**[TABLE OF CONTENTS]{.underline}**

A. BACKGROUND [1](#background)B. OBJECTIVES [2](#objectives)

C. GENERAL [2](#general)

C.1. \"Project\" Defined [2](#project-defined)

C.2. Advance Planning Documents [2](#advance-planning-documents)

D. APD Submission Requirements [3](#apd-submission-requirements)

D.1. Where to Send APD, RFPs and Contracts
[4](#where-to-send-apd-rfps-and-contracts)

D.2. Annual APD Update [4](#annual-apd-update)

D.3. As-Needed APD Updates [5](#asneeded-apd-updates)

D.4. Cost/Benefit Analysis [6](#costbenefit-analysis)

D.5. Decision to Continue Existing APD or Begin a New One
[6](#decision-to-continue-existing-apd-or-begin-a-new-one)

D.6. When Is Prior Approval Needed? [6](#when-is-prior-approval-needed)

E. INCREASED MONITORING [7](#increased-monitoring)

E.1. Quality Assurance Contracts [7](#quality-assurance-contracts)

E.2. Independent Validation and Verification
[7](#independent-validation-and-verification)

E.3. Quality Assurance Versus Independent Validation and Verification
[8](#quality-assurance-versus-independent-validation-and-verification)

E.4. When IV&V Services Are Required
[8](#when-ivv-services-are-required)

E.5. Requirements for an IV&V Assessment
[9](#requirements-for-an-ivv-assessment)

E.6. Prior Approval Requirements for IV&V Procurement Documents
[10](#prior-approval-requirements-for-ivv-procurement-documents)

E.7. IV&V Assessment Reports [10](#ivv-assessment-reports)

E.8. Quarterly Status Reports [10](#quarterly-status-reports)

F. CHANGES TO APD REQUIREMENTS UNDER PRWORA
[11](#changes-to-apd-requirements-under-prwora)

F.1. APD Disapproval versus Disapproval of FFP
[11](#apd-disapproval-versus-disapproval-of-ffp)

F.2. Identify Critical Milestones [11](#identify-critical-milestones)

F.3. Address Project Management and Available Resources
[12](#address-project-management-and-available-resources)

F.4. Address Y2K Compliance [12](#address-y2k-compliance)

F.5. Address Quality Assurance [13](#address-quality-assurance)

F.6. Provide More Detailed Project Schedule
[13](#provide-more-detailed-project-schedule)

F.7. Provide More Detailed Project Budget
[14](#provide-more-detailed-project-budget)

F.8. Federal Financial Participation
[14](#federal-financial-participation)

F.9. 90% FFP Rate [18](#ffp-rate)

F.10. 80% FFP Rate [18](#ffp-rate-1)

F.11. 66% FFP Rate [20](#ffp-rate-2)

# BACKGROUND

Federal financial participation (FFP) for statewide automated child
support enforcement systems (CSESs) is among the highest for all
programs. Beginning in 1981, enhanced FFP at the 90% rate was made
available to State Child Support Enforcement agencies for the costs
associated with the development, implementation, and, on an limited
basis, operation of statewide, automated CSES. This level of FFP was
limited to those costs which were detailed in an approved Advance
Planning Document (APD).

The Family Support Act of 1988 (FSA of 1988; Pub. L. 100-485) mandated
that by October 1, 1995 all States must have a CSES which has been
certified as meeting all Title IV‑D requirements, including the
requirements of the FSA of 1988. The statute also provided that the
authority for approving 90% FFP would expire on September 30, 1995.
Subsequently, Public Law 104‑35 extended the deadline for implementing a
certified CSES until October 1, 1997. It did not, however, extend the
availability of enhanced (90%) FFP.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 (PRWORA; Public Law 104‑193) was enacted on August 21, 1996. This
legislation required States to build on existing automation efforts to
implement programmatic enhancements for strengthening child support
enforcement. It also mandated that States have an automated statewide
CSES which meets all the requirements of both the FSA of 1988 and PRWORA
by October 1, 2000. Under PRWORA, the APD process continues to be the
sole vehicle for the request and approval of FFP for system development.

> PRWORA reinstated 90% enhanced FFP, with limits, through September 30,
> 1997 in order to enable States to complete the development and
> implementation of statewide CSESs that meet FSA of 1988 requirements.
> This restoration of 90% FFP applied only to those costs that were
> included in an approved APD submitted on or before October 1, 1995.
> Additional guidance on this limited restoration of 90% FFP was
> provided in the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Action
> Transmittal (AT) 96‑10.
>
> In addition, a limited amount of 80% enhanced FFP was provided to
> assist States in meeting the automation requirements of PRWORA and the
> FSA of 1988. The amount of enhanced 80% funding available to each
> State is capped, with the Federal total not to exceed \$400 million.
> This \$400 million has been allocated on a State‑by‑State basis in
> accordance with statute. You may refer to OCSE AT 98‑25 for additional
> information.

On August 21, 1998, OCSE published regulations implementing the child
support enforcement automation provisions of PRWORA (refer to OCSE AT
98‑26). These regulations strengthen OCSE management and oversight of
CSES development projects, and reflect States' experience in
implementing the systems requirements of the FSA of 1988. One of the
most important lessons learned in that process was that States with
insufficient staffing resources were at the highest risk of failure.
Therefore, under these new regulations, OCSE will intensify its review
of States' APD submissions to ensure that States have applied adequate
resources to the project. In addition, approvals of funding by OCSE will
be more closely related to the completion of critical milestones.
States' failure to meet critical milestones, or to report promptly and
fully on their progress toward meeting those milestones, may result in
full or partial suspension of the APD and associated funding.

# OBJECTIVES

The *State Systems APD Guide* (September 1996) was developed by the
Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Administration for
Children and Families (ACF) in cooperation with the Health Care Finance
Administration (HCFA) to help States prepare APDs and other related
procurement documents for information systems supporting the operation
of ACF programs. The *APD Guide* offers information on obtaining
approval and funding for these information systems through the APD
process, and documents the standards that State submissions must meet
prior to approval. It was designed to be used by State personnel and
their consultants and contractors working on systems subject to HHS'
review, approval and certification, as well as by HHS staff as a
standard for review.

> The objective of this *Addendum* to the *APD Guide* is to provide
> guidance on the regulations implementing the child support enforcement
> automation provisions of PRWORA. Those new regulations are at 45 CFR
> Parts 302, 304 and 307. The final rule was published in the Federal
> Register on August 21, 1998 and disseminated to States through OCSE AT
> 98‑26 on August 21, 1998.

# GENERAL

## **\"Project\" Defined**

According to 45 CFR 95.605 Definitions, a \"project\" means \"an
automated systems effort undertaken by the State to improve the
administration and/or operation of one or more of its public assistance
programs. A project may also be a less comprehensive activity such as,
office automation, enhancements to an existing system or an upgrade of
computer hardware.\"

## **Advance Planning Documents**

States seeking Federal funding for an information systems development
and implementation project must submit an Advance Planning Document
(APD) for approval by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
if the project funding exceeds the regulatory thresholds specified at 45
CFR 95.611. Federal regulations at 45 CFR 307.10(a) specify that a CSES
must be planned, designed, developed, installed or enhanced in
accordance with an initial and annually updated APD approved under 45
CFR 307.15.

Once a project has been funded at the enhanced FFP rate, it remains an
enhanced project and is subject to the enhanced rate thresholds,
regardless of the FFP rate that is being requested for a contract,
contract amendment or task order.

An APD provides the Federal government with information necessary to
determine funding levels as well as monitor the progress of a project.
It includes a statement of needs and objectives, a requirements
analysis, a proposed schedule and budget, as well as other information
as described in 45 CFR 95.605 and 45 CFR 307.15. The APD remains the
sole vehicle for approval of a project or for approval of FFP for that
project. The APD must be complete and submitted according to
requirements.

There are two major types of APD submissions:

[Planning APD,]{.underline} which is used by States seeking
reimbursement for the costs of planning for the implementation of a
system; and

[Implementation APD,]{.underline} which is used by States seeking
reimbursement for the costs of designing, developing and implementing a
system.

In addition, there are two types of APD Updates (APDUs), which are used
to keep HHS informed of the project status, and to obtain continued
funding throughout the life of the project:

[Annual APDUs]{.underline}, which are used for providing the official
project status reports and requesting continued project funding; and

[As‑Needed APDUs]{.underline}, which are used if significant changes
occur in the project approach, procurement, methodology, schedule or
costs.

# APD Submission Requirements

Any State CSES established and operated under the Title IV‑D State plan
must be planned, designed, developed, installed or enhanced in
accordance with an initial and annually updated APD.

## **Where to Send APD, RFPs and Contracts**

Although the APD, Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and contracts related to
CSESs are approved by OCSE, States must continue to submit ADP\'s, APDUs
and procurement documents to:

Mr. Mark Ragan, Director

Office of State Systems

Administration for Children and Families

Attention: Joseph Costa, Mailstop OSS/SSPS

370 L\'Enfant Promenade, SW-

Washington, D.C. 20447

If you do not receive an acknowledgment from ACF within two weeks of
submission, we strongly recommend you contact OCSE as a follow up
measure.

## **Annual APD Update**

Annual APDUs are used to provide project status updates, to request
additional funding and to report post-implementation costs and benefits.
States are required to 60 days prepare and submit an Annual ADPU to
HHS/ACF before the one year anniversary of the last APD approval, (see
Chapter IV: \"APD Updates\" in this *Guide)*. This requirement applies
to all projects, regardless of the FFP rate. Annual APDUs must be
submitted until OCSE has determined that the system reached or passed a
break-even point. Failure to submit an Annual APDU in a timely fashion
may lead to the suspension of system development funding under Federal
regulation because the State is no longer in substantial compliance with
its approved APD, or it may lead to the need for an Independent
Validation and Verification (IV&V) assessment as described in this
Addendum under \"Independent Validation and Verification.\" In such
cases, OCSE may require an IV&V assessment as a condition of its
approval of the State\'s APDU and associated procurement documents and
funding.

An Annual APDU must include the following:

-   Reference to the approved APD and all approved changes as a baseline
    against which additional changes are proposed

-   Project activity status report on major tasks and milestones

-   A report of all tasks completed and degree of completion of
    unfinished tasks

-   A project activity schedule with new estimated completion dates for
    unfinished tasks for the remainder of the project

-   A project expenditures status detailing costs incurred and
    explaining the difference between projected expenses in an approved
    APD and actual expenditures

-   A report of any approved or anticipated changes to allocation basis
    in APD's approved cost methodology

-   An updated cost/benefit analysis report comparing estimated
    cost-savings to actual cost-benefits to date

An APD is a \"living\" document. In submitting an Annual APDU, States
need to follow the format of the APD being amended, and include only
those pages that have changed. Revised pages should be marked with the
date of revision and numbered for insertion into the original document.
Annual APDUs must include supporting documentation to justify the need
for changing a previously approved project schedule or cost.

## **As‑Needed APD Updates**

Federal regulations found in 45 CFR Part 307 require that OCSE take
action whenever a State ceases to substantially comply with its APD.
This might mean suspending system development funding, or requiring the
State to conduct an IV&V assessment. To avoid these consequences, States
may submit an As‑Needed APDU with a revised schedule and budget whenever
a significant milestone is missed or whenever changes to the project
schedule or costs exceed regulatory thresholds as described in EXHIBIT
IV‑2 \[As‑Needed APD Updates: Written Approval Requirements\] of this
*Guide* or in 45 CFR 95.605 (b).

In submitting an As‑Needed APDU, States should follow the format of the
APD being amended, and include only those pages that have changed.
Revised pages should be marked with the date of revision and numbered
for insertion into the original document. As‑Needed APDUs must include
supporting documentation to justify the need for changing a previously
approved project schedule or cost.

## **Cost/Benefit Analysis**

Federal regulations at 45 CFR 95.605 require that each State submit an
annual report comparing the [estimated]{.underline} cost benefits in its
approved APD to [actual]{.underline} cost benefits to date. Therefore,
States must measure system costs and benefits throughout the system
development effort, and begin reporting actual system costs and benefits
as soon as any part of the system becomes operational (i.e., enters the
pilot phase). This Cost/Benefit Analysis must be submitted as a part of
the State's Annual APDU. The requirement to submit an annual
Cost/Benefit Analysis continues until HHS/ACF determines that projected
benefits or cost savings have been achieved. This should occur within
two to five years after implementation.

## **Decision to Continue Existing APD or Begin a New One**

Each State needs to assess the feasibility of enhancing their existing
system to meet the statutory and regulatory requirements of PRWORA. Any
State which determines that its existing system cannot be modified to
meet the new PRWORA requirements must transfer or develop a new system.
States concluding that it would be better to replace their existing
system must conduct an IV&V assessment in order to justify that decision
to the satisfaction of OCSE.

> OCSE AT 96‑10 offers two options for States planning to meet PRWORA
> requirements by enhancing their existing CSES:

1.  The State may treat the addition of the new PRWORA enhancements as a
    > continuation of the existing CSES project and include them in an
    > update to its FSA of 1988 APD; or

2.  The State can submit an Implementation APD to address the PRWORA
    > enhancements.

> States that choose to include the PRWORA requirements in their
> existing APD should incorporate the costs and benefits associated with
> the PRWORA enhancements in their existing Cost/Benefit Analysis.
> However, States that choose to address the PRWORA enhancements in a
> new Implementation APD must develop a separate and distinct
> Cost/Benefit Analysis for the PRWORA enhancements.

States that are planning to transfer or develop a new CSES to meet
PRWORA requirements must submit a separate Planning APD, an analysis of
alternatives, an Implementation APD and Cost/Benefit Analysis, which
address both FSA of 1988 and PRWORA requirements.

## **When Is Prior Approval Needed?**

The prior approval thresholds used in FSA of 1988 projects have not
changed. They are detailed in EXHIBIT IV‑2 \[As‑Needed APD Updates:
Written Approval Requirements\] of this Guide and 45 CFR 95.611.

States which elect to use consultants or task order contracts to
complete the PRWORA enhancements are reminded that, regardless of the
FFP level, any task orders which exceed the \$100,000 threshold must
receive prior approval.

> NOTE: \"Task order\" is just one of several terms used to describe a
> service for which the State is obligated to pay. Other equivalent
> terms include \"statements of work\", \"contract amendments\",
> \"project change requests\", etc.

Once a project has been funded at the enhanced FFP rate, it remains an
enhanced project and is subject to the enhanced rate thresholds,
regardless of the FFP rate that is being requested for a contract or
task order.

# INCREASED MONITORING

OCSE will be monitoring State CSES development efforts more closely
under PRWORA. This means that OCSE will be providing more on‑site
technical assistance, taking steps to ensure that States have adequate
quality assurance (QA) assistance, and requiring States to provide
additional information in their APD submissions. In some circumstances,
OCSE will require States to acquire IV&V services.

## **Quality Assurance Contracts**

OCSE will not approve an APD unless there is evidence of adequate QA
assistance. Many States already retain QA assistance. However, States
with a history of troubled systems development efforts will have to
demonstrate that sufficient resources are available to the project, and
that those resources are integrated into the project\'s management.
Please refer to OCSE‑AT‑98‑26 for information on quality assurance.

## **Independent Validation and Verification** 

The purpose of an IV&V assessment is to provide an independent appraisal
of a system development project. Obtaining IV&V services to review a
troubled system is a good business practice and has been used by a
number of States as they have encountered the types of problems
referenced in the new regulation at 45 CFR 307.15(b)(10)(i). Properly
conducted, IV&V should not impede the State's timely completion of
automation requirements nor should it undermine or duplicate State
efforts.

A State's IV&V assessment is not intended to replace Federal monitoring.
It is simply a mechanism which a State, and the Federal government by
extension, can use to obtain an objective analysis and recommendations
on how to deal with serious system development issues. OCSE has obtained
its own IV&V contractor that will be assisting the Federal government in
its oversight and monitoring role. However, it should be noted that the
responsibility, authority and accountability for successful completion
of CSES projects remain with the designated State child support agency.

When it is determined that an IV&V assessment is appropriate, OCSE will
work with the State to determine the type and scope of IV&V services
required. Funding for IV&V services is available to States at the
regular (66%) FFP rate.

## **Quality Assurance Versus Independent Validation and Verification** 

Note: Quality Assurance, in a generic sense, includes any function that
improves or ensures the quality of the product or the product\'s
development process. For purposes of this discussion, QA will be used to
describe the QA vendor, those persons who work directly for State CSES
projects.

It is possible and desirable to have internal (QA) and external (IV&V)
organizations perform validation and verification functions because of
the different perspectives they bring to a project. QA providers differ
from IV&V providers in that they work with and under the direction of
State CSE project staff, while IV&V providers are not directly
affiliated with the CSE project and can provide an independent
assessment of the project.

Validation (ensuring the right product is built) and verification
(ensuring the product is built correctly) are functions or activities
that are performed by both the internal and external organizations
providing oversight on the project. Validation and verification
functions are usually performed on plans, products and other
deliverables, so it is easy for an external organization or
organizations to perform these functions. Other functions, such as peer
review, metrics collection, process fidelity monitoring, process
improvement and configuration management, are usually more easily
performed by an internal QA organization.

## **When IV&V Services Are Required**

Under PRWORA, States are required to conduct an IV&V assessment of their
CSES project when one or more of the following \"triggers\" occur:

1.  The State does not have an operational statewide automated CSES that
    meets all Title IV‑D requirements including the requirements of the
    FSA of 1988.

2.  The State fails to meet a critical milestone, as identified in its
    APD.

3.  The State fails to submit timely and complete APDs.

4.  The State's APD indicates the need for a total system redesign.

5.  OCSE has granted a waiver for the State's CSES configuration.

6.  OCSE determines that the State's CSES development efforts are at
    risk of failure, significant delay, or significant cost overrun.

7.  The CSES is not Year 2000 (Y2K) compliant and the State does not
    have an existing assessment and monitoring mechanism in place.

It should be noted that conducting an IV&V assessment can be to a
State's advantage. It can enable a State to identify and address the
problems before the situation reaches the point where suspension of the
State\'s APD and associated Federal funding approval is necessary.

## **Requirements for an IV&V Assessment** 

To meet Federal requirements, an IV&V assessment must be conducted by an
entity that is independent of the child support agency or any other
entity responsible for the CSES project, (i.e., a contractor or
independent State agency).

For States requiring an IV&V assessment, OCSE will conduct a "Scope of
IV&V Assessment" review to provide guidance on the level of IV&V support
required and to provide initial findings of specific areas which must be
addressed during the IV&V assessment. The "Scope of IV&V Assessment"
review will address all areas of the system development at a preliminary
level. These areas will include project management, training, process
definition, quality assurance, configuration management, requirements
definition and management, system security, and system capacity. Each of
these areas of development will be further examined, as applicable, with
respect to systems engineering, operating environment, database
management, development environment, software architecture, code, and
testing.

The IV&V provider must:

1.  Develop a project work plan that must be submitted directly to
    ACF/OCSE at the same time it is given to the State.

2.  Review and make recommendations on the management of the project,
    both State and Vendor, and the technical aspects of the CSES
    project. The results of this assessment must be provided directly to
    OCSE at the same time they are given to the State.

3.  Consult with all stakeholders and assess user involvement and buy‑in
    regarding system functionality and the system\'s ability to meet
    program needs.

4.  Conduct an analysis of past project performance (schedule, budget)
    sufficient to identify and make recommendations for improvement.

5.  Provide risk management assessment and capacity planning services.

6.  Develop performance measures that allow tracking of project
    completion against milestones set by the State.

7.  Address any additional issues raised during the ACF \"Scope of IV&V
    Assessment.\"

## **Prior Approval Requirements for IV&V Procurement Documents** 

Both the RFP for selecting an IV&V provider and the resultant IV&V
contract must be submitted to OCSE for prior approval. These documents
must address the experience and skills required and proposed, and the
contract must specify the names of key personnel who actually will work
on the project. OCSE recognizes that many States have already retained
IV&V services, and OCSE will review those arrangements to determine if
they sufficiently meet the criteria specified above. If the IV&V
services are deemed inadequate, OCSE may require the State to enhance
its IV&V efforts.

## **IV&V Assessment Reports**

Federal regulations at 45 CFR 307.15(b)(10)(ii) require that all reports
prepared by a State\'s IV&V provider must be submitted directly to OCSE
at the same time they are submitted to the State\'s project management.
Delaying the reports in order to edit them before submittal to OCSE
defeats the purpose (i.e., early identification of problems). In
addition, the fact that these reports must be submitted to OCSE and the
State simultaneously should have no impact on CSES development progress,
since funding approval is not tied to these reports. OCSE intends to
give the State the opportunity to correct all errors or misconceptions
before acting upon any report submitted directly by a State IV&V
provider.

## **Quarterly Status Reports**

OCSE may request quarterly status reports. Quarterly status reports
provide a snapshot of where a State is in terms of their CSE project.
These reports are generally quite brief and may be used to track
completion of modules and assist ACF in determining whether funding for
the next logical module is appropriate. Although they are not required,
several States have elected to submit quarterly status reports to OCSE
in order to facilitate communication on the progress of their CSES
development projects. States are encouraged to communicate with OCSE
frequently, especially during critical system development phases. A
suggested sample of a quarterly status report is available by contacting
OCSE, Division of State Systems. Please note that quarterly status
reports cannot be used as a substitute for an APDU.

# CHANGES TO APD REQUIREMENTS UNDER PRWORA

## **APD Disapproval versus Disapproval of FFP**

When OCSE disapproves an APD, the CSES Implementation project is
automatically suspended, and no additional funding through FFP will be
approved for that project until the State submits an acceptable APD and
the project is formally reinstated. Reasons for disapproval of an APD
include:

-   The CSES ceases to comply with the APD.

-   The State is not allocating adequate resources to the project.

-   The project has poor or inadequate project management.

-   The project has an ill‑conceived project plan.

-   The State has not obtained a required IV&V assessment.

Neither disapproval of funding through FFP, nor deferral of approval of
an APD, results in the automatic suspension of the project.

## **Identify Critical Milestones**

Under PRWORA, States must identify specific project milestones in their
APD submissions. The reason for this requirement is twofold: 1) FFP
approvals will be tied to the completion of critical milestones; and 2)
failure to meet critical milestones may result in full or partial
suspension of the APD and associated funding.

Milestones are typically set for the beginning and/or end of project
modules, significant tasks or deliverables, and are relative to the
size, complexity and cost of the effort. More complex modules or tasks,
such as the implementation of a State Directory of New Hires, might
include a number of interim milestones, while others, such as revising
the monetary threshold for tax offset might have only one milestone
associated with it. Traditional milestones tend to be based on project
life cycle methodology and at a minimum address requirements analysis,
procurement, design, acceptance testing, pilot testing, and
implementation. However, since most States are enhancing existing CSE
systems rather than starting new projects, some of the traditional
milestones may not be necessary or appropriate. Critical milestones are
defined as those milestones, which if not met, would jeopardize the
State's ability to meet program requirements within statutory
timeframes.

States must identify [all]{.underline} critical milestones in their APD
and APDUs and explicitly address the status of each milestone. This is
imperative because failure to meet critical milestones may result in the
suspension of all or part of the systems efforts and funding under the
APD until satisfactory corrective action is taken. In such cases,
funding for current efforts not affected by the suspension would still
be available, with OCSE continuing to monitor associated expenditures.
In more serious cases, however, suspension would involve cessation of
all Federal funding for the project until the State completes an OCSE
approved corrective action plan.

## **Address Project Management and Available Resources**

One of the most important lessons learned from States' experiences in
implementing the systems requirements of the FSA of 1988 was that States
assigning insufficient staffing resources were at the highest risk of
failure. For this reason, OCSE is intensifying its review of States' APD
submissions to ensure that States have allocated adequate resources to
the project. In fact, as stated in the preamble to the new child support
enforcement automation regulation, published on August 21, 1998, OCSE
will not approve any State\'s APD unless it is convinced that adequate
resources and a well conceived project management approach are available
to monitor the progress of systems development efforts, assess
deliverables, and take corrective action if necessary. Therefore, it is
essential that States address in their APD submissions their project
management approach as well as the resources available to:

1)  monitor the progress of systems development efforts;

2)  assess deliverables; and

3)  take corrective action if the project goes astray.

Anticipated RFP's, contracts and contract amendments must be addressed
in the APD as well.

## **Address Y2K Compliance**

The State's CSE system must be Y2K compliant under PRWORA systems
requirements set forth in the revised CSE Systems Certification Guide.
OCSE considers CSE systems that are not Y2K compliant, or have key
interfaces that are not Y2K compliant, to be at serious risk of systems
failure. Therefore, a State's APD or APDU must address the status of the
CSES with respect to Y2K compliance. States that are not Y2K compliant
must describe in detail their mechanisms for assessing and monitoring
Y2K compliance, their plans for achieving compliance in a timely fashion
and any contingency plans.

## **Address Quality Assurance**

In accordance with OCSE AT‑98‑26, OCSE will not approve a State\'s APD
unless the State provides evidence of QA services. States with a history
of troubled systems development efforts must rigorously demonstrate that
sufficient resources are available and integrated into the project.
States are encouraged to submit reports prepared by their QA vendor to
OCSE.

## **Provide More Detailed Project Schedule**

The Child Support Enforcement automation regulation requires that FFP
approvals be tied to specific modules, significant tasks or
deliverables. It also requires that OCSE relate these funding approvals
to the completion of critical milestones. States' failure to meet
critical milestones, or to report promptly and fully on their progress
toward meeting those milestones, may result in full or partial
suspension of the State's APD and associated FFP funding.

In order to receive Federal funding, States must include in their APD
submission a detailed estimated Project Schedule. For OCSE to relate
funding approvals to specific modules, significant tasks or
deliverables, this Project Schedule must directly correspond to the
estimated Project Budget. For example, funding may be approved for the
RFP procurement phase, but deferred for system implementation pending
contract approval. Or funding may be approved for acceptance testing,
but deferred for implementation roll out until the results of the
acceptance testing are analyzed.

The narrative part of the Project Schedule should describe each module
or significant task, and establish milestones for the beginning and/or
ending of modules or tasks within modules. Critical milestones, are
those milestones which, if not met, would seriously jeopardize the
State's ability to meet program timeframes, and must be identified in
the Project Schedule. The project status, with respect to each of these
critical milestones, must be part of the Project Schedule narrative.

To facilitate the review and approval of project funding, Project
Schedules should be broken out by quarter and detailed according to
module or significant task (e.g., development of State New Hire
Directory (SDNH), development of the SDU, Distribution Modifications,
CSENet Enhancements, development of UIFSA capability, etc.). Critical
milestones must be identified within the appropriate module or task. In
addition, depending on the complexity of the effort, it may be
appropriate to divide significant tasks into subtasks. For example, the
SCR might be subdivided into three subtasks: 1) SCR development and
implementation; 2) development and implementation of the SCR/FCR
interface; and 3) utilization of FCR match data. Larger, more complex
tasks should be further delineated by life cycle phase (e.g.,
requirements analysis, General Design Document, Detailed Design
Document, coding, testing, implementation, etc.).

A sample project schedule is provided in Exhibit 1. In this example, a
Gantt chart is used to show two primary systems being developed in
parallel, then integrated and tested. Cross-cutting tasks such as
project management and quality assurance are shown throughout the
project's life cycle. Interdependencies between tasks are shown by the
arrows connecting task bars on the Gantt chart,

## **Provide More Detailed Project Budget**

The Child Support Enforcement Automation regulation requires that OCSE
approve funding by specific module, significant task or deliverable, and
that these funding approvals be tied to the completion of critical
milestones. Failure to meet critical milestones may result in full or
partial suspension of a State's APD and associated funding. Funding will
not be approved by year unless the State has substantially met previous
obligations and its APD gives evidence of a sufficiently detailed
project plan with adequate resources assigned to each task.

In order to receive Federal funding, State APD submissions must include
a detailed estimated Project Budget, showing project costs by quarter
and FFP rate, and detailing those costs according to module or
significant task (e.g., development of State New Hire Directory,
development of the SDU, Distribution Modifications, CSENet Enhancements,
development of UIFSA capability, etc.). Within each module or task,
personnel costs should be identified as being either State staff costs
or contractor costs. In addition to detailing costs by module or task,
the Budget should include separate line items for such non-task-specific
project costs as operation of the system, system maintenance, hardware,
software, overhead and miscellaneous costs. The Project Budget must
directly correspond to the Project Schedule, to enable OCSE to relate
funding approvals to specific modules, significant tasks or
deliverables. A sample project budget is provided in Exhibit 2.

## **Federal Financial Participation** 

Under PRWORA, States must continue their efforts to develop and
implement a CSES in accordance with an approved APD. These systems must
meet the requirements initially described in the FSA of 1988 and
subsequent legislation, and reiterated and/or expanded in PRWORA.
Although Federal funding is no longer available at the 90% rate, Federal
funding at the 80% and 66% FFP rates is available for these efforts, in
accordance with 45 CFR Part 307.

![](media/image1.wmf)

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="12"><strong>Project Budget (1999)</strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th></th>
<th><strong>Quarter</strong></th>
<th><strong>Q1</strong></th>
<th><strong>Q1</strong></th>
<th><strong>Q2</strong></th>
<th><strong>Q2</strong></th>
<th><strong>Q3</strong></th>
<th><strong>Q3</strong></th>
<th><strong>Q4</strong></th>
<th><strong>Q4</strong></th>
<th><strong>1999</strong></th>
<th><strong>1999</strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th></th>
<th><strong>Funding</strong></th>
<th><strong>Regular</strong></th>
<th><strong>Enhanced</strong></th>
<th><strong>Regular</strong></th>
<th><strong>Enhanced</strong></th>
<th><strong>Regular</strong></th>
<th><strong>Enhanced</strong></th>
<th><strong>Regular</strong></th>
<th><strong>Enhanced</strong></th>
<th><strong>Regular</strong></th>
<th><strong>Enhanced</strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th></th>
<th></th>
<th></th>
<th></th>
<th></th>
<th></th>
<th></th>
<th></th>
<th></th>
<th></th>
<th></th>
<th></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Task 1</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>State Staff Costs</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$5,040.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$5,040.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>Contractor Costs</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$90,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$30,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$120,000.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>Task Total</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$95,040.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$30,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$125,040.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Task 2</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>State Staff Costs</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$3,840.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$2,880.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$6,720.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>Contractor Costs</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$112,500.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$135,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$247,500.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>Task Total</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$116,340.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$137,880.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$254,220.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Task 3</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>State Staff Costs</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$2,160.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$2,160.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>Contractor Costs</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$30,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$120,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$150,000.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>Task Total</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$30,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$122,160.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$152,160.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Task 4</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>State Staff Costs</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$45,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$45,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$90,000.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>Contractor Costs</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$90,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$90,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$180,000.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>Task Total</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$135,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$135,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$270,000.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Task 5</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>State Staff Costs</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$54,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$54,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$54,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$54,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$216,000.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>Contractor Costs</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>Task Total</td>
<td rowspan="3">$0.00</td>
<td>$54,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$54,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$54,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$54,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$216,000.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><strong>Operational Costs</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>State Staff Costs</td>
<td>$350,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$350,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$350,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$350,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$1,400,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>Contractor Costs</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>Total</td>
<td rowspan="3">$350,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$350,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$350,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$350,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$1,400,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><strong>Maintenance Costs</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>State Staff Costs</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>Contractor Costs</td>
<td>$45,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$45,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$45,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$45,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$180,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>Total</td>
<td>$45,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$45,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$45,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$45,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$180,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td rowspan="5"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><strong>Hardware Costs</strong></td>
<td>$100,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$100,000.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><strong>Software Costs</strong></td>
<td>$20,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$20,000.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><strong>Overhead Costs</strong></td>
<td>$125,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$125,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$125,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$125,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$500,000.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><strong>Miscellaneous Costs</strong></td>
<td>$40,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$40,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$40,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$40,000.00</td>
<td>$0.00</td>
<td>$160,000.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p id="section" class="heading"></p></td>
<td><strong>TOTALS</strong></td>
<td>$680,000.00</td>
<td>$265,380.00</td>
<td>$560,000.00</td>
<td>$251,880.00</td>
<td>$560,000.00</td>
<td>$311,160.00</td>
<td>$560,000.00</td>
<td>$189,000.00</td>
<td>$2,360,000.00</td>
<td>$1,017,420.00</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

## **90% FFP Rate**

PRWORA provides limited reinstatement of FFP at the 90% rate for costs
incurred by States to meet the development and implementation
requirements of the FSA of 1988. However, this 90% funding is only
available for project costs that were approved in an APD on or before
October 1, 1995, and were expended prior to October 1, 1997. OCSE AT
96‑10, dated December 23, 1996, specifies the procedure to be used by
States seeking restoration of 90% funding. Please note that
authorization for the restoration of 90% funding may be deferred if the
State does not have an approved APDU.

States need to identify costs approved at the 90% rate on their
quarterly submissions of Form OCSE‑396A, Part 1 in order to receive
reimbursement at the 90% rate. Any portion of these expenditures
previously claimed for Federal funding at the regular (66%) match rate
may be reclaimed as a prior quarter adjustment at the higher rate.
Amounts must be reported on Line 7 as either a current quarter (col. a)
or prior quarter (col**.** c) \"ADP Developmental Expenditure,\" as
appropriate. Claims of prior quarter adjustments must also be
accompanied by the usual submission of Form OCSE‑396A, Part 2. Form
OCSE‑396A was transmitted by OCSE-AT-98-28 dated September 29, 1998.

States have two years from the end of the quarter in which an
expenditure is made to file a claim for Federal funding for that cost.

## **80% FFP Rate**

Enhanced Federal funding at the 80% rate is available for systems
development and implementation costs associated with meeting remaining
FSA of 1988 requirements as well as the new PRWORA requirements.
However, the amount of enhanced 80% funding available to each State is
capped with the Federal total not to exceed \$400 million. ACF has
allocated this \$400 million on a State‑by‑State basis in accordance
with PRWORA and 45 CFR 307.31. If a State is unable to complete its
project within its allocated amount, the remaining approved expenditures
will be eligible for Federal funding at the regular 66% FFP rate. Refer
to OCSE AT 98‑25.

Since the availability of 80% FFP is limited, any decision to use these
funds to complete the system implementation requirements of the FSA of
1988 may result in a substantial portion of the expenditures incurred to
meet the system requirements of PRWORA being reimbursed at the 66 % FFP
rate.

The availability of enhanced funding at the 80% FFP rate is further
limited as follows:

The costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the CSES are
not eligible for Federal funding at the 80% rate, but remain eligible
for 66% funding. Those costs include:

-   facilities management/operational costs

-   software and hardware maintenance costs

-   hardware depreciation costs

-   replacement hardware costs

-   the cost of upgrades to operational software

Federal funding at the 80% rate is available for the costs associated
with the development and implementation of a State Disbursement Unit
(SDU) or a State Directory of New Hires (SDNH) only when the SDU or the
SDNH is an integrated part of the State CSES.

-   If the SDU or SDNH is implemented as a separate unit rather than as
    an integrated part of the State CSES, then the development and
    implementation costs (including contracts, cooperative agreements,
    service agreements, etc.) are considered to be regular (66%)
    administrative costs and should not be included in the APD or APDU.

-   Federal funding at the 80% rate is available for the costs
    associated with the development and implementation of the CSES
    interfaces required to meet FSA of 1988 and PRWORA requirements.
    These include but are not limited to the following:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   the interface between the CSES and the SDU;

-   the interface between the CSES and the SDNH;

-   the interface between the CSES and CSENet;

-   the interface between the State Case Registry (SCR) and the courts
    or other systems for the collection of information on non‑IV‑D
    cases; and

-   the interface between the CSES and the Federal Case Registry (FCR).

> It should be noted that although the costs associated with the
> development and implementation of these interfaces is eligible for
> enhanced funding, all maintenance and operations costs are eligible
> for reimbursement at the regular (66%) match rate only.

Although the new PRWORA CSES requirements must be implemented by October
1, 2000, Federal funding at the 80% FFP rate remains available through
September 30, 2001. Therefore, for these expenditures, the practice of
permitting States to establish escrow accounts for contractual holdback
payments is unnecessary and will not be available. States have two years
from the date of expenditure to claim funds for reimbursement at the 80%
rate.

To receive reimbursement for costs approved at the 80% rate, States must
include these costs on their quarterly submissions of Form OCSE‑396A,
Part 1.

States may receive reimbursement at the 80% rate for costs that are
eligible for enhanced funding but were previously approved at the 66 %
FFP rate. To do this the State must send a letter to ACF (see section
entitled \"Where to Send APD, RFPs and Contracts\") identifying the
amount of additional funding being requested and providing the
citation(s) from the State\'s APD that supports this request. States are
not required to submit either an APDU or an As‑Needed APDU for these
requests.

Any amounts that were previously claimed at the 66% rate and are now
eligible for reimbursement at the 80 % rate may be reclaimed at the 80%
rate as a prior quarter adjustment. In order to do this, States must
report those amounts on Line 5 (ADP Costs Developmental) of the Form
OCSE‑396A, Part 1 as either a current quarter claim (col. a) or prior
quarter claim (col**.** c), as appropriate. Claims of prior quarter
adjustments must also be accompanied by the usual submission of Form
OCSE‑396A, Part 2. Form OCSE‑396A was transmitted by OCSE-AT-98-28 dated
September 29, 1998.

States have two years from the end of the quarter in which an
expenditure is made to file a claim for Federal funding for that cost.

## **66% FFP Rate**

While the amount of enhanced (80%) funding is capped, there is no
limitation on the amount available at the 66% rate for systems
development efforts. FFP at the regular (66%) match rate is available
for all expenditures approved through the APD process which exceed the
State's allocated portion of 80% funding**,** or are claimed at 66%
because the State chooses to use its allocated portion of 80% funding at
a later date.

The costs associated with the automated or manual conversion of non‑IV‑D
child support case data are eligible for 66% funding through the APD
process. This includes the following activities and limitations:

the automated or manual conversion to the SCR of information on all
non‑IV‑D child support orders established or modified in a State on or
after October 1, 1998; and

the automated or manual conversion to the SDU of information on non‑IV‑D
cases with orders issued on or after January 1, 1994 in which the
non-custodial parent is subject to wage withholding. Refer to
OCSE-AT-97-13 and OCSE-PIQ-98-08.

It should be noted, however, that the costs of initial and ongoing data
collection, data clean‑up and ongoing data entry costs are considered to
be regular (66%) administrative costs, and should not be included in the
APD or APDU.

APPENDIX A

APD Addendum Acronyms

APD Advance Planning Document

APDU Advance Planning Document Update

ACF Administration for Children and Families

AT Action Transmittal

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CSENet Child Support Enforcement Network

CSES Child Support Enforcement System

FCR Federal Case Registry

FFP Federal Financial Participation

FSA Family Support Act (of 1988)

HCFA Health Care Finance Administration

HHS (Department of) Health and Human Services

IV‑D Title IV‑D of the Social Security Act (Child Support Enforcement)

IV&V Independent Validation and Verification

OCSE Office of Child Support Enforcement

PRWORA Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
(of 1996)

QA Quality Assurance

RFP Request for Proposal

SCR State Case Registry

SDNH State Directory of New Hires

SDU State Disbursement Unit (sometimes referred to as Centralized
Collections)

UIFSA Uniform Interstate Family Support Act

Y2K Year 2000