establishment. The data indicate---for the typical,
sampled cases---the state issued the original service within 19 days of
having received reliable locate information. For the typical case,
roughly three months passes between the service of notice and the
development of a proposed order. While a sizable majority of cases show
a proposed order within a year of locate, a handful of cases were
problematic and required well over a year to reach this stage. For the
typical case, the time between issuance of a proposed order and order
establishment is relatively brief---roughly one and half months. The
typical duration of the establishment process---from start to
finish---was 160 days or slightly more than five months.

Exhibit IV.5: Maine Order Establishment Time Frames

![](media/image5.wmf){width="6.497916666666667in" height="4.125in"}

We caution against direct comparisons between the Oregon and Maine data.
As noted above, the Maine data had to be grouped and coded by hand. It
is likely that a number of cases never had successful locates and that
this, in turn, extends the timeline for order establishment. Moreover,
caseworker decisions about when to formally initiate the establishment
process---which hinges on perceived reliability of locate
information---affects the estimates. In both Oregon and Maine, the data
suggest that, for a handful of cases, the original locate information
was either not reliable or a parent was successful in evading service.
Moreover, different rates of contests (requests for administrative
hearings) may also explain difference in estimated timeframes.

### General Perceptions

The administrative states suggested a number of advantages to their
process. It is a cost-effective and fast way to establish orders and
makes efficient use of staff resources. Attorney time can be dedicated
to legal issues. Caseworkers or other front-line staff are recognized as
being effective and knowledgeable. Administrative hearings are viewed as
less intimidating than court hearings, and court time is saved.
Specifically, key advantages of the administrative process include:

-   Caseworkers have considerable authority. This frees up IV-D attorney
    time for tasks that require legal expertise, controls costs, and
    ensures buy-in from line workers who are empowered because their
    knowledge and skills are utilized.

-   Administrative hearings are less intimidating for the parties
    involved. The environment in an administrative hearing room is more
    relaxed and informal. Staff suggested it is less daunting to sit
    around a table with agency staff than to stand before a judge in a
    black robe. The discussion is less formal and it is easier to follow
    the proceedings. Parents do not need attorneys. Staff noted that
    some clients fear the court and judges, whereas it is easier to meet
    with agency staff in an informal setting or via telephone.

-   Court appeals are rare in administrative states. Despite concerns
    that non-custodial parents would want their "day in court," the
    administrative states find that court-level appeals are rare. Due
    process requires that all parties have access to the courts. In
    Maine, non-custodial parents can appeal their cases to the Superior
    Court. In Oregon, either party can appeal to the Circuit Court. One
    concern about the administrative process that was voiced by judicial
    state staff was the effect on the courts. There was a perception
    that administrative orders are more likely to be appealed and would
    overwhelm the court calendar. Appeals to the judicial level in the
    two administrative states, however, are uncommon. In the last year,
    for instance, Oregon established about 1,300 orders with only about
    51 appeals (for an appeal rate of less than 4 percent). In Maine, no
    overall data are available, but one Superior Court judge in Augusta,
    the state capital, has had only three order establishment appeals
    during his seven years on the bench.

## Findings: Judicial States

### Similarities

The taxonomy scores for Arizona and Massachusetts are the same (16),
suggesting the states have very similar order establishment processes.
***Exhibits IV.6 and IV.7*** depict the process in the two judicial
states. While there are many similarities, there are also some key
differences. Common features of both state programs include:

-   Non-custodial parents are served with an order to appear and a
    financial affidavit. Arizona uses in-person service. In
    Massachusetts, process servers mail a copy of the notice to the
    non-custodial parent and leave a copy at the last and usual
    residence.

-   The Notice of Hearing Date is mailed about two weeks in advance of
    the hearing.

-   IV-D does not calculate proposed orders in advance of the hearing
    date.

-   IV-D attorneys are actively involved in case preparation. They also
    present contested and default orders to judges.

-   When the case is heard before a judge, the decision is generally
    issued at the time of the hearing.

-   Judges sign all orders; orders are filed in the court.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Appeals to higher courts are possible but rare.

The states, however, are dissimilar in many ways. The two states differ
structurally: Massachusetts is a state-administered program and Arizona
has a mix of state and county administered jurisdictions. Other
differences exist in the use of stipulation conferences, upfront
discovery of financial records, and the means by which cases are
scheduled for court hearings.

Exhibit IV.6: Arizona Establishment Process

![](media/image6.wmf){width="9.67986111111111in"
height="6.1194444444444445in"}

Exhibit IV.7: Massachusetts Establishment Process

![](media/image7.wmf){width="9.229861111111111in" height="4.55in"}

### Structural Differences

The [entity that administers the child support program]{.underline}
differs in Massachusetts and Arizona.

-   The Massachusetts child support program is state-administered, with
    the Department of Revenue operating the program. Thus, we would
    expect the order establishment procedures to be similar across the
    state. Local offices might exhibit small variations, but overall the
    structure of the program is uniform.

-   In Arizona, on the other hand, the state administers the program in
    some counties and supervises it in others. The IV-D agency is housed
    in the Department of Economic Security (DES). The state contracts
    with counties and private vendors to provide child support services.
    Counties have the first right to provide services. Six of the 15
    counties exercised their right, and their county attorney offices
    provide services. In seven counties, DES operates the program in
    conjunction with the Attorney General's office. In two counties, DES
    contracts with a private company to provide child support services.
    The fact that different entities are involved in Arizona's process
    results in procedural differences among counties. We visited two
    counties (Maricopa and Pima) and found a number of dissimilarities,
    which will be discussed in more detail below.

### Procedural Differences

One notable difference between Arizona and Massachusetts is that
[stipulation conferences]{.underline} prior to the *hearing date* are
possible in the former but not the latter.

-   In Massachusetts, neither IV-D caseworkers nor attorneys attempt to
    reach a settlement on the order amount prior to the hearing date.
    While IV-D staff (attorneys as well as non-attorneys) make a great
    effort to reach an agreement on the day of the court hearing---and
    are successful in many cases---the custodial and non-custodial
    parents must report to court on a designated date.

-   Arizona counties, however, have the option of holding stipulation
    conferences prior to formally serving the parties. Some offices
    within Maricopa County (Phoenix) attempt to schedule conferences,
    whereas offices in Pima County (Tucson) no longer do so, citing
    limited participation. In counties that schedule conferences, both
    parents receive a letter advising them that a stipulation conference
    will be held in an attempt to reach an agreement on the child
    support order. The IV-D caseworker will calculate a proposed order
    amount in advance of the meeting using state databases to collect
    information on the non-custodial parent.[^26] At the stipulation
    conference, the caseworker presents the order amount; if the parents
    agree to the amount, they sign it. A IV-D attorney reviews the order
    and forwards it to the court for signature by a commissioner
    (similar to a judge). Maricopa County finds that when parents attend
    the conference, they agree to the order amount in about 90 percent
    of the cases. However, the challenge staff face is convincing
    parents to show up. The stipulation conference is voluntary. The
    conference can go forward in the absence of the custodial parent;
    however, the non-custodial parent must be present. If the parents do
    not attend, the case is referred to the Attorney General's office,
    the non-custodial parent is formally served, and a court date is
    established.

The states also differ in the level of [case research]{.underline}
conducted by IV-D staff or attorneys prior to the hearing date.

-   In Massachusetts, IV-D caseworkers generally do not collect
    financial information before forwarding the case to an attorney.
    Parents are sent a financial affidavit, but most do not return it in
    advance of the court date. Shortly before the hearing date, the
    attorney or paralegal will check the state tax data base. However,
    staff report that most non-custodial parents do not appear on the
    database. Thus, IV-D attorneys often have no financial information
    prior to meeting with the parties at the court. The morning of the
    court date, IV-D staff meets with both parents, reviews the
    financial affidavits, and uses them to calculate an order.

-   In Arizona, the IV-D attorney usually has some financial information
    prior to the hearing date. After the non-custodial parent is served,
    a IV-D caseworker will check state databases for employment
    information, as well as for payment histories on other child support
    orders. This information is included in the file that is forwarded
    to the IV-D attorney. While the attorney does not calculate the
    order amount prior to the hearing date, he or she has a general idea
    of what it will be. Non-custodial parents also are sent financial
    affidavits, which they usually bring to court the day of the
    hearing. All of the information is used to calculate the order.

There is also some variation in terms of [scheduling
hearings]{.underline}.

-   Massachusetts uses "block time." In each of the state's 14 Probate
    and Family Courts, one day each week is devoted to child support. Up
    to 100 cases are scheduled during each block time.[^27] In Arizona,
    the case scheduling is more dispersed, with local counties
    determining when cases are heard. In Maricopa County, for instance,
    two courts handle child support cases. There are multiple
    commissioners that hear child support cases, so hearings are
    scheduled throughout the week.

Finally, the states differ as to whether IV-D attorneys try to
[stipulate an order]{.underline} on the *day of the hearing*.

-   In Massachusetts, stipulation meetings are the norm. Both parents
    are asked to appear at court. After they arrive, IV-D staff will
    collect financial affidavits and forward them to the attorney
    assigned to the case. The attorney (or non-legal staff) calculates
    an order amount based on the information and meets with the parents
    (either individually or together) to explain the order amount. The
    parents can stipulate to the amount by signing an agreement. If they
    choose not to stipulate, they go before the judge.

-   In Arizona, however, the use of court-day stipulation meetings
    varies both by county and within county. There is no statewide rule
    that requires a pre-hearing meeting with IV-D attorneys. In Pima
    County (Tucson), IV-D attorneys do not try to stipulate before the
    hearing due to lack of time. They present the state's case to the
    commissioner. The commissioner then determines the order amount.
    Some IV-D attorneys in Maricopa County, on the other hand, actively
    try to meet with parents prior to the hearing and attempt to reach
    an agreement. One attorney reported that she is successful in
    reaching agreements with most parents. Commissioners, too, report
    that many cases are resolved before they reach the courtroom. On one
    particular day, 48 child support cases were scheduled for hearing
    but only 4 cases actually went before a commissioner. Other IV-D
    attorneys, though, report that they do not try to stipulate. Their
    preference is to present cases before a commissioner.

### Case Record Analysis

As with the administrative states, we requested case-level data from
Massachusetts and Arizona for cases that newly entered the establishment
process. As with the administrative states, neither Massachusetts nor
Arizona notes any recent problems in achieving the federal timeframes
for order establishment.

The Massachusetts establishment process begins with the locate attempt
and a postal verification. We found several cases with multiple postal
verifications suggesting that the state was having difficulty locating
the non-custodial parent. For the purposes of this analysis, we tracked
the time following the last postal verification identified before the
non-custodial parent was successfully served. Following the postal
verification, we were able to observe generation of a notice to
establish (called a "complaint event" in Massachusetts' system),
assignment of a court date, order establishment, and income assignment.

For Massachusetts, we found 40 cases that required only order
establishment and were opened during July 1999. For the typical, sampled
cases, we found 20 days passed between locate and the generation of a
notice to establish support. Once the notice was generated, the system
reported another 32 days passed for a typical case before a court date
was scheduled. The Massachusetts system does not automatically record
the dates of each court hearing but does record the issuance of an
income assignment and official court order. For the typical, sampled
case, the income assignment and court order generally occurred on the
same day, 141 days after locate. Clearly, as with all the states we
reviewed, there is a range of outcomes with a handful of cases
established within the first month and several established a year or
more after locate.

Exhibit IV-8 Massachusetts Order Establishment Time Frames

![](media/image8.wmf){width="6.497916666666667in"
height="4.163888888888889in"}

In Arizona, the state system tracks three key steps in the establishment
process: request for a child support hearing, service, and order
establishment. For 146 cases for which workers were confident they had
locate information for the non-custodial parent in June 1999, state data
show that workers requested a hearing date from a court within 30 days
for the typical case. At the 59^th^ day after locate, the typical case
had been served with a notice to appear in court; and by the 115^th^ day
after locate, the typical case had an order in place. Data show the
system establishes a large majority of cases within one year. The
handful of cases that take longer than a year are those with complicated
contests or which involve parties that successfully elude service by the
state.

Exhibit IV.9 Arizona Order Establishment Time Frames

![](media/image9.wmf){width="6.497916666666667in"
height="4.4430555555555555in"}

Although the simple medians suggest differences in the timeframes
between the Massachusetts and Arizona processes, we would characterize
the reported findings as roughly comparable. Both states establish the
large majority of cases within one year and show a clustering of
establishments prior to six months. Moreover, each state's data suggest
a handful of cases that enter establishment are not successfully served
and may take a couple years or more to resolve. For those cases that
elude service after a postal verification, a state's reported outcomes
can improve significantly if state caseworkers reassign the case from
establishment to locate status---thereby resetting the establishment
timeframe. Caseworker practices likely vary in this area.

### General Perceptions

Staff from judicial states described the advantages of their process.
They noted that courts can address multiple issues at once (e.g.,
visitation, job training). Moreover, parents respond better to courts.
They are more likely to take notice of a letter from the court or a
process server, whereas a document sent from an executive agency is
"just a letter from the department." Staff also suggest that courts
provide parents with a sense of impartiality.

-   The court forum can address a range of issues. A commissioner in
    Arizona noted that many issues can be addressed in court that could
    not be addressed in an administrative hearing. For example, at an
    establishment hearing, she will notice if a father is not working
    and can send him to a program under court order (e.g., fatherhood
    program, job training, parenting skills). In addition, if
    non-custodial parents want to discuss visitation, she can schedule a
    hearing while the parents are still in court.

-   The court commands attention. The court can have an added impact in
    the establishment process. Specifically, many staff suggested that
    non-custodial parents take orders issued by judges more seriously
    than those issued by a state agency, even if they have the same
    weight under the law. Staff in the judicial states suggested that
    courts instill a sense of gravity. According to a Massachusetts
    staff person, "if you fail to pay, the courts will be after you,"
    adding that non-payment becomes a criminal matter. Courts also lend
    "credibility" to the process and make orders easier to enforce.
    "People take orders more seriously," said an Arizona IV-D worker.
    Similarly, another Arizona official believes that when the court
    serves parties, its name on the envelope return address induces
    non-custodial parents to respond.

-   Perceived impartiality of the courts. Judicial states questioned
    whether the same agency that establishes orders should also enforce
    them. Moreover, clients may suspect the motivation of the IV-D
    agency in administrative states. For example, because states retain
    child support collected on behalf of public assistance clients and
    receive incentives funds tied to performance, it may give the
    appearance that IV-D is trying to maximize the number of orders
    established and their amounts. Judicial states also suggested that
    IV-D may not be perceived as impartial, instead giving the
    appearance of advocating for the custodial parent in administrative
    states. On the other hand, these staff noted that judicial systems
    are perceived as even-handed and not in the "pocket" of the child
    support agency or custodial parent. According to a Massachusetts
    staff person, the court gives the child support agency "cover. The
    courts set the amount, we simply make sure it's paid." While the
    IV-D agency might not like the courts because they do not always
    decide in the agency's favor, a judicial process fosters a system of
    checks and balances.

## Quasi-judicial state: Elements of both processes

***Exhibit IV.10*** depicts the order establishment process in our
quasi-judicial state, Colorado. As the label indicates, the state shares
elements with both the administrative and judicial processes. In
Colorado, uncontested orders are established administratively. The IV-D
caseworker collects financial information, schedules a stipulation
conference, and, if there is agreement, forwards the order to the court
for filing. A magistrate (judge surrogate) does not sign the order. If
no agreement is reached during the stipulation conference, the case
ceases to be an administrative case and becomes a judicial one. Once it
is in the courts, a case can never return to the administrative process.

We noted more differences than similarities between Colorado's
establishment process for an uncontested order and the processes
described above for the administrative states (Maine and Oregon). In the
same way, Colorado features many elements of the judicial processes
described for Arizona and Massachusetts, but also some key differences.

Exhibit IV.10: Colorado Establishment Process

![](media/image10.wmf){width="9.509722222222223in" height="5.9375in"}

### The Administrative Process: Uncontested Orders

Colorado has a state-supervised, county-administered child support
program. Therefore, there are variations in the process by county. Most
counties operate their child support programs through the Department of
Social Services, but some use the District Attorney and one uses a
private contractor.

Similarities between Colorado and the administrative states are:

-   Uncontested orders are established in the IV-D agency, by IV-D
    staff, without IV-D attorney involvement.

-   Default orders are issued by the IV-D agency based on available
    information or the minimum wage. However, they must be reviewed and
    signed by a magistrate (judge surrogate).

-   Uncontested orders do not need a judge's signature.

However, there are a number of differences between Colorado's order
establishment process and those of the administrative states. One key
difference is [service of process]{.underline}.

-   While Maine and Oregon use certified mail to notify non-custodial
    parents of the state's intent to establish a child support order,
    Colorado uses a process server. And, whereas Maine's service papers
    include no order amount and Oregon's included a proposed order
    amount, Colorado's Notice of Financial Responsibility (NFR) includes
    a debt amount (i.e., the amount the non-custodial parent owes to the
    state for past public assistance paid on behalf of the custodial
    parent) but not a monthly support amount.

Another difference is the [negotiation conference]{.underline}.

-   The negotiation conference is a central part of the order
    establishment process in Colorado. It is the forum for informing the
    non-custodial parent of the order amount. The conference date is
    included in the served documents. Conferences are usually conducted
    in person. The non-custodial parent brings in financial documents,
    including the financial affidavit, pay stubs, tax returns, and
    health insurance information.[^28] The IV-D caseworker describes the
    order establishment process and calculates the order amount using
    the guidelines. It is also an opportunity for the parent to ask
    questions. If the non-custodial parent agrees to the order amount,
    he or she signs the stipulation. It is then forwarded to the court
    and filed. Stipulated orders are not reviewed by or signed by
    magistrates.

Unlike the administrative states, IV-D caseworkers in Colorado [cannot
deviate from the guidelines]{.underline}.

Finally, in Colorado, a [contested case goes directly to the
courts]{.underline}. Unlike Maine and Oregon, there is no executive
branch tribunal.

### The Judicial Process: Contested Orders

In Colorado, the process for contested orders is similar to the
processes in the judicial states in many respects. For instance:

-   The IV-D attorney takes the lead in preparing the case for court. If
    the case goes before a magistrate, the attorney presents the state's
    case.

-   The court sets the date for the hearing and notifies the parties
    involved.

-   Like Massachusetts, attorneys meet with the non-custodial parent and
    try to reach an agreement on the order amount the day of the
    hearing. If no agreement is reached, the case goes to a hearing.

-   IV-D attorneys usually do not suggest guideline deviations to
    magistrates.

-   If the case goes to a hearing, the order amount is determined at the
    time of the hearing and not a later date.

However, there are a number of key differences.

-   Stipulated orders are not reviewed or signed by a court official.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Colorado makes use of temporary orders. Thus, if the non-custodial
    parent does not agree to sign the order amount at the negotiation
    conference, the IV-D agency enters a temporary order with the court,
    which is enforced between the time of the conference and the hearing
    date.

-   Following the negotiation conference, a new "enforcement" IV-D
    caseworker takes the case over from the previous caseworker.[^29]
    This caseworker not only begins working with a IV-D attorney to
    prepare for court, but will attempt to contact the non-custodial
    parent and offer the opportunity to resolve issues and agree to an
    order amount prior to the date of the hearing. Once a hearing is
    scheduled, neither Arizona nor Massachusetts attempts to stipulate
    prior to the court date.[^30]

-   While IV-D attorneys do not suggest guideline deviations to court
    officials, they will negotiate changes in the debt (support owed to
    the state) or retroactive support (support owed to the custodial
    parent) amounts if both parties agree to the changes.

-   A magistrate (judge surrogate) hears contested cases.

### Case Record Analysis

Colorado provided 164 cases for review with each initiated during June
1998. Our analysis of the data indicate that once Colorado caseworkers
were confident they had located the non-custodial parent and moved to
establish the case, only eight days passed before the worker generated a
NFR. An additional 11 days passed before service on the non-custodial
parent was successful for the typical case. Once served, the
non-custodial parent can attend the negotiation conference on the date
set in the NFR or request a continuance. Those who did not request a
continuance typically had a negotiation conference scheduled within 36
days of the state's movement to establish the case. By contrast, for
cases with a continuance, about 41 days passed before a IV-D worker met
with the parents. For the sample of 164 cases initiated in June 1998,
Colorado records indicate that the typical order, in some cases a
temporary order, was filed with court 52 days after IV-D moved to
establish the case.

Colorado's data suggest that the state's establishment process moves
cases more quickly than the processes in the other states we visited. A
number of factors potentially underlie the differences in the timeframes
estimated for Colorado versus those estimated for the other four states.
Some of the differences relate to expedited practices, and others
probably relate to the classification of cases in the sample.

Exhibit IV.11 Colorado Establishment Time Frames

![](media/image11.wmf){width="6.497916666666667in"
height="4.442361111111111in"}

-   **Expedited practices**. First, the data suggest that caseworkers
    are quick to issue a NFR once the non-custodial parent is located,
    with the typical NFR issued within eight days of locate and service
    achieved within 19 days. Moreover, upon issuance of the NFR,
    Colorado's automated system is very rigid and requires the
    caseworker to schedule a negotiation conference about one month
    after the generation of an NFR. Caseworkers can reschedule a
    conference if parties show good cause, but the rescheduled
    conference is typically set within days of the original proposed
    date. Finally, virtually all negotiation conferences conclude with
    the filing of an order. For cases that stipulate or default, the
    order is final. For cases that request a hearing, the order is
    temporary, but nonetheless is placed in enforcement status. While
    the terms of an order may change in court if new income or expense
    information become available after the temporary order was filed,
    the effective date of the order changes only in very rare
    circumstances.

-   **Case reclassification.** Colorado's data show only a handful of
    cases that persist for long periods of time in the establishment
    process. In fact, Colorado data suggest no cases from the selected
    sample remained in the establishment process for more than a year,
    while data from each of the other states showed several cases
    persisting for a year or more. This is likely the result of Colorado
    caseworkers more routinely reclassifying a case to "locate" status
    if service on the NCP was unsuccessful after the verified postal
    verification. If caseworkers fail to reclassify the cases to locate
    status, it can give the appearance that the state's establishment
    process is slow---when, in fact, the state simply does not have a
    valid address for service.

### General Perceptions

Staff in Colorado suggested that their process strikes a balance between
administrative and judicial systems, as uncontested orders are
established in the IV-D agency and contested orders are scheduled for
court hearings. Specifically, the negotiation conference offers the
opportunity to meet with the non-custodial parent and discuss the award.
Attorneys get involved only if the parent does not agree to the order
amount.

-   Negotiation conferences provide a forum for discussing issues. The
    conference is a required part of the order establishment process.
    While it is used primarily to collect financial information and
    determine the order amount, staff note that the in-person meeting is
    also an opportunity to discuss with the non-custodial parent the
    order establishment process and describe why it is important to pay
    child support in a timely manner. Moreover, it provides the
    non-custodial parent with the chance to raise concerns he or she has
    with the process. Staff note that sometimes a parent only wants to
    feel like he or she is being heard.

-   Courts are involved when necessary. Staff note that non-custodial
    parents can easily get their "day in court." Failure to stipulate to
    the agreement sends the case directly to court; there is no
    administrative tribunal.

## Summary

Following our review of the nine states, we had more specific ideas
about how judicial, administrative, and quasi-judicial states operated.
We discerned areas where the processes were similar, and areas where the
processes were very different. The nine-state review provided a
macro-level view of each state's child support order establishment
process. The on-site interviews, however, added another dimension to the
study. Not only did we learn more about how administrative and judicial
processes share some elements and differ on others, we discovered how
states that we initially categorized as administrative or judicial also
had similarities with and differences from each other.

Administrative states share a number of initial processes. Similarities
include the method of service, the collection of income information, use
of caseworkers to calculate orders, the minimal contact with
non-custodial parents, caseworker issuance of default orders, infrequent
IV-D attorney involvement in order establishment, and minimal judicial
involvement (e.g., judges do not sign orders).

However, there are some key differences. Many differences emanate from
the structure of the state programs.

-   Maine is state-administered; Oregon is state-administered with both
    state and county offices. As such, we observed variation in terms of
    upfront discovery and use of judicial process by office.

-   Different government entities establish orders for TANF and non-TANF
    cases.

There are also a number of establishment procedures that differ between
the two states.

-   In Oregon, the first document the non-custodial parent receives
    includes a proposed order amount. Thus, the caseworkers in Oregon do
    some upfront research prior to service of process. In Maine, the
    non-custodial parent first receives a financial affidavit and has 30
    days to return it.

-   Once an order is established, the filing process differs: Oregon
    file all orders in district court. Maine does not file orders in
    court.

-   Hearings procedures also differ in some key respects. Maine houses
    its hearing officers in the Department of Human Services, the same
    agency that houses the IV-D agency. Oregon's hearing officers are
    located in the Employment Department, which is entirely separate
    from the IV-D agency. The former does not use dedicated hearing
    officers while the latter does. The non-custodial parents can
    contest an order in Maine, while either parent can do so in Oregon.
    Maine conducts in-person hearings, while Oregon conducts phone
    hearings. Caseworkers attend hearings in Maine and present the
    agency's case. They are not routinely involved in hearings in
    Oregon.

Like administrative states, the judicial states exhibit similarities.
Non-custodial parents are served in person with an order to appear in
court, IV-D staff does not calculate the orders in advance of the court
date, IV-D attorneys are actively involved in all stages of the process,
judges sign all orders, and orders are filed in the court.

However, the states are dissimilar in many ways. Again, many differences
stem from the program structure: Arizona has a mix of state- and
county-administered jurisdictions while Massachusetts is
state-administered. Individual counties in Arizona differ in terms of:

-   Use of stipulation conferences prior to the court date.

-   Use of stipulation meetings on the court date.

Conversely, Massachusetts IV-D staff do not try to stipulate prior to
the hearing date. On the day of the hearing, however, staff attempt to
stipulate as many orders as possible.

The states also exhibit differences in terms of scheduling hearings. In
Massachusetts, each of the 14 Probate and Family Courts schedule a block
of time dedicated specifically to child support-related cases. In
Arizona, hearings are more dispersed and set at county discretion.

Finally, while the quasi-judicial state, Colorado, establishes
uncontested orders administratively, the process was markedly different
from those of the administrative states. Specifically:

-   Service of process is in-person.

-   In-person meetings, in the form of a negotiation conference, are a
    key step of the process.

-   Contested cases go directly to the court.

Colorado's process for contested orders is judicial, yet, it differs
from the two judicial states in a number of ways, including:

-   Stipulated orders are not reviewed or signed by a judge.

-   Temporary orders are enforced when a non-custodial parent contests
    the order.

-   IV-D attorneys negotiate changes in debt or retroactive support.

Regarding timelines for establishing orders, direct comparisons between
states are difficult. Data was drawn from five different systems using
different codes. Generally, the administrative and judicial states show
comparable timeframes. That is, most of the cases are established within
one year, and a large cluster are established within six months. Data
from the quasi-judicial state, Colorado, indicate a quicker timeline.
The average case is established in the first two months. This could be a
function of quick work on the part of the caseworkers, very specific
time frames for holding negotiation conferences, and use of a temporary
order when agreement is not reached at a conference.

# Conclusion

## General Findings

This study reviewed and documented administrative and judicial child
support order establishment processes used across the United States.
When we began this project, we classified states in terms of this
two-dimensional system. Through our project activities---creation of a
taxonomy to further classify states along a continuum of administrative
and judicial, in-depth studies of nine states, and site visits to five
states---we modified our understanding of what it means to be
"administrative" and "judicial". The project activities revealed nuances
that render the simple administrative/judicial labels overly simplistic.
Similarly, there is a tendency to presume that either an administrative
or judicial process produces superior program outcomes. We did not
attempt to systematically address this question in this study.[^31]
However, we did explore program performance across the five measures
outlined as part of the Child Support Performance Act of 1998 (paternity
establishment, cases with orders, collections on current support, cases
paying towards arrears, and cost-effectiveness) for the nine states we
studied in-depth. We also examined the timing of award establishment for
the five states we visited. With regard to performance, we found:

-   Among the nine states we reviewed in-depth, program performance
    across the key measures varied significantly, both within type of
    process (i.e., administrative, quasi-judicial, judicial) and between
    the types of processes. However, we found no systematic pattern with
    regard to the effectiveness of any type of process.

-   Among the five states we visited, our review of administrative data
    found that four of the states (the two administrative and two
    judicial states) had comparable establishment time frames. The
    quasi-judicial state had a shorter timeframe.

We found that variation in the practices within broad clusters of
processes is more significant than previously understood. As a result,
it may be very difficult to meaningfully categorize states as
administrative or judicial and ascribe program performance to those
categories.

The project consisted of three key activities:

*Development of National Taxonomy*. Our first project activity, creation
of a system to classify states in terms of players in their order
establishment processes, revealed that the range of processes is far
richer than an administrative/judicial dichotomy. We explored the forum
where uncontested and contested child support orders are established,
who presides when an order is contested, and the extent to which
attorneys are used by the IV-D agency. We found that order establishment
processes fall along a continuum, ranging from highly judicial (court
forum, judge presides, attorneys involved) to highly administrative
(IV-D agency sets order without hearing, limited attorney involvement).

*Nine-state document review and interviews*. Our second project
activity, the review of processes in nine states, revealed further
nuances in the processes. The states were selected for review in order
to represent a variety of points on the taxonomy continuum. Through an
in-depth review of legal documents, policy documents and training
materials, we explored a number of establishment milestones, such as
notification of non-custodial parent, service of process, in-person
meetings, imputation of income, establishment of default orders, process
for contested orders, and general role of the court.

In terms of the establishment milestones, we found that "clusters" of
administrative, judicial, and quasi-judicial states shared certain
practices. For instance:

-   Service of process varied according to forum. All three of the
    judicial states and both quasi-judicial states rely primarily on
    in-person service, while the administrative states were more likely
    to use certified mail.

-   The timing of the revelation of the order amount differs by process.
    The administrative states reveal the order amount early in the
    process---two of the four states include the proposed order amount
    in the first correspondence with the non-custodial parent. The
    judicial states reveal the order amount on the court date, while the
    quasi-judicial states are mixed.

-   Deviations from state child support guidelines differed by forum,
    with caseworkers in administrative states having more discretion to
    deviate than their counterparts in judicial or quasi-judicial
    states.

-   The use of in-person meetings also differed by forum. All of the
    judicial states have some mechanism for meeting with one or both of
    the parents, while none of the administrative states did so. The
    quasi-judicial states were mixed.

-   Use of attorneys differed by forum. They were involved in all
    aspects of order establishment in the judicial states and rarely
    involved in the administrative ones. They handled court-related
    business in the quasi-judicial states.

Some establishment steps were not related to process. For example,:

-   Imputation of income was not related to forum. All states use
    databases to determine if there are wage records for the
    non-custodial parent. In the absence of financial information, seven
    of the nine states (all three judicial states, three administrative
    ones, and a quasi-judicial state) impute the minimum wage for a 40
    hour week, while one administrative state and one quasi-judicial
    state impute income at a higher level.

During the nine-state review, we also began to understand how states in
a general administrative or judicial cluster differ from each other. For
instance:

-   Not all administrative states use certified mail to serve
    non-custodial parents. One of the four relies primarily on in-person
    service.

-   Not all administrative states allow caseworkers to deviate from
    guidelines.

-   Quasi-judicial processes differ in terms of contact with
    non-custodial parents and court involvement. Colorado holds
    negotiation conferences as a matter of course, while Iowa will
    schedule a conference only if a parent contests the order. Moreover,
    contested orders in Colorado are referred to the court. In Iowa,
    parents have the option of a IV-D negotiation conference or a court
    hearing.

-   While all judicial states hold in-person meetings, the timing of the
    meetings differs. One state gives counties the option of scheduling
    a negotiation conference in advance of the court date, while the
    other two meet with parents on the date of the hearing only.

-   For contested orders, we found diversity within the administrative
    states in terms of where the tribunal is located. Hearing officers
    were housed in the IV-D agency, the IV-D umbrella department, or an
    entirely different department.

*Site visits**.*** Through our site visits, we encountered additional
nuances and discovered that the process can differ across offices within
a state and be determined by the preferences of IV-D and court staff. We
explored more in-depth how administrative, judicial, and quasi-judicial
states differed from each other as well as how states in each general
category exhibited both similarities and differences. Our general
findings include:

-   Simply knowing a state's process does not always give an observer a
    sense of how the support order establishment process will unfold
    from the client\'s perspective. For example

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The judicial forum ensures only that the process will be linked to
    the court calendar and that parties will have to interact with court
    clerks. It does not ensure that a client will see a judge or enter a
    courtroom. For instance, some orders in Arizona are stipulated in
    pre-hearing negotiation meetings between the attorney and parents
    because this is the preference of the attorney involved. Other
    attorneys in the state take all of their cases before the judge.
    Similarly, in Massachusetts, on the day of the hearing, IV-D staff
    first try to reach an agreement with the parents in an effort to
    avoid a hearing and expedite the entry of the support order.

-   Administrative processes exhibited differences in terms of parental
    contact. In Oregon, caseworkers attempt to contact parents early in
    the process and if appropriate, deviate from the state guidelines.
    In Maine, the administrative process is more formulaic. Caseworker
    deviations are possible but rare. One staff person noted that he
    would prefer to let the hearing officer handle a situation where the
    non-custodial parent disputed the order amount.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Judicial processes incorporate administrative practices. Key
    practices include:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Caseworkers do a considerable amount of case research prior to the
    court date. In Arizona, caseworkers check databases to learn about
    non-custodial parent earnings and presence of other child support
    orders. Massachusetts IV-D staff gather income information from
    databases and financial statements sent to the non-custodial parent.

-   Attorneys try to stipulate orders. On the day of the hearing, an
    attorney meets with the parents, collects any outstanding financial
    statements, and determines the order amount. The parents can agree
    to the order on the spot. Only contested cases go before the judge.
    Thus, the process is somewhat similar to an administrative process
    in that IV-D staff (an attorney) calculates the order and the
    parents sign off. The forum (courthouse) and timing of the hearing
    is different, though. We found a similar process in Maricopa County,
    Arizona. After the IV-D agency serves the non-custodial parent, the
    Attorney General's office checks quarterly wage records and other
    databases to determine employment and wage history. On the day of
    the hearing, the attorney meets with the parents and attempts to
    work out an order. Only the contested cases go before a judge.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Caseworkers in administrative states have considerable
    authority]{.underline}. Both administrative and judicial states
    agreed that caseworkers in administrative states have more
    responsibility. In Maine and Oregon, caseworkers draft the proposed
    order. They collect financial information and have the authority to
    deviate from the guidelines. In Oregon, there are 16 categories of
    allowable deviations. Caseworkers can talk with non-custodial
    parents and make appropriate adjustments, so long as there is
    agreement from the other parent. Caseworkers in Maine also have the
    authority to deviate from the guidelines if they can show that the
    guidelines would result in an order that is not equitable or just.
    Staff also have a role in contested cases. Caseworkers in Maine
    represent the IV-D agency before the administrative hearing officer.
    In Oregon, program supervisors believe the increased authority was
    not only appropriate given staff qualifications but that it
    contributed to a higher degree of job satisfaction. The
    administrative states suggest that this produces a number of
    benefits: It frees up IV-D attorney time for tasks that require
    legal expertise, controls costs, and ensures buy-in from line
    workers who are empowered because their knowledge and skills are
    utilized.

-   [County-administered states exhibited variations in process across
    offices]{.underline}. In Arizona, Colorado, and Oregon, counties
    administered all or part of the child support program. In each
    state, processes differed somewhat by county. In Arizona, for
    example, an attorney in Maricopa County generally holds pre-trial
    negotiation conferences with clients at the courthouse. In the
    majority of cases, she negotiates a settlement and the case does not
    go before a judge. In Pima County, however, negotiation conferences
    are rare. Staff noted that they have little time on the day of the
    hearing to meet with parents and suggested that the commissioner is
    the best person to determine the order amount, not the attorney. In
    Oregon, state case managers establish and enforce support
    administratively, while the establishment processes for non-TANF
    cases by county case managers vary across the state, and in one
    case, even within the same office. In the Benton County District
    Attorney's office, for example, one caseworker uses the judicial
    process for establishing orders because she is familiar with it;
    thus, she steers her clients through the court. Her colleague across
    the hall, however, uses the administrative process. Rural counties,
    with smaller populations also rely on judicial processes in
    establishing orders for non-TANF clients while larger counties used
    the administrative process. In Colorado, we found county differences
    in terms of whether IV-D caseworkers calculate debt owed to the
    state or retroactive support. There was also variation in the level
    of custodial parent participation in the process. Some Colorado
    counties invite custodial parents to the negotiation conferences
    while others do not. In Massachusetts and Maine, staff report the
    processes do not vary much by county. The child support programs are
    state-administered. Guidance on how a case flows through the system
    comes from the central office.

-   Analysis of case flows suggests administrative and judicial states
    are meeting the expedited timeframes for support order
    establishment. For each of our site visit states, we requested data
    to illustrate the flow of cases through the establishment process.
    Our analyses of four of the five states (Arizona, Massachusetts,
    Maine, and Oregon) show roughly comparable establishment timeframes.
    These states establish the large majority of cases within one year
    with a sizable clustering of establishments within six months. Our
    simple analysis of Colorado data suggests the state processes
    establishment cases somewhat faster than its counterparts. Some of
    the difference may relate to caseworkers' quick action on the case
    subsequent to locate and very rigid timeframes for case conferences,
    which are enforced by the state's automated system. Colorado's
    estimated timeframes may also benefit from a more routine
    reclassification of cases with failed service into locate status. If
    caseworkers fail to reclassify cases (from establishment to locate
    status) in which a non-custodial parent has eluded service, it can
    give the appearance that the state's establishment process is slower
    than it actually is.

## Topics for Further Study

This project documented key differences and similarities between states
that use an administrative process to establish child support orders,
those that use a judicial-based forum, and those that use a process that
mixes the two. Through that documentation, we have a better sense of the
range of establishment practices used across the country. Areas for
further study include:

*Is there a relationship between the child support order establishment
process and measures of program effectiveness?* The 1998 Child Support
Performance and Incentive Act (CSPIA) links incentive payments to state
child support agencies based on performance in five areas: paternity
establishment, order establishment, collections on current support due,
collections on arrears, and cost-effectiveness. Another study the Lewin
Group is completing for OCSE uses the taxonomy to explore the
association between order establishment process and performance on the
CSPIA indicators. Further refinement of the taxonomy could include more
detailed information about establishment processes (e.g., county
variation, uses of negotiation conferences in court settings). This
could be used to explore whether states clustered in the administrative,
judicial, or quasi-judicial categories systematically do better on
certain performance measures. Researchers hypothesize that given their
streamlined nature, administrative states might perform better on the
order establishment and cost-effectiveness measures. On the other hand,
staff in both the judicial and administrative states suggested that
non-custodial parents might take orders issued by judges more seriously
than those issued by a state agency, even if they have the same weight
under the law. If this were the case, judicial states might perform
better on the collections-related measures.

*Are higher default order rates related to forum or other features of
the establishment process?* An in-depth review of prevalence and
performance of default orders was beyond the scope of the project.
However, we did address the general default order policy with staff as
part of our nine-state review and site visits. Child support staff noted
that default orders were common (typically in the range of 20 to 35
percent) though they could not pinpoint an exact figure. They also
expressed concern about the ability of non-custodial parents to pay
orders established through default. An interesting future study would
focus on whether default orders are more common in certain types of
child support establishment processes. For example, are administrative
or judicial states more likely to issue default orders? A related
question is how default orders are related to other steps in the
establishment process. For instance, are defaults more or less common in
states that use in-person service as opposed to certified mail service?
Are defaults less common in states that attempt to have in-person
contact with the non-custodial parent, either through a negotiation
conference, upfront discovery, or an in-person meeting at the court?

*Does a state's imputation method contribute to its default order rate?*
In the absence of reliable information about the non-custodial parent's
earnings, states use a variety of methods to attribute income. The most
common method in our nine-state study was imputing the minimum wage for
a 40-hour week. Other states used the state average wage for all workers
or the average wage for parents in the IV-D system. Arguments exist in
support and in opposition to each method. For example, states using the
minimum wage run a risk of underestimating the non-responsive parent's
true wage and setting an inappropriately low order. In such states, a
non-responsive parent may intentionally accept an imputed order based on
minimum wage---knowing that by providing full financial information, his
or her order would increase. By contrast, using the average annual wage
might overestimate the order amount for non-responsive parents, making
it difficult for the parent to pay. On the other hand, a high, imputed
order may get the parent's attention during the establishment phase and
make them more likely to come forward with his or her actual financial
information. A future study could explore the relation between
imputation method and non-custodial parent involvement in the
establishment process. For instance, are non-custodial parents less
likely to come forward with financial information if they know the order
amount will be based on the minimum wage? What is the relationship
between imputation method and default orders? That is, are non-custodial
parents more likely, or less likely, to be involved in the process if
they know that the minimum wage will be imputed?

*Do states with in-person meetings have better compliance with child
support order payments?* States that hold in-person conferences note
that it offers the opportunity to educate the non-custodial parent about
the child support process and obtain buy-in. If a parent understands why
timely child support is important, staff suggest they will be more
likely to pay support. Colorado's child support establishment process,
for example, includes a negotiation conference during which caseworkers
explain the paternity and order establishment processes and provide
written materials on fatherhood issues and the importance of child
support. State-level officials strongly believe the time investment
upfront with the non-custodial parent ultimately pays off through more
stable support payments and lower arrears. Arizona, however, had a
different experience with negotiation conferences. Counties have
discretion as to whether to schedule them. Some IV-D offices have
recently abandoned their attempts to hold negotiation conferences with
parents because of high "no show" rates. Staff felt it was not
cost-effective. Unlike Colorado, however, the negotiation conference was
never a required step in the child support establishment process. It is
possible that the failure to schedule conferences was a reflection of
the voluntary nature of the meetings.

Some states suggested that requiring meetings is unnecessary because a
large proportion of non-custodial parents comply with the process, and
efforts to meet with them adds an expensive step to the process. Maine,
for example, abandoned its practice of scheduling all cases for hearings
within the department. The IV-D agency found that in the majority of
cases the non-custodial parent agreed with the proposed order or did not
participate in the process at all. Now hearings are held only at the
request of a non-custodial parent.

*Would county- or office-level experiments reveal information about
effective practices independent of forum?* Our site visits revealed a
great deal of intrastate variation in states that have
county-administered child support programs. Future research could
leverage intra-state variation to learn about effective elements of
order establishment processes. For instance, a state could test in one
county whether an in-person meeting at the IV-D office resulted in a
faster establishment process or better payments on orders in relation to
a county that does not add this element. States could explore whether
sending a 'welcome letter"---one that explains in clear and
easy-to-understand language what the IV-D agency will do to establish an
order---in advance of formal service is associated with better responses
on the part of the non-custodial parent. Similarly, states could include
implement in one office or county the practice of including contact
information for the caseworker or attorney in charge of the case on all
documents sent to the non-custodial parent in the event that questions
arise.

*Does the timing of the revelation of order amounts affect contests?*
The states we visited differed in terms of when to reveal the order
amount. The administrative states tended to reveal the amount early in
the process, and staff suggested this gave parents time to "mull over"
the award amount and whether to contest it. In Colorado, staff reveal
the amount at the negotiation conference. In all three states, staff
thought it was possible that the time that elapses between revealing the
order amount and the hearing date for the contested order provided a
"cooling off" period, giving non-custodial parents time to think about
the order. The judicial states tend to reveal the amount at the court on
the day of the hearing. If a parent is going to contest the order
amount, he or she needs to do so on that day. Future research could
explore whether states that reveal the order amount on the day of the
hearing have a higher level of contested orders than those states that
reveal the amount earlier in the process.

*Do links to the courts in administrative states improve parental
responses to the order establishment process?* Officials in
administrative states suggested that non-custodial parents take notices
from a court more seriously than those from executive branch agencies.
In Maine, for example, several interviewees noted that parents do not
believe the Department of Human Services has the authority to enforce
child support until after the agency establishes support and begins
withholding wages. Some non-judicial states have links to the courts. In
Colorado, for example, the IV-D agency ultimately files all
administrative orders with the court, so notifications of administrative
establishments have the same form as official court documents. Colorado
officials believe that the official court format of order notifications
gets the attention of non-custodial parents and increases the "show
rate" at negotiation conferences. Future research could study whether
administrative states that link their processes to the court filing and
documentation process experience better non-custodial parent
participation (e.g., fewer default orders).

*Can the clarity of notices and orders improve compliance with the
establishment process?* Interviewees were nearly unanimous in their
views that the clarity of their orders could be improved. Virtually,
everyone from frontline staff to judges agreed that the majority of
non-custodial parents simply do not understand what is happening to them
in the establishment process. Most states convene "form committees" that
critique the readability of child support forms and make recommendations
for improvements. In addition, some states have explored simple,
brightly colored cover pages to their notices that highlight the key
issue of concern and consequences of non-compliance. Research should
identify best practices in the area and determine whether the clarity of
notifications and orders can improve program performance.

[^1]: Another study by the Lewin Group is exploring whether a state's
    economic, demographic, and programmatic factors are associated with
    its performance on five indicators (paternity establishment, cases
    with orders, collections on current support, cases paying towards
    arrears, and cost-effectiveness). One variable, based on the
    taxonomy, seeks to determine whether a state's order establishment
    process affects any of the performance measures.

[^2]: The expedited processes can be waived if a judicial system can
    process cases quickly.

[^3]: Office of Child Support Enforcement, 19^th^ Annual Report. Chapter
    3. Available online:
    http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/rpt/ch3a.htm

[^4]: Under the law that existed up to 1998, the federal government
    based a state's incentives payment on a percentage of their TANF and
    non-TANF collections. The incentive payments were determined by
    measurement of the state program's cost-effectiveness---defined as
    the state's total collections divided by its total administrative
    costs.

[^5]: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means (1998).
    *The Green Book*. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

[^6]: National Child Support Enforcement Association (1999). *Interstate
    Roster and Referral Guide*. Washington, D.C.: NCSEA.

[^7]: 1997 unpublished document.

[^8]: Canada Department of Justice (2000). *Expedited Child Support: An
    Overview of the Commonwealth Countries' and United States'
    Procedures for Establishing and Modifying Child Support.* On-line:
    http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/cspo/expedited2.html

[^9]: Williams, V. (1993). *A Comparative Analysis of Minnesota's
    Administrative Process*. Denver: Policy Studies, Inc.

[^10]: About half had some type of change to their state score.

[^11]: States can calculate the paternity establishment percentage in
    one of two ways: (1) The number of children in the IV-D caseload in
    the FY (or at state option the end of the FY) who were born out of
    wedlock with paternity established, divided by the number of
    children in the IV-D caseload as of the end of the preceding FY who
    were born out of wedlock or (2) The total number of minor children
    who have been born out of wedlock and paternity has been established
    or acknowledged during the FY, divided by the total number of
    children born out of wedlock during the preceding FY.

[^12]: Percentage of the number of IV-D cases with orders for support
    divided by the number of IV-D cases.

[^13]: Dollars collected for current support in IV-D cases divided by
    dollars owed for current support in IV-D cases.

[^14]: Number of IV-D cases with at least one payment toward arrears
    divided by number of IV-D cases with arrears due.

[^15]: IV-D dollars collected divided by IV-D dollars expended (federal
    and state shares).

[^16]: See Tapogna, John; Karen Gardiner; **Error! Bookmark not
    defined.**; Michael Fishman, and Plamen Nikolov. Forthcoming 2002.
    *Study of State Demographic and Economic Variables and their Impact
    on the Performance-Based Child Support Incentive System.* US
    Department of Health and Human Service. Office of Child Support
    Enforcement. Washington, DC.

[^17]: Postal verification is part of the locate process in
    Massachusetts.

[^18]: States with income shares guidelines also need financial
    information for the custodial parents. This is generally available
    through the IV-A databases if the parent is on TANF or the
    application for services if the parent is not on public assistance.

[^19]: In some instances, wage data cannot be more than one year old.
    The states that use past wage data are Arizona, Colorado, Iowa,
    Massachusetts, Montana, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia.

[^20]: In 2000, this figure was \$26,520.

[^21]: In 2001, this was \$1,312 per month for non-custodial parents and
    \$678 per month for custodial parents.

[^22]: States must use guidelines unless it can be shown that they are
    inappropriate in a particular case.

[^23]: The problem facing Arizona child support officials is the low
    attendance rate at the conferences. In Maricopa County, only 6
    percent of orders overall are stipulated because most parents do not
    attend the conference.

[^24]: The exception is Colorado, which uses a slightly differ judicial
    review method for default orders, and therefore, tracks defaults
    separately. Colorado staff report that default rates have fallen
    from about 40 percent to about 30 percent over the past five years.

[^25]: In Massachusetts, non-attorneys also hold pre-hearing
    conferences.

[^26]: If the custodial parent is on public assistance, the minimum wage
    is imputed. If the custodial parent is not on public assistance, she
    or he provides financial information in the application for
    services.

[^27]: Slots are not limited to order establishment cases. Many hearings
    relate to enforcement issues.

[^28]: In some counties, the custodial parent also is invited to the
    conference.

[^29]: In smaller counties, the same caseworker may remain on the case.

[^30]: While some Arizona counties schedule stipulation conferences,
    they are held prior to service of process. Once the case is in the
    domain of the courts, caseworkers do not try to reach an agreement
    with the parents.

[^31]: Another study by the Lewin Group is exploring whether a state's
    economic, demographic, and programmatic factors are associated with
    its performance on five indicators (paternity establishment, cases
    with orders, collections on current support, cases paying towards
    arrears, and cost-effectiveness). One variable, based on the
    taxonomy, seeks to determine whether a state's order establishment
    process affects any of the performance measures.