+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # MANAGING CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS                                      |
|                                                                       |
| ## *A Discussion Framework*                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

[Summary of the Administration for Children and Families]{.underline}

[Northeast Hub Follow-up Meeting on Managing Arrears]{.underline}

(Revised on 8-28-02 to reflect changes in Maryland's programs)

This Follow-up Summary reflects state/non-profit-organization arrears
management updates and recorded notes of discussions held at the
November 2001 Northeast Hub Follow-up Meeting on Managing Arrears. The
views expressed in this summary are those of the participants. This
summary is not to be considered as an official policy document of the
Department of Health and Human Services or its agencies and it does not
necessarily reflect the views of HHS or its interpretation of Federal
law. For more information, please contact Jens Feck, ACF ROII, at
Jfeck@acf.dhhs.gov.

### 

### NORTHEAST HUB FOLLOW-UP MEETING ON MANAGING ARREARS

### 

### 

### 

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

###### INTRODUCTION 3

I.  **POLICY QUESTIONS, ANSWERS & RELATED ISSUES 4**

II. **CALIFORNIA'S CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS STUDY, OTHER 7**

> **ISSUES & IDEAS**

III. **ARREARS MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY UPDATE & GOOD IDEAS 10**

IV. **NEXT STEPS 15**

**ADDENDUM A -- BEST PRACTICES UPDATE 17**

**ADDENDUM B -- PARTICIPANT LIST 39**

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### NORTHEAST HUB FOLLOW-UP MEETING ON MANAGING ARREARS

# 

# UPDATES ON POLICY, STATE ACTIVITIES, GOOD IDEAS

**&**

# NEXT STEPS

**INTRODUCTION:** Northeast Hub state IV-D Directors, IV-D managers and
their private and Federal partners convened in Philadelphia on November
8 and 9, 2001, in order to continue the *Arrears Management* discussion
that was initiated in April 2001. The focus of this follow-up meeting
was threefold: (1) resolve outstanding policy issues and identify new
issues; (2) summarize Northeast Hub *arrears management* activities
implemented since last April and identify corresponding *good ideas* and
*best practices*; and (3) identify Next Steps.

The meeting opened with remarks by David Lett, ACF Regional
Administrator, Mary Ann Higgins, ACF Northeast Hub Director, and Joanne
Krudys, ROII CSE program manager, who all stressed the continued
importance of developing appropriate and innovative arrears management
policies. The officials likewise recognized the lead Northeast Hub
states have taken with regard to this issue. The meeting continued with
presentations by David Arnaudo (Deputy Director, Planning, Research and
Evaluation Division, OCSE), who outlined the details of a recent task
order designed to benefit low-income NCPs, and Sheck Chin (Special
Assistant to the Director of the Division of Policy), who provided
responses to several outstanding policy issues. Elaine Sorensen (The
Urban Institute) followed with a presentation on California's recent
study to estimate the collectibility of outstanding arrears. The meeting
concluded with state activity, best ideas and next-step discussions,
moderated by Alisha Griffin, New Jersey IV-D Director, and Teresa
Kaiser, Maryland IV-D Director.

The meeting was conducted in conjunction with the Northeast Hub
Welfare-to-Work and Child Support Conference, jointly sponsored by the
Administration for Children and Families and the US Department of Labor.
Arrears-meeting participants therefore had the unique opportunity to
also collaborate with their state and Federal Department of Labor and
Welfare-to-Work partners, and to be informed about myriad NCP-friendly
programs that have the potential for successful integration into arrears
management policies.

The meeting outcome reflects the accomplishments Northeast Hub states
have made in re-examining, re-defining and re-inventing arrears
management policies -- a direct consequence of last April's joint
commitment to address this national issue*.* This summary captures the
Hub's successes and good ideas, organized under the previously
established *Discussion Framework's* four categories: Prevention; Order
Establishment; Early Intervention; and Accrued Arrears Management.
Virtually all of the policy initiatives and enhancements cited in this
summary seek to improve customer service, program efficiency and
collection rates. Adequate statistical and/or anecdotal information is
not yet available, however, in order to fully evaluate the majority of
these new initiatives. Participants accordingly recommend that Hub
states meet again this summer in order to complete the evaluation
processes and to further supplement the list of best ideas and
practices. In conclusion, the Northeast Hub partnership remains
committed, through this and future summary updates, to contribute to the
national dialogue around the prevention and management of arrears.

### POLICY QUESTIONS & ANSWERS AND RELATED ISSUES

Last April's meeting concluded with several outstanding policy issues
and questions. OCSE offered the following clarifications and policy
statements in response.

1\. Question: What is IV-D's minimum responsibility in representing the
requesting party in the Review and Adjustment process?

Answer:

a.  States are mandated to conduct Reviews and Adjustments.

b.  If appropriate as a result of the review, states must adjust the
    order in accordance with state guidelines for setting child support
    award amounts.

c.  There is no IV-D requirement to "represent" either party in the
    process of conducting a review and/or adjusting the order.

d.  The state's role is not to advocate either an increase or a
    reduction in the amount of the order, but rather, to facilitate
    whatever adjustment is appropriate.

e.  While we agree that indigent obligors may be entitled to
    representation under state law or court rule, Congress enacted Title
    IV-D of the Act to establish and enforce the obligations owed to
    custodial parents (CPs), not to defend obligors who failed to comply
    with such orders.

f.  Appointment of defense counsel for obligors is a state or local
    governmental responsibility beyond the scope of functions required
    by Title IV-D.

g.  FFP is not available if the state provides legal representation for
    either party in IV-D cases. (See PIQ 93-04; 45 CFR 304.23
    establishes expenditures not eligible for FFP.)

1A. November Meeting Follow-up Question: Is FFP available for legal
representation in Review and Adjustment proceedings that may be required
pursuant to UIFSA?

Answer:

> States are required to provide Review and Adjustment services upon
> request in IV-D UIFSA cases; however, there is no specific Federal
> requirement under the IV-D program to provide legal representation for
> applicants or recipients of services. States may refer them to pro-se
> processes.
>
> Additional information is provided in OCSE IM-93-03 regarding the role
> of the state IV-D agency and its personnel in performing IV-D
> functions. The IM illustrates alternatives states may wish to consider
> to address or alleviate concerns about the scope of their role, as
> well as resolving such issues as representation, conflicts of
> interest, and children's best interest when taking action to
> establish, enforce or adjust a child support order. The paragraph
> under "Review and Adjustment" encourages states to enact legislation
> or obtain an Attorney General's opinion that specifically identifies
> who the IV-D agency and its attorney represent. It may also be helpful
> for states to include an explicit statement on the IV-D application or
> referral form that provision of IV-D services does not constitute or
> create an attorney-client relationship between either party and the
> state IV-D agency or its employees or agents. Attorneys performing
> IV-D functions described above are eligible for FFP.

2.  Question: Is Credit Bureau reporting a Federally mandated
    enforcement action?

> Answer:

a.  Credit bureau reporting requirements are found in section 466(a)(7)
    of the Social Security Act (the Act).

b.  States are required to have procedures that establish periodic
    reporting of child support arrears information to Credit Reporting
    Agencies.

c.  States must report to Credit Reporting Agencies the name of any
    parent who owes overdue support and is at least two months
    delinquent, subject to three exceptions/conditions: (1) if the
    amount of arrears is less than \$1,000, reporting is optional; (2)
    prior to reporting, notice and the opportunity to contest must be
    provided to the NCP; and (3) reporting is waived if the state has
    determined that the Credit Reporting Agency does not have sufficient
    capability to make systematic and timely use of such information, or
    if the Agency has not furnished satisfactory evidence to the state
    that it is in fact a legitimate Credit Reporting Agency.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
3.  Question: Can IV-D sell TANF arrears at discounted rates?

> Answer:

a.  PIQ 01-04 expresses OCSE's position regarding the sale of child
    support arrearages to a private firm at discounted rates.

b.  Any attempt to discount assigned child support arrearages would be
    prohibited by the Act and implementing regulations.

c.  Distribution requirements of child support collections in section
    457 of the Act require the state to pay the Federal government its
    full share of any assigned collection.

d.  So long as the debt remains enforceable in the original judgment
    amount, the Federal government is entitled to the full Federal share
    of a collection assigned to the state under Title IV-A (TANF)
    regardless of whether the collection is made by a state agency, paid
    voluntarily, or collected by a private entity.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4.  Question: If a state charges interest on overdue child support, does
    the outstanding interest charge have to be included in the "arrears
    amount" reported on OCSE reports?

> Answer:

a.  If interest is considered child support under state law, then the
    interest charged is included in the arrears amount and should be
    reported on line 26 of OCSE 157 (Annual Report).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
5.  Question: Does a CP have to consent in order for the state to
    compromise temporarily assigned arrears?

> Answer:

a.  Any compromise of child support arrears that have not been
    permanently assigned to the state would require the agreement of the
    obligee. State law may further require that the court or
    administrative authority must endorse any agreement affecting child
    support to ensure that the best interests of the child are
    protected.

b.  Child support arrearages that have been permanently assigned to the
    state under Titles IV-A, IV-E or XIX of the Act may be compromised
    by an agreement between the obligor and the state (as the assignee
    of the obligee).

> (See PIQ 00-03)

6.  Question: Is there a Federal mandate that obligates states to
    collect arrears if all children are emancipated and no longer
    entitled to current support?

> Answer:

a.  45 CFR 302.33(a)(1)(I) establishes that IV-D services will be
    available for anyone applying for service.

b.  As long as collection of arrears are enforceable under state law,
    the state should seek arrears until the case closure.

For more information or questions relative to the above cited policy
issues, please contact Sheck Chin at <Schin@acf.dhhs.gov>.

OCSE Central Office staff also presented information on research
activities and funding sources that can support a variety of state
efforts to enhance and/or initiate arrears management policies. For
example, states were encouraged to consider the availability of SIP
grants as a potential source for funding *arrears prevention* campaigns
and other arrears management activities. In addition, states were
provided details on task order 24 (dated 10-16-01), which seeks to
address and investigate a minimum of 16 OCSE-identified policies or
practices that may have positive or negative effects upon the low
payment compliance rates of low-income NCPs. The task order will also
examine the child support guideline issues that were raised in a recent
OIG report on low-income fathers -- a potential first-step response to
last April's Northeast Hub request that the entire order establishment
process be discussed and reviewed at the national level. The task
order's specific targeted policy areas are as follows:

-   Establishing appropriate orders: guidelines, minimum order amounts
    and deviations.

-   Dealing with missing and incomplete income information: automatic
    interfaces with data banks to generate more reliable income info.

-   Retroactive support and fees: fees and length of retroactivity of
    obligation.

-   Interest on arrears: imposing and collecting interest on unpaid
    support.

-   Notifying NCPs: how is NCP being notified of variety of IV-D
    actions.

-   License revocation: license revocation as a sanction and tool to
    encourage compliance.

-   Default procedures: how is order established when NCP fails to
    appear.

-   Review and Adjustment: periodic and "substantial change of
    circumstance" modifications.

-   Appeals: focus on appeal of default orders based on relevant
    employment info.

-   Incarceration: modification and suspension during periods of
    incarceration.

-   Arrearage management: adjustments to arrears balance to encourage
    payment of current support.

-   Amnesty: policies to encourage NCPs to renegotiate payment plans or
    come forward for other actions without fear of penalty.

-   Case management: use of specialized case workers, telephone contacts
    and other customer services to promote communications with
    low-income NCPs.

-   Referrals to employment programs: linkages and referrals to programs
    offering employment services.

-   Access and visitation programs: linkages and referrals to programs
    offering access and visitation services.

-   Reunification: collection suspension and compromise of arrears when
    parents reunite, marry or remarry.

The task order contractor is charged with conducting a national search
for relevant state and local practices that address low-income NCP
issues, and, based thereon, to develop a list of promising approaches in
each of the stated policy areas. For more information about this task
order, related TO23, and grants availability, please contact David
Arnaudo at <Darnaudo@acf.dhhs.gov>.

(Notation -- participants suggest that the NE Hub arrears meeting
summaries be used to support the task order's "Identification and
Analysis of Promising Approaches" process. The summaries touch upon
virtually all of the identified TO issues, and outline myriad good ideas
and practices that directly and positively address low-income NCP
issues.)

### CALIFORNIA'S CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS STUDY & OTHER NON-HUB-SPECIFIC ARREARS MANAGEMENT ISSUES & IDEAS

**[The California Study:]{.underline}**

Elaine Sorensen of the Urban Institute provided a brief summary of the
Urban Institute's recent project to determine the collectibility of
California's child support arrearage. Total current national arrears are
estimated at over \$84 billion (source: OCSE, August 2001). California's
share amounts to approximately \$14.4 billion Dollars (source: DCSS,
March 2000). The Urban Institute's study attempts to determine how much
of California's child support debt is realistically collectible. The
study relied heavily on the use of automated data bases and respective
data cross-matching. Data bases, other than the DCSS Integrated
Intercept data base, included tax files from 1996 to 1998, EDD Quarterly
Earnings files, FIDM, Wage Master files, MediCal, and state prison,
youth authority and death records. Some of the study's highlights are as
follows:

-   Median debt was \$9,447 while average debt was \$17,288.

-   The significant discrepancy between the median and average debt
    amounts relates to the fact that only 11% of NCPs owe 45% of the
    total debt.

-   NCPs with incomes of less than \$15,000 per year owe 80% of the
    total debt.

-   22% of debtors had a recent annual net income of between \$1-5,000,
    a ratio of debt to net income of 7.58, and a ratio of annual current
    support to net income of 2.11.

In conclusion, based on three different assumptions, i.e., that either
30%, 40% or 50% of net income will be paid towards child support, it is
estimated that over a period of 10 years, respectively, only 15%, 20% or
25% of the March 2000 debt will be paid off. For more information,
please contact Elaine Sorensen at <esorense@ui.urban.org>.

Paula Roberts, of CLASP, indicated that her organization was in the
process of using the aforementioned Urban Institute data in order to
develop specific debt collection strategies for California. In addition,
CLASP would be recommending policy changes and initiatives designed to
avoid future arrears accrual. The underlying focus of these
recommendations would partly rest on (1) interest charged on the debt,
and (2) default order avoidance. The expected study completion date is
December 2001.

With respect to the "interest" issue, participants report that
information presented at recent workshops and meetings seems to indicate
that states that currently charge interest will continue to do so, and
that states that do not currently charge interest are unlikely to start
doing so. Reference was also made to a 1993 state of Washington study
that concluded that the administrative cost of imposing an interest
charge on arrears would outweigh the potential monetary benefit. A 1994
Policy Studies Inc. report prepared for the state of Oregon likewise
concluded that it would not be cost-effective to enter positive interest
balances on existing cases as part of its automated system case
reconciliation process. The report estimated that less than \$3.5
billion of the \$421 billion in accrued interest would be collected over
a four-year post-implementation period. For more information on the
status of the CLASP CA report, please contact Paula Roberts at
<proberts@clasp.org>. For more information on the Oregon study, please
contact Jane Venohr at <jvenohr@policy-studies.com>.

**[Other Issues and Ideas:]{.underline}**

-   OCSE recently issued Information Memorandum IM-01-09 (dated
    11-13-01) that encourages state IV-D agencies, courts, legal
    associations and the Department of Defense to timely inform all
    reservists activated for Operation Enduring Freedom of their right
    to request a review, adjustment and/or modification of their current
    child support award or obligation, and to assist reservists in that
    process. The IM is consistent with Northeast Hub recommendations
    that all CPs and NCPs be provided with timely and regular notice of
    their rights to seek order modifications, via pro-active measures
    taken by IV-D agencies in collaboration with their non-IV-D
    partners.

-   California recently enacted legislation that mandates IV-D/IV-E
    collaboration for the purpose of developing standards and policies
    pursuant to which IV-E cases would be referred to IV-D for
    establishment and enforcement activities. The legislation requires
    standards under which IV-E cases would not be referred to IV-D if
    the act of paying child support is likely to interfere with state
    efforts at family reunification. The legislation also calls for an
    arrears forgiveness policy that would apply to cases where a family
    has already reunited, and the payment of arrears is likely to
    undermine said reunification. State agencies have been given 2 years
    in which to develop and implement the mandated standards and
    policies.

-   The National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community
    Leadership (NPCL), Partners for Fragile Families Peer Learning
    College, issued a "Managing Arrears: Child Support Enforcement and
    Fragile Families" report in May, 2001. The report, co-authored by
    Barbara Cleveland, NPCL, offers a wide range of recommendations that
    can assist states in the development of arrears management policies,
    especially those designed to target low-income parents. A copy of
    the report can be obtained at the "workplace" section of the NPCL
    website, [www.npcl.org](http://www.npcl.org/).

-   Meeting participants offered a unique and potentially promising
    arrears management proposal for further consideration. The proposal
    applies to upward modifications of the current support amount, and
    suggests that the additional amount of current support an NCP would
    otherwise be required to pay is instead applied as an additional
    payment towards outstanding arrears. (For example, the NCP has
    substantial arrears and an existing order of \$200 towards current
    and \$50 towards arrears. Pursuant to a modification process, the
    NCP would be required to pay an additional \$50 in current. The
    tribunal instead requires the NCP to continue to pay \$200 towards
    current and increases the payment towards arrears to \$100.) A child
    support guideline deviation scheme is probably required in order for
    such policy to meet Federal and state mandates. For example, in
    order to redirect the current amount towards arrears, a tribunal may
    decide that application of the guidelines would be unjust or
    inappropriate based on a finding that the total outstanding arrears
    amount is large enough to undermine the NCP's future ability to pay
    current support. The tribunal may also need to determine that the
    arrears are not the result of the NCP's willful failure to pay. (See
    section 467(b)(2) of the Act.) Such guideline deviation and
    *redirection* policy would not reduce the total dollar amount paid
    to the Non-TANF family; instead, it would reduce the total arrears
    amount -- a portion of which may eventually be uncollectable anyway.
    (Notation -- a state that decides to further explore this concept
    may need to consider the following: (1) if applied to TANF arrears,
    the family would experience a net loss in support, and (2) if
    applied to Non-TANF arrears, the policy may constitute an indirect
    compromise of arrears, and as such, may require CP consent.)

-   Minnesota has completed a Child Support Delivery Study that
    establishes a Client Analytic System. The System design segregates
    NCPs into five major categories (based on readiness, willingness and
    ability to comply with child support obligations). Corresponding
    IV-D strategies/enforcement actions were crafted to meet the
    needs/situations of each NCP group -- with the overriding goal to
    maximize the payment compliance rate in each category. Special
    outreach brochures aimed at each NCP category were recently
    distributed. In general, the NCP categories and corresponding IV-D
    strategies are as follows:

1.  Complying NCP - Reinforce and reward

2.  Misinformed/uninformed NCP - Inform

3.  Unable to pay NCP - Enable and connect

4.  Reluctant NCP - Motivate and prod

5.  Evading NCP - Compel

> For more information, please contact Mary Anderson at (651) 296-2555.

-   The American Public Human Services Association's June 2001
    Washington Memo included a 7-page article on Child Support Arrears,
    citing the considerable attention that has recently focused on this
    subject, and mentioning the Northeast Hub's April 2001 meeting as an
    example. The article discusses the major reasons that underlie
    arrears accumulations, and provides examples of strategies that can
    both prevent and reduce arrears. For more information, please
    contact Justin Latus at [Jlatus@aphsa.org.]{.underline}

I.  **[ARREARS MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY UPDATE AND GOOD IDEAS]{.underline}**

This section outlines recent Northeast Hub state arrears management
activity, grouped, to the extent possible, under the following
categories: Prevention/Early Intervention; Order Establishment; and
Accrued Arrears Management. Addendum A of this Summary provides
additional and detailed information on several of the activities cited
below in more formalized "Best Practices -- Good Ideas Implementation
Updates." All of the best practices included in Addendum A are also
available on the Northeast Hub Managing Arrears Project National
Workplace, located within the OCSE National Workplace Center at
[http://ocse2.acf.dhhs.gov](http://ocse2.acf.dhhs.gov/). States are
encouraged to place additional and future *update forms* on the
workplace. For electronic versions of the update form, this Summary, or
the September 2001 Summary, please contact Jens Feck at
<Jfeck@acf.dhhs.gov>.

**[Prevention and Early-Intervention:]{.underline}**

New Hampshire -- State has a Fatherhood project that is linked to TANF
employment projects. Success of the project is tied to assignment of a
full-time staff person who has extensive experience in areas of public
assistance, employment and child support. As a result of the project,
District offices are seeing significant increases in referrals to TANF
employment programs. Prior to the Fatherhood project, a failure to keep
referral records, and a failure to obtain post-referral feed-back were
seen as reasons for historic low participation rates, and new
project-initiated changes that mandate record keeping and post-referral
feed-back are seen as reasons for current success. The project is
statewide.

New Hampshire -- State has implemented a weekly and monthly reporting
system within the local and district office network that
identifies/segregates cases that have and have not received payments
towards arrears, and further identifies cases in which all payments have
recently stopped. IV-D employees use the reports to better focus work
efforts. State believes that this formal and regular case segregation
has resulted in a 5% increase of cases paying towards arrears over the
last year.

Maryland -- state has drafted and is seeking a sponsor for legislation
that would temporarily reduce an obligor's child support obligation to
\$25 per month, for as long as the obligor is incarcerated and for a
60-day period following the obligor's release. Application is limited to
periods of incarceration that exceed one year, and the law does not
apply if the obligor was jailed due to failure to pay support, for
domestic violence or a crime against a child. The modification occurs
only at the obligor's request, and only after the obligor is released,
and all assets available to the obligor during the incarceration must be
considered during the modification process.

New York -- State initiated a Child Support and Welfare-to-Work
Information Sharing Project on October 30, 2001, establishing a formal
process whereby IV-D shares information with WtW programs with respect
to NCPs in TANF cases. The project's aim is for WtW programs to contact
NCPs in TANF cases who are unemployed or underemployed and connect them
with available WtW programs. Ultimate goals include the regular payment
of child support and a family's financial self-sufficiency.

New Hampshire -- The Berlin Local Office (servicing a rural area with a
relatively high unemployment rate) has divided its caseload into
maintenance and enforcement cases. NCPs in cases assigned to the
enforcement side receive a debt notice upon 30 days of non-payment; a
license revocation notice after 60 days along with notice for request
for a show-cause hearing. While caseworker ownership was an issue,
enforcement workers report that the case segregation based on
case-status (maintenance or enforcement) rather than case-identifier
(NCP or CP name), and a corresponding division into different skill
level functions, increased overall case processing efficiency.

Puerto Rico -- The Commonwealth continues its outreach program to
employees who are expected to experience layoffs or similar workforce
reductions. The outreach is initiated based upon information provided by
the Department of Labor (notice of plant closings, etc.), and takes
place at the actual site of employment. The outreach visit is conducted
by a One-stop Task Force (representing all the government agencies,
including IV-D) designed to fully assist employees who face imminent
layoffs. At times, requests for modifications can be completed on-site.
IV-D was thus able to reach 298 affected employees during the period
from July to September 2001. IV-D has the following replication advice
that is critical to the program's success: (1) coordinate with your
employer community; (2) intervene with employees [prior]{.underline} to
the layoff; and (3) collaborate with DoL.

Connecticut -- State recommends that all notices to the NCP be
simplified to the fullest extent possible. Since statutory requirements
may nonetheless mandate the use of certain and more complicated
language, IV-D has devised a lawyer-friendly response: Put simplified
language addressing NCP needs on the front page, put the otherwise
required "legalese" on the back page.

New York -- State has a county-based IV-D system. In order to spread the
new arrears management philosophy, the state office has initiated a
county-level training program designed to educate legal staff on arrears
management issues and policies. Generally speaking, all Northeast Hub
states agree that training for and by IV-D staff is critical to
successful arrears management, and that the training process must result
in staff buy-in to the policy.

Pennsylvania -- State has a unique program that seeks to reduce
continued arrears build-up by eventually terminating the support
obligations of NCPs who are mothers. This *Motherhood Program* offers
services and training to non-custodial mothers that are designed to
result in the NCP regaining custody of her children.

Connecticut -- State is developing a proposal to prevent the
establishment of unrealistically high arrearage debts in TANF default
situations. Heretofore, retroactive support was established using a flat
grant default judgment. Under the new proposal, retroactive support
would be based upon the NCP presumably earning the state sanctioned
minimum wage.

Generally speaking, all Northeast Hub states recognize the importance of
establishing fair child support obligations whenever the NCP is in
default, and whenever the NCP income has to be imputed.

Virginia -- State, in recognition of staffing issues (insufficient staff
to adequately process IV-D caseload), recommends that IV-D agencies
collaborate with other state agencies that may provide services
essentially similar or identical to certain IV-D case processing
functions. For example, law enforcement agencies may be able to assist
IV-D with locate and service functions.

[**Order Establishment**:]{.underline}

New York -- State has "minimum order" program designed to encourage
low-income NCPs to participate in the order establishment process,
thereby avoiding default situations, potentially higher current support
amounts, and potential future arrearages. If the low-income NCP appears,
the program provides that the current child support amount, whenever
appropriate, is set at \$25 per month, and that arrears are capped at
\$500.00.

New Jersey -- State initiated a "Benchcard" project that provides Judges
with concise yet basic information on how to move unemployed and
underemployed NCPs into appropriate WtW and related work programs.
Generally speaking, WtW entities in most states are able and willing to
accept additional NCPs for job training and placement, and in many
instances, the lack of NCP referrals is the reason for open slots.

New Hampshire -- State IV-D legal unit has established an interface
relationship with the state Department of Corrections and is accepting
referrals from the Department for paternity and order establishment
services, as well as requests for review, adjustment and modification
services. The IV-D side of the process is centralized in order not to
unduly burden a particular district office -- e.g., a particular
district may include several DoC sites.

New Jersey -- State IV-D agency has intensified collaboration with the
Family Court in order to enhance the Court-to-IV-D interface process. As
a result of this process, the data exchange begins immediately after the
verbal entry of the order. Prior to this new agreement, the data
exchange did not begin until after the order was signed by the presiding
Judge -- a process that often resulted in substantial delays in IV-D
actions to initiate income withholding and otherwise enforce the order,
and always resulted in increased amounts of "built-in" arrears. (Note --
with few exceptions, findings and conclusions do not change between
issuance of the verbal order and execution of the written order.)

West Virginia -- State has no maximum limit on the retroactive period of
a child support obligation. State sees child's rights and needs relative
to child support as overriding, and will pursue retroactive support
obligations even against NCPs whose parental rights have been terminated
-- i.e., who no longer have a legal obligation to pay current support.

New Hampshire -- State is using language on summons and notice-to-appear
similar to the "YOU MUST APPEAR" language used in Connecticut. Finds
that "you must appear" or "you must attend" language is very useful in
drawing NCPs into the establishment process and thereby avoiding default
situations.

**[Accrued Arrears Management:]{.underline}**

Virginia -- State has initiated a two-phase pilot "Barriers Project"
that provides the Family Court with an alternative to jailing NCPs whose
payments are irregular and who have substantial arrears. Instead,
eligible NCPs are *sentenced* to the Barriers Project, a case management
process that relies on a network of community agencies that can identify
and address NCP specific barriers -- e.g., transportation, drug/alcohol
addiction, irregular work patterns, conflicts with CP or children, etc.
The case manager identifies the appropriate service agency, makes the
referral and then evaluates the agency's impact upon the NCP's future
ability to pay regular support. The project focuses on NCPs who are
willing yet presently unable to pay support.

Pennsylvania -- State recently lowered the threshold amount for state
tax intercepts to \$11.00 (in many states, the threshold amount is set
at the Federal TANF threshold of \$250.00). As a result of the
additional cases that qualified for state tax intercepts, the state
collected an additional \$1,300,000 between April and August 2001.

New Jersey -- State conducted an Amnesty Project in October 2001, under
which active CSE-related warrants were voided upon receipt of an NCP's
payment towards arrears. State collected over \$800,000 in one week.

Pennsylvania -- State is expanding the Allegheny County Goodwill
Foundation program (a pilot project that uses foundation money to pay
off the NCP) to a statewide, state-funded program in 2002. Under the
program, the state pays up to \$5,000 of TANF and/or Non-TANF arrears,
conditional upon the NCP's participation in work programs. If the state
payment is applied to TANF arrears, the state calculates and forwards
the Federal share; i.e., the TANF arrears are paid, not compromised.

Maryland -- State submitted a grant application to put into effect and
evaluate the outcomes of a small program of welfare-to-work qualified
incarcerated obligors enrolled in a rehabilitation/employment program.
The state would expunge arrears of qualifying incarcerated NCPs up to
the amount of the state debt upon release and successful completion of
the program resulting in employment and wage withholding for current
support. The expungement policy does not apply to any arrears accrued
prior to the time of incarceration. If the grant is approved the state
will implement the program for 200 obligors and evaluate the results in
terms of outcomes for children and families (future support and
parenting time).

New Hampshire -- State builds upon its interface with the Department of
Corrections (for case establishment and review referrals) and further
collaborates with DoC to use the Department's data and human resources
whenever making decisions about an incarcerated NCP's ability to pay
arrears. Many states see a benefit in establishing IV-D/ DoC
relationships. New Jersey, among others, intends to initiate such
interface in the near future.

Maryland -- Pursuant to state law, interest accrues on child support
arrears. However, in recognition of the extent to which interest is a
significant factor in arrears accumulation, state IV-D takes no action
to charge or collect the interest.

New Jersey -- State is actively pursuing the collection of arrears as an
alternative to arrears compromise, by focusing, for example, on the FIDM
collection process (which has resulted in substantial collections
towards TANF arrears), and interfaces with Vital Statistic's records in
order to match probate assets against outstanding arrears.

Virginia -- State, in managing accrued arrears, divides NCPs into the
following four groups:

1.  Able and willing to pay

2.  Able but unwilling to pay

3.  Not able but willing to pay

4.  Not able and not willing to pay

Segregating NCPs into the four groups allows the state to develop
specific strategies and policies for each NCP-type. For example, in
designing the above-cited "Barriers Project" (see first paragraph under
this section), the state focused on the "not able but willing to pay"
NCP. This management strategy is used in a variety of jurisdictions,
including Vancouver, B.C., which bases all IV-D actions on the
respective NCP-type. (Notation -- These strategies are essentially
consistent with the Hub Discussion Framework approach, i.e., that the
initial step in arrears management should always be the analysis of the
arrears bucket. This includes identifying the reason for the NCP's
failure to comply and the make-up of the NCP's arrears bucket -- on both
a global and individual basis. While some meeting participants suggested
there is a disharmony between the NCP-based grouping approach and the
Hub designed process-based grouping approach, the reality is that either
approach can give rise to and correspondingly group any of the cited
best ideas/best practices. The process-based approach may have the
advantage of being able to better fine-tune potential IV-D responses.
For example, within the Hub-designed framework, "*Not able but willing
to pay NCPs*" (1) who owe arrears consisting of interest only, or (2)
who owe arrears based on a failure to timely request a modification, or
(3) who have recently entered the IV-D process, may be assigned to three
distinct groupings with three respectively distinct IV-D responses.)

West Virginia -- State also divides NCPs into the "able and willing,"
"able and not willing," "not able but willing" and "not able and not
willing" categories in conjunction with the development of arrears
management strategies, and in order to target specific policies to the
appropriate NCP sub-group.

Connecticut -- State has passed legislation that allows the Commissioner
of Social Services to establish criteria and procedures for the
adjustment of TANF arrears. Regulations are currently being drafted. The
regulations will also allow the IV-D Director to settle arrears accounts
by accepting a lump-sum settlement payment. The settlement regulation
will be based on the theory that a partial but substantial payment
today, if invested wisely, may be of more value in the end than
receiving installments on the total debt over an extended period of
time. In addition, the state is considering extending the time limit for
modifications for default orders from 4 to 6 months. The state hopes
that the various arrearage adjustment and prevention programs will
reconnect NCPs with their children, as NCPs no longer feel the need to
stay away from their children because they are unable to meet their
financial obligations.

Maryland -- State has developed an Arrearage Expungement program that
allows IV-D to expunge a portion or all of the TANF debt whenever the
debt is a result of the NCP's failure to file a request for
modification/suspension/termination in which he/she would have likely
prevailed. Situations where the NCP could have but failed to file an
appropriate request include incarcerations, disabilities or child
placement with the NCP. The program is intended to be statewide but is
currently implemented on a case-by-case basis and operates pursuant to
state law. The program depends upon partnership with the Department of
Corrections and state organizations charged with developing, monitoring
and operating fatherhood programs.

West Virginia -- State has a limited Amnesty Program expiring end of
2001, only applicable to interest that accrued on outstanding arrears.
Under the program, if the NCP fully satisfied the principal arrears
amount, the interest that had accrued would be compromised. Few NCPs
took advantage of this offer.

Vermont -- (information obtained subsequent to meeting) State code
provides that IV-D may suspend the enforcement and collection of TANF
arrears when the CP and NCP have reunited, if the reunited family unit
has a gross income of less than 225% of the poverty level. The TANF
arrears are reduced to a lump-sum judgment, and the suspension of
collection efforts holds as long as family income remains united and
under the income threshold level. For additional information regarding
compromise policies with respect to parents that marry or remarry,
please see PIQ-99-03 (issued March 22, 1999), and Washington's statute
and rules authorizing the forgiveness of arrears in limited "hardship"
cases whenever the parties reunite.

II. **[NEXT STEPS]{.underline}**

Participating states agreed to pursue the following next-steps.
Northeast Hub states that were not able to participate in the follow-up
meeting are encouraged to submit additional suggestions for next-steps.
The Northeast Hub Managing Arrears Project National Workplace Center is
available for this and all other arrears-related communications.

-   NE Hub states are encouraged to continue to submit Follow-up Reports
    on any and all arrears management policies and procedures that are
    already in progress or that are being implemented. Reports should
    include sections on outcomes, lessons learned and replication tips.
    Suggested format: the "Best Practices- Good Ideas Implementation
    Updates". Reports can be posted on the OCSE National Workplace
    Center or submitted to the respective Regional Office for
    distribution.

-   NE Hub states are encouraged to meet again in 2002, preferably in
    conjunction with the some other Regional or national meeting. States
    believe that continued on-site meetings are necessary to conduct
    effective group discussions relative to arrears management issues
    and proposed policies. Hub meetings and corresponding
    state/Federal/private-partner interactions have also played an
    integral part in the Hub's development of innovative arrears
    management proposals.

-   NE Hub states believe that Hub arrears management proposals and
    practices have reached a degree of maturity that warrants national
    distribution. States recommend that access to the Workplace and all
    NE Hub produced documents, including the best practice updates, be
    made available to the IV-D Directors and programs in all 54
    jurisdictions.

-   NE Hub states recommend that they market those arrears management
    policies and procedures that seem most appropriate in a particular
    jurisdiction to that state's community and legislative leaders, IV-D
    partners and, most important, IV-D staff. The NE Hub Best Practice
    Updates (and corresponding descriptions of successes, outcomes and
    replication tips) are recommended as marketing tools.

-   NE Hub states see a need for more research (OCSE task orders, etc.)
    and for more technical assistance, with particular focus on the
    following arrears management issues:

1.  What is the best "carrot-stick" policy relative to arrears
    compromise? For example, should credits against arrears be
    phased-in; if so, in what increments; and should credits ever be
    retractable based on an NCP's future non-compliance with the
    compromise terms?

2.  How can states better profile NCPs into the "able," "not able,"
    "willing" and "not willing" categories? What kind of system-based
    technical assistance is available and helpful in enhancing a state
    system's capability to segregate NCPs and to analyze the
    effectiveness of respective enforcement tools?

3.  When states compromise TANF arrears, is there an obligation, legal
    or moral, to also adjust the Unreimbursed Public Assistance balance?
    If so, what kind of IV-D/TANF collaboration is required, and at what
    level (state and/or Federal).

4.  When the state adjusts the arrears balance (TANF and/or Non-TANF)
    should the state also adjust the amount of the payment towards
    arrears? What works best: an increase in the amount as compensation
    for the compromise; or a decrease in order to better ensure future
    compliance?

### 

### 

### ADDENDUM "A" -- BEST PRACTICE UPDATES

**[Connecticut:]{.underline}**

**Category:** 1. Arrears Prevention (X)

> 2\. Accrued Arrears Management (X)

**Goal:**

1\. The goal is to prevent establishment of unrealistically high
arrearage debts.

2.  The goal is to encourage the positive involvement of non-custodial
    parents in the lives of their children as well as to encourage
    non-custodial parents to begin making regular support payments.

**Description:**

1.  In the arena of arrearage prevention we are discussing the
    establishment of arrears based upon the state sanctioned minimum
    wage as opposed to a flat grant default judgement. In an instance
    such as this if it is determined that the obligor actually has a
    different ability to pay during the period in question the order
    would be modified to reflect the realistic amount.

2.  Legislation has been passed that will allow the Commissioner of
    Social Services to establish criteria and procedures for adjustment
    of arrearage monies owed to the state. The commissioner shall
    establish an arrearage adjustment program in which past due owed by
    any obligor assigned and payable to the state through the IV-D
    agency may be adjusted. We are in the process of developing
    regulations and criteria. We are also considering extending the time
    limit for modification for default orders from 4 months to 6 months.

> Part two of this regulation will address lump sum final balance
> stipulations. The granting of this type of adjustment would be at the
> discretion of the IV-D Director and would have to meet specific
> criteria. If the request meets the criteria the account would be
> adjusted according to the principle of present value of money to be
> received in installments over a long period of time. The premise of
> this adjustment is that a significantly lower amount of money received
> today and invested wisely has the potential to meet or exceed the
> amount received in installments over an extended period of time.

**Results:**

We anticipate that an arrearage prevention and/or adjustment program
will help to provide an atmosphere whereby non-custodial parents will
not feel overwhelmed by insurmountable arrearage amounts. We anticipate
non-custodial parents no longer feeling the need to hide or stay away
from their children because they are unable to meet their financial
obligations.

**Location:**

The regulation will support a statewide initiative, however during the
rollout period it may be confined to the three towns that contain our
statewide Fatherhood Initiative pilot sites, Norwich, Cheshire and
Bridgeport. The three fatherhood initiative sites represent both rural
and urban areas.

Some portion of the program may be modeled after the Maryland state Owed
Child Support Arrears Leveraging Program prototype.

**Funding:**

The legislative proposal and subsequent regulations are designed to be
cost-neutral to the agency.

**Replication Advice:**

It is too early in the process to offer advice or suggestions.

**[Maryland:]{.underline}**

**Type:** Proposed Legislation\*: Abatement of Child Support For
Incarcerated Obligors

(\*To be proposed in Maryland legislative session, January-April, 2002)

**Category:** Arrears Prevention (X )

**Goal:**

The goal of the proposed legislation is to prevent the accrual of child
support arrears

when an obligor is incarcerated, earning no income, and he/she has no
other resources

available to pay a child support obligation.

**Description:**

The proposed legislation will operate to temporarily abate or reduce an
obligor's child

support obligation to \$25.00 per month while the obligor is
incarcerated and for 60 days

following the obligor's release.

The law will be applicable only to obligors who are incarcerated for
more than 12

months, and only if the cause of the incarceration was not due to
failure to pay child

support, domestic violence, or a crime against a child.

The law is intended to operate judicially. Once an obligor is released,
he/she must

request a child support modification hearing. At that hearing, the
judge, applying the

new law, would review the obligor's circumstances to determine resources
available

while incarcerated, if any, including work release, and would
appropriately abate the child

support obligation from the date the obligor was incarcerated. The judge
would also

set an appropriate level of current support. Once the court has
appropriately modified the

child support obligation, including any arrears, the local Child Support
Enforcement Office

will appropriately adjust the obligor's case on the system.

Along with the legislation, the success of the measure in preventing the
accrual of child

support arrears will depend on an effective exit interview with
incarcerated obligors

upon release.

Partners: The proposed law's success will require partnership with the
Department of

Corrections, and with the state organizations charged with developing,
monitoring, and

running fatherhood programs in Maryland.

**Results:**

Because the legislation has not yet been proposed, there are no results
to report at this

time.

**Location:**

The proposed law is intended to apply to all Maryland child support
obligations,

regardless of where the obligor is incarcerated. This law is an original
law that has not been

adapted from a practice or law from another jurisdiction.

**Funding:**

While it is not anticipated that this law will have a significant fiscal
impact, funding is

anticipated to be provided by the state, FFP, and TANF.

**Replication Advice:**

Not applicable at this time.

**Contact:**

Sandra L. Reno, Director of Legislation and Program Coordination,
Maryland CSEA

410-767-3643, <sreno@csea.dhr.state.md.us>

Teresa L. Kaiser, Executive Director, Maryland CSEA

410-767-7043, <tkaiser@csea.dhr.state.md.us>

**\* A COPY OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION FOLLOWS. UPDATES TO**

**THIS SUMMARY WILL BE PROVIDED AFTER THE LEGISLATION IS**

**REVIEWED BY THE MARYLAND ASSEMBLY.**

Article - Family Law

**§ 12-104. Modification of child support award.**

\(a\) *Prerequisites.---*The court may modify a child support award
subsequent to the filing of a motion for modification and upon a showing
of a material change of circumstance.

\(b\) *Retroactivity of modification.---*The court may not retroactively
modify a child support award prior to the date of the filing of the
motion for modification.

\(c\) ABATEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY LAW
SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A RETROACTIVE MODIFICATION OF A CHILD SUPPORT
AWARD.

**§ 12-104.1. TEMPORARY MODIFICATION WHEN OBLIGOR INCARCERATED.**

\(A\) CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS SHALL BE TEMPORARILY MODIFIED, WITHOUT A
HEARING OR COURT ORDER, TO \$25.00 PER MONTH DURING ANY PERIOD WHEN THE
OBLIGOR IS INCARCERATED, IF

(I) THE TERM OF INCARCERATION IS GREATER THAN 12 MONTHS;

(II) THE OBLIGOR IS NOT ON WORK RELEASE AND HAS NO RESOURCES WITH WHICH
     TO MAKE THE PAYMENT; AND

(III) THE REASON THE OBLIGOR IS INCARCERATED IS NOT DUE TO FAILURE TO
      PAY CHILD SUPPORT, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, OR A CRIME AGAINST A CHILD.

\(B\) IF AN OBLIGOR'S CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MODIFIED PURSUANT
TO PARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS SECTION, THE MODIFICATION SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ON
THE FIRST DAY THE OBLIGOR WAS INCARCERATED AND SHALL CONTINUE FOR 60
DAYS AFTER THE OBLIGOR'S RELEASE.

\(D\) CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS ACCRUED DURING ANY PERIOD WHEN THE OBLIGOR'S
CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION WAS MODIFIED UNDER PARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS
SECTION MAY BE ABATED OR EXPUNGED BY ORDER OF COURT UPON THE REQUEST OF
EITHER PARTY OR THE ADMINISTRATION.

***NOTE: CHANGES/ADDITIONS TO CURRENT LAW ARE MADE IN ALL CAPITAL
LETTERS.***

**[Maryland:]{.underline}**

**Type:** Arrearage Expungement Program

**Category**: Arrears Prevention (X)

> Accrued Arrears Management (X)

**Goal:**

The goal of the program is to encourage obligors to pay their current
support obligations by

addressing one of the barriers to payment of current support: large
child support arrears.

**Description:**

The Arrearage Expungement Program is an administrative policy designed
to allow the local

child support enforcement offices to recommend certain cases for
expungement of all or

part of the state-owed child support arrears cases based upon either the
temporary lack of income of the obligor or the child returning to reside
with the obligor.

The program applies to obligors whose child support arrears accrued in
situations where, if

the obligor had properly filed a Motion to modify the child support
obligation, the obligation

would likely have been modified, suspended, or terminated. Those
situations include when

an obligor was incarcerated and had no income or other resources out of
which child support

may be paid, when the obligor suffered a mental or physical disability
resulting in a loss of

income that prevented the obligor from making child support payments as
well as state

arrears that are owed when the parties marry or when the child who is
the subject of the

arrears order returns to the home of the obligor.

The program gives the local offices the discretion, with the Executive
Director's approval, to

determine the appropriate action or compromise required of the obligor
to expunge the

arrearage and to articulate why this would be in the best interests of
the child.

The program operates administratively under the authority of a Maryland
law (FL 10-

112\) that allows for the settlement of child support arrears owed to
the state, if the

Executive Director of the Child Support Enforcement Administration
believes the

compromise to be in the best interests of the state and the request of
the Administration is

approved by the court.. Additionally, Maryland law FL 10-118 provides
the CSEA with the

authority to proceed in any manner that operates to serve the best
interests of a child.

Participation in the Arrearage Expungement Program is allowed only by
referral from the

local offices or community based organizations. Expungement is granted
only for state-

owed arrears, and only for the period for which an obligor can provide
appropriate

supporting documentation.

Partners: The proposed law's success will require partnership with the
Department of

Corrections, and with the state organizations charged with developing,
monitoring, and

running fatherhood programs in Maryland.

**A COPY OF THE PROGRAM OUTLINE AND SAMPLE FORMS/PLEADINGS ARE**

**ATTACHED. UPDATES TO THIS SUMMARY WILL BE PROVIDED AFTER THE**

**PROGRAM IS IMPLEMENTED.**

**Results:**

Because the Program has not yet been implemented, there are no results
to report at this

time.

**Location:**

The program in the future is intended to apply to all Maryland child
support obligations,

Statewide by referral ***--*** however, the program will begin as a
pilot project on a case-by-case

Basis to evaluate its efficacy pending documentation that the arrears
leveraging program

Is resulting in positive outcomes for children and legislative support
has been obtained. This program is an original program that has not been
adapted from a practice or law from another jurisdiction.

**Funding:**

While it is not anticipated that this law will have a significant fiscal
impact, funding is

anticipated to be provided by the state, FFP, and TANF.

**Replication Advice:**

Not applicable at this time.

**Contact:**

Teresa. Kaiser, Executive Director, Maryland CSEA

410-767-7043, <tkaiser@csea.dhr.state.md.us>

ARREARAGE EXPUNGEMENT PROGRAM

I.  Goals of Program

    1.  To assist obligors who now have children in the home for whom
        state debt is owed for a prior period.

    2.  To assist obligors with state arrears that accrued during a
        period of time when they were unable to work but failed to
        request a modification.

II. Selection Criteria

    1.  Not eligible for MD Arrears Leveraging Program AND

    2.  Incarcerated for more than 18 months (or incarcerated within the
        Department of Corrections) without work release or other
        resources to make payments;

    3.  physically or mentally disabled;

    4.  change in custody to obligor;

    5.  reunited and living with mother and children; OR

    6.  extreme hardship resulting in significant reduction in income,
        where cause of reduction in income is not voluntary
        impoverishment

III. Referral Process

     1.  Local office/ CBOs will be educated about the existence of the
         program and the selection criteria.

     2.  Local office/ CBOs identifies obligors who appear to qualify
         for program.

     3.  CBOs fill out referral form and forward to appropriate local
         office for review and/or local office selects obligors eligible
         for program.

     4.  Local office sends a letter inviting participation in program
         along with Verification Checklist to obligor.

     5.  If case was referred from CBO and obligation does not appear
         appropriate for expungement, then obligor is sent a letter
         stating he/she does not appear to qualify for program and the
         reason why. The letter should advise the obligor to return to
         the local office if the obligor wishes to get more information
         about the selection criteria for the program.

IV. Expungement Process

    1.  Local office receives response from obligor indicating desire to
        participate in expungement process.

    2.  Local office works with obligor to gather documentation
        indicated on the Verification Checklist, as appropriate, on a
        case-by-case basis.

    3.  All necessary Verification Documents received.

    4.  Local office reviews documents and compares to notes in file,
        checks FIDM information for "hidden" assets and to make final
        determination of eligibility.

    5.  Local office audits obligor's account verifying dates and
        amounts eligible for expungement.

    6.  Local office drafts proposed Stipulation of Settlement setting
        forth terms of expungement. Terms could include payment of a
        portion of arrears owed, enrollment in drug, alcohol, or
        employment programs, establishment of earnings withholding, a
        promise to gain employment or proof of employment, promise to
        avoid accrual of arrears in future by filing timely motion to
        modify, etc., as appropriate.

    7.  Stipulation of Settlement of state-owed arrearage and proposed
        order drafted by local office and forwarded to local CSE
        attorney for approval and signature.

    8.  File including summary of basis for expungement, verifying
        documentation, Stipulation of Settlement of state-owed arrearage
        and proposed order forwarded to Teresa Kaiser or her agent for
        review and sign-off.

    9.  Pleadings signed by Teresa Kaiser or her agent and returned to
        local office.

    10. Local office forwards pleadings to court, with explanatory cover
        letter, and sends copies to obligor, obligor's file, and Teresa
        Kaiser's designated agent.

    11. Teresa Kaiser's designated agent works with local offices and
        their attorneys to track progress and resolve any problems.

    12. Local office/attorneys receive final order expunging arrears and
        adjust the system to reflect the reduction in the obligor's
        child support arrears.

    13. Local office forwards Order to obligor with letter explaining
        adjusted amount of arrears owed, if any and reminding of terms
        of Stipulation of Settlement.

    14. Teresa Kaiser's designated agent to record Order for statistical
        purposes:

        a.  date of order

        b.  basis for expungement

        c.  amount expunged

        d.  a description of the terms of settlement

        e.  any amount collected pursuant to terms of settlement

V.  Forms

    1.  Arrearage Expungement Referral Form

    2.  Letter to Obligor explaining program and requesting verifying
        documentation

    3.  Verification Checklist

> Stipulation of Settlement and/or Expungement of state-owed arrearage
> with Executive Director's approval (Pursuant to FL §10-112)

4.  Proposed order

5.  Cover letter to Clerk of Circuit Court

6.  Cover letter to obligor with copy of Order and explanation of new
    arrearage owed/summary of responsibilities under terms of
    Stipulation of Settlement.

PLAINTIFF'S NAME ) IN THE

Plaintiff )

> ) CIRCUIT COURT FOR

v\. )

> ) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ COUNTY

DEFENDANT'S NAME )

Defendant ) Court Case No.: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

) Child Support Case No.:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

)

**[STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT/EXPUNGEMENT OF]{.underline}**

**[STATE-OWED ARREARAGE]{.underline}**

The Defendant, on his/her own behalf, and the state of Maryland,
represented by the attorney for the \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ County Office
of Child Support Enforcement, hereby stipulate to the following:

1.  That during the period from \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ to
    \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, the obligor failed to pay all or part of
    his court-ordered child support obligation, thereby accruing a child
    support arrearage owed to the state of Maryland in the amount of
    \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.

2.  That the obligor's failure to pay child support during the above
    period was due to
    \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
    \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.

3.  That the obligor has agreed as follows:

> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

In consideration of the above, in consideration of the obligor's payment
of the sum of \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, which payment was made on
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_; the parties hereby agree as follows:

1.  The Defendant's child support arrears owed to the state of Maryland
    that were incurred during the period from \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ to
    \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ in the amount of \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ shall
    be expunged;

2.  The obligor's child support arrearage shall be adjusted to reflect a
    total arrearage owed as of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ (date) to the
    state of Maryland in the amount of \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, and owed
    to the Plaintiff in the amount of \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_; and

3.  Any arrears owed directly to the Plaintiff shall remain the
    responsibility of the Defendant.

> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, Defendant Date

Address/Telephone \#

> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Support Enforcement Agent Date

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Office of Child

Support Enforcement

Address/Telephone \#

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Attorney

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_County

Office of Child Support Enforcement

Address

Telephone \#

# CERTIFICATION OF CSEA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

# 

# Pursuant to FL 10-112, and upon review of the above-referenced child support case, I hereby certify that I have determined it to be in the best interests of the state of Maryland and of the child(ren) in this case that the Defendant's child support arrearage be settled and expunged as specifically described in the above Stipulation of Settlement. 

# 

#  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 

# Teresa L. Kaiser, Executive Director

# Child Support Enforcement Administration 

PLAINTIFF'S NAME ) IN THE

Plaintiff )

> ) CIRCUIT COURT FOR

v\. )

> ) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ COUNTY

DEFENDANT'S NAME )

Defendant ) Court Case No.: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

) Child Support Case No.:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

)

**[CONSENT ORDER FOR EXPUNGEMENT OF]{.underline}**

**[STATE-OWED CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGE]{.underline}**

The Defendant and the state of Maryland having voluntarily signed this
Consent Order with the intention of being bound by its terms, it is the
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ day of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, 2001 hereby

**ORDERED**, that the child support arrearages owed to the state of
Maryland that accrued during the period from
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ to
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ in the amount of
\$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ shall be and are hereby EXPUNGED; and it
is further

**ORDERED**, that the obligor's child support arrearage shall be
adjusted to reflect a total arrearage owed as of
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ (date) to the state of Maryland in the amount
of \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_; and it is further

**ORDERED**, that this Consent Order shall not reduce or expunge any
arrearage owed directly to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant shall remain
responsible for all such arrears; and it is further

**ORDERED**, that all prior orders of this Court shall remain in full
force and effect to the extent that they are not superceded by this
Consent Order.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Judge of the Circuit Court

For \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ County

Serve On:

Defendant

Address

CSE Attorney

Address

Teresa Kaiser

Executive Director CSEA

Address

**[State-Owed Arrearage Expungement Program]{.underline}**

**[REFERRAL FORM]{.underline}**

Name of Referring
Party:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Date:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Title:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Telephone:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Organization:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Address:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

NAME OF CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGOR:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

OBLIGOR'S SOCIAL SECURITY #:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Current Mailing Address:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Other Address (explain):
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Telephone number(s) where Obligor can be reached:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Child Support Case Number(s):
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

BASIS FOR REQUEST FOR EXPUNGEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGE:

The obligor is requesting the expungement of state-owed child support
arrears that accrued during the period from \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ to
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ because he/she was unable to work and had no
income due to (check all that apply):

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ incarcerated

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ physically or mentally disabled

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ change in custody to obligor

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ reunited and living with mother and children

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ other extreme hardship resulting in significant reduction
in income (explain)\_\_\_\_

DATE

Obligor's Name

Address

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Re: CSEA State-Owed Child Support**

> **Arrearage Expungement Program**
>
> **Case number:**
>
> **CSES Number:**
>
> **Name of Custodial Parent**
>
> **Name of Children**

Dear Obligor:

The \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ County Bureau of Support Enforcement has received
a referral for you (or has determined you are eligible) to participate
in the state of Maryland Child Support Enforcement's Arrearage
Expungement Program (hereinafter, the "Program"). Through this Program,
you may be eligible for an expungement (forgiveness) of all or a portion
of the child support arrearages that you currently owe to the state of
Maryland in the above-captioned case. These arrears accrued when you
failed to pay court-ordered child support during a time that the
custodian of your child(ren) was receiving services from the state of
Maryland.

Attached is a Verification Checklist with certain items checked. If you
are interested in participating in the Program, you need to provide our
office with as many of the checked items as you can obtain. These
documents should relate to the period of time for which you are
requesting your arrears be expunged.

Once we have received the requested documents from you, we will contact
you to let you know whether you are eligible for an arrearage
expungement and in what amount. If you need assistance identifying or
locating the necessary documents, or if you have any questions, please
call \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.

I encourage you to take advantage of this unique program at your
earliest opportunity. Please be advised that even if you are eligible
for an expungement, the Office of Child Support Enforcement will
continue our efforts to collect the current support and any arrears owed
until a court has excused you from your obligation.

Sincerely,

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Local Office Director/Asst. Director

Enclosure

cc: Teresa Kaiser

TK's Designated Agent

**[State-Owed Arrearage Expungement Program]{.underline}**

**[VERIFICATION CHECKLIST]{.underline}**

> \_\_\_\_\_\_1. Written statement of the facts relating to inability to
> pay child support during the period for which expungement of arrears
> is sought.
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_2. Letters or Affidavits from your child(ren)'s mother,
> family members, church
>
> members, neighbors, employer supporting your statement of the facts.

\_\_\_\_\_\_3. Documents showing dates incarcerated.

\_\_\_\_\_\_4. Records from Department of Corrections or from Parole and
Probation.

> \_\_\_\_\_\_5. Documents showing dates hospitalized.
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_6. Documents verifying dates you were unable to work due
> to physical or mental
>
> disability.
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_7. Medical and/or dental records relating to your own
> health or disability.
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_8. Court
> documents:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_9. School records relating to your children showing their
> address is the same as
>
> yours or identifying you as the primary caretaker.
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_10. Medical or dental records relating to your children
> showing their address
>
> or showing you as primary caretaker.
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_11. Daycare records/receipts.
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_12. Proof of income: pay stubs, checking or savings
> account records.
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_13. Disability pay records.
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_14. Documents showing your address during the period of
> time for which you are
>
> requesting the expungement.

\_\_\_\_\_\_15. Other:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

With respect to each item checked, please provide the documentation and
information requested. Your case will not be considered eligible for
CSEA's arrearage expungement program until CSEA has reviewed the
information you provide. If you have any questions, please call
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.

DATE

Clerk of Circuit Court for

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ County

Address

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Re: [Case Name]{.underline}

Case Number: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Dear Sir/Madam Clerk:

Enclosed for filing in the above-captioned matter, please find a Joint
Stipulation of Settlement and a Consent Order. These pleadings are filed
in accordance with Family Law 10-112, and the arrearage expungement
request has been approved by the Executive Director of the Child Support
Enforcement Administration, Teresa Kaiser.

Would you kindly file these pleadings and then forward them to the
appropriate Motion's Judge for review and for execution of the Consent
Order. Should you have any questions or need additional information,
please call \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

Very truly yours,

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

CSEA Attorney

Enclosures

cc: Teresa Kaiser, Executive Director, Child Support Enforcement
Administration

TK's designated agent

Obligor

Local Office

DATE

Obligor's Name

Address

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Re: CSEA State-Owed Child Support**

> **Arrearage Expungement Program**

Dear Obligor:

Enclosed you will find a copy of the executed Consent Order dated
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. The CSEA is pleased that we could assist you
in adjusting your account to more fairly represent your child support
obligation in light of your unique circumstances. Pursuant to this
Consent Order and the terms of our agreement, your account will be
adjusted to reflect the expungement of your state-owed child support
arrears, as specifically described in the Consent Order. Similarly, our
office looks forward to your
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_(describe terms of
settlement, any promises made by the obligor.)

Please understand that an obligor may only receive an arrearage
expungement through this program one time. Accordingly, should your
circumstances change in the future, please be sure to contact the CSEA
and/or the circuit court, as appropriate, to seek a modification of your
child support obligation [before]{.underline} child support arrears
begin to accrue.

Our office wishes you the best of luck in the future. If you have any
additional questions or need our assistance in the future, please call
us at \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.

Sincerely,

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Local Office Director/Asst. Director

Enclosure

cc: Teresa Kaiser, Executive Director, Child Support Enforcement
Administration

TK's designated agent

Obligee

CSEA Attorney

**[New Hampshire:]{.underline}**

**Category:** Arrears Prevention (X)

**Goal:** Operational Reporting System used to reduce Arrearage.

**Description:** Weekly reports of the Federal incentive measurements
for each office are given to each district. This includes the percentage
of cases that have made a payment on arrearage and gives the district
office information about where and when to allocate resources.

Monthly reports of the district office caseload data summaries identify
cases that have and have not received payment on arrearage. The district
can then identify cases to work. In addition the report identifies which
cases have stopped making payments.

**Results:** The district offices have responded by helping increase
percentage of cases paying on arrearage by over 5% in a year.

**Location:** Statewide

**Replication Advice:** Requires staff experienced in Access and Excel
application. On-the-job experience will suffice, but a basic training
program helps.

Reports should be frequent enough so that supervisors will have up to
date information to sort and select.

**Contact:** CHARLES KOONTZ

<CKOONTZ@DHHS.STATE.NH.US>

**[New Hampshire:]{.underline}**

**Category:** Arrears Prevention (X)

**Goal:** Fatherhood project linked with TANF employment project.

**Description:** New Hampshire has assigned a staff person full time to
a Fatherhood Project. This person has extensive experience in public
assistance, employment and child support.

**Results:** Since a record is being kept of referrals for each district
office and feedback given, District Office referrals to TANF employment
programs are rapidly increasing.

**Location:** State wide in conjunction with agencies authorized to
train TANF-associated or potentially associated members.

**Replication Advice:** Previous program of not recording referrals led
to low participation rates.

Extensive information sessions with supervisors were helpful.

**Contact:** <CKOONTZ@DHHS.STATE.NH.US>

**[New Hampshire:]{.underline}**

**Category:** Arrears Prevention ( X )

> Order Establishment ( X )

**Goal:** The New Hampshire DCSS Legal Unit has established contact with
the Family Resource Center of the New Hampshire Department of
Corrections and is accepting referrals from them for paternity
establishment, support order establishment, and review and adjustment,
and modification of court orders.

**Description:** Incarcerated non-custodial parents are a substantial
problem because many of them have current court orders that do not
relate appropriately to their income. As a result, the accrued arrearage
acts as a barrier to their engagement with their children and adjustment
after incarceration.

**Location:** The DOC Family Resource Center is in Laconia but it's
program is statewide.

**Replication Advice:** The DCSS Legal unit, which is centralized, is
proving to be the correct tool for this program because it centralizes
the process without unduly burdening any one district office.

**Contact:** Charles Koontz

<CKOONTZ@DHHS.STATE.NH.US>

**[New Hampshire:]{.underline}**

**Category:** Arrears Prevention (X)

**Goal:** To divide the collection caseload of the Berlin Local Office
into maintenance and enforcement caseloads.

**Description:** All cases requiring current enforcement action are
transferred to the enforcement caseload. After thirty days of
non-payment a case is assigned to the action section and a notice of
debt is sent. After sixty days a Drivers License Revocation Action
Notice and a pre show cause appointment notice is sent to the non
custodial parent and a notice of a request for a show cause court
hearing is sent to the court.

**Results:** Enforcement workers report that they can work more
efficiently by dividing caseloads into different skill-level functions.

**Location:** Berlin is in a rural area with a relatively high
unemployment rate.

**Replication Advice:** This process was a difficult sell because of
case workers' "ownership" issues with their caseload but based on the
experience in Berlin, another small office, is planning to adopt the
practice.

Using a pilot district office to develop experience and be a model for
other offices makes the idea

more attractive for other offices.

**Contact:**

Charles Koontz

<ckoontz@dhhs.state.nh.us>

**[New Hampshire:]{.underline}**

**Category:** Arrears Prevention (X)

> Accrued Arrears Management (X)

**Goal:** Adjusting support orders to non-custodial parents' income.

**Description:** Using review and adjustment and modification procedures
as a tool to prevent arrears from accruing.

**Results:** Proactively identifying adjustment as a remedy for
unemployment cases is leading to a reported increase in modification
hearings in counties that are experiencing increasing unemployment.
Workers have moved the adjustment or modification process up front in
assessing enforcement actions.

**Location:** Primarily being utilized in the New Hampshire north
county.

**Replication Advice:** Frequent mention of the Review and Adjustment
process and modification procedures increases the enforcement staff
awareness and willingness to use the process.

It is in the reduction of current support of formerly well paying cases
that the best result can be expected. Chronic offenders do not seem to
respond well. Arrearage reduction incentives do not seem to be effective
in dealing with them.

**Contact:**

CHARLES KOONTZ

<CKOONTZ@DHHS.STATE.NH.US>

##### ADDENDUM "B" -- FOLLOW-UP MEETING PARTICIPANT LIST

1\. David Walker (WV) [david]{.underline}<welker@wvdhhr.org>

3.  Elaine Sorensen (Urban Institute) <esorense@ui.urban.org>

4.  David Arnaudo (OCSE) <darnaudo@acf.dhhs.gov>

5.  Barbara Cleveland (NPCL) <bcleveland@npcl.org>

6.  Paula Roberts (CLASP) <proberts@clasp.org>

7.  Justin Latus (APHSA) <jlatus@aphsa.org>

8.  Mike Hansen (OCSE) <mhansen@acf.dhhs.gov>

9.  Alisha Griffin (NJ) <agriffin@dhs.state.nj.us>

10. Myles Schlank (OCSE) <mkschlank@acf.dhhs.gov>

11. Dail Moore (OCSE) <dmoore@acf.dhhs.gov>

12. Todd Areson (VA) <txa900@dcse.dss.state.va.us>

13. Mary B. Williams (ROIII) <mwilliams@acf.dhhs.gov>

14. Charles Koontz (NH) <ckoontz@dhhs.state.nh.gov>

15. Valerie Merritt Kelly (ROIII) <vkelly@acf.dhhs.gov>

16. Robin Waddell (CT) <robin.waddell@po.state.ct.us>

17. Marceline D. Alexander (DC) <marceline2.alexander@dc.gov>

18. Joan Kaub (ROIII) <jkaub@acf.dhhc.gov>

19. David Panke (CT) <david.panke@jud.state.ct.us>

20. Bob Piekut (ROIII) <bpiekut@acf.dhhs.gov>

21. Aleida Varona (PR) <avarona@asume.gobierno.pr>

22. Carmen Arraiza (PR) <carraiza@asume.gobierno.pr>

23. R. Thomas Clifford (OCSE) <bclifford@acf.dhhs.gov>

24. Charles E. Hayward (DE) <chayward@state.de.us>

25. Carolyn Crumbley (ROIII) <ccrumbley@acf.dhhs.gov>

26. Gail Keller (PA) <gkeller@dpw.state.pa.us>

27. Jens A. Feck (ROII) <jfeck@acf.dhhs.gov>

28. Shawkat Rana (VA) <shr900@dcse.dss.state.va.us>

29. Teresa Kaiser (MD) <tkaiser@csea.dhr.state.md.us>

30. Margot Bean (NY) <margot.bean@dfa.state.ny.us>

31. Sheck Chin (OCSE) <schin@acf.dhhs.gov>

31\. Chuck Kenher (ROI) <ckenher@acf.dhhs.gov>