Office of Child Support Enforcement

OCSE Interstate Workgroup on Interagency Data Access

July 2003

Table of Contents

[1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1](#executive-summary)

[2. Introduction 3](#introduction)

[2.1 Scope 3](#scope)

[2.2 Participants 3](#participants)

[2.2.1 State Representatives 3](#state-representatives)

[2.2.2 OCSE and Partner Representatives
4](#ocse-and-partner-representatives)

[2.3 Process 4](#process)

[3. data identification and definition
5](#data-identification-and-definition)

[3.1 Methodology 5](#methodology)

[3.2 Data Definitions 6](#data-definitions)

[4. Recommendations for data Presentation
8](#recommendations-for-data-presentation)

[4.1 Methodology 8](#methodology-1)

[4.2 Standardizing Shared Financial Information
9](#standardizing-shared-financial-information)

[4.3 RECORD MOCK-UPS 10](#record-mock-ups)

[5. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS
11](#general-recommendations-and-next-steps)

[5.1 General Assumptions 11](#general-assumptions)

[5.2 Key Recommendations 12](#key-recommendations)

[5.3 Critical Success Factors 13](#critical-success-factors)

[5.4 Recommended Next Steps 14](#recommended-next-steps)

[5.4.1 Action Items 14](#action-items)

[5.4.2 Next Steps 15](#next-steps)

[6. APPENDICES 16](#appendices)

[A. ROSTER 16](#__RefHeading___Toc46906043)

[B. SOURCES 19](#__RefHeading___Toc46906044)

[C. information needs matrix 20](#__RefHeading___Toc46906045)

[D. GLOSSARY OF DATA ELEMENTS 23](#__RefHeading___Toc46906046)

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report summarizes the efforts of the Interstate Workgroup on
Interagency Data Access. Twenty-one members were chosen for their
perspectives in Child Support Enforcement (CSE), specifically interstate
case processing. Both state and Federal policy, program and systems
leaders convened to improve the consistency and productivity of the data
exchanged in interstate CSE cases. Individual members also represented
large and small states, judicial versus administrative programs, and
some states that had already built customer service websites. The
workgroup members' efforts are intended to have immediate impact and
also act as a platform for continuing improvements to the electronic
exchange of interstate case information.

To help interstate caseworkers more readily access other states' data
and, ultimately, to improve case management, customer service, and
increase collections, the group addressed two areas of immediate need:

-   A common understanding of the meanings of CSE terms, and

-   Comprehensive and logically arranged case financial histories for
    exchange with other states.

Consistent definitions of data, in a readily understood format, with
sufficient content, would expedite interstate communication, reduce the
need for human intervention and improve the accuracy of case
information.

This work augments existing interstate communication tools, such as the
Child Support Enforcement Network (CSENet), the Federal Case Registry
(FCR), and state websites and voice response systems, and does not
intend to replace them.

The work also focuses on the interstate caseworkers' need to perform
case management and customer service tasks. Additional improvements to
providing interstate information for use in court and for distribution
purposes were viewed as necessary, but were deferred to subsequent or
parallel efforts.

To create consistent definitions, the group first determined the types
of information and associated data elements interstate caseworkers
typically need to do their jobs. They assessed the availability of this
information in an electronic format. They then collectively agreed on
the most appropriate wording to define those elements that were
essential, but were missing from readily available sources. This will
enable all states to map state-specific terminology to a documented set
of commonly understood terms.

To assist states in the preparation or refinement of shared financial
histories, the group evaluated currently available payment histories
from numerous states, synthesized the positive attributes of these
histories, and developed a list of preferred formatting standards. Two
state participants then volunteered development teams to create visual
representations of the "imagined" payment records, so that all states
could see tangible ways financial information might be presented. States
with existing customer service websites could then refine the
presentation of that information. States without websites could save
time and energy in requirements definition and system design by using
the work products generated from this effort.

During the four months in which it met, the workgroup carefully
considered the operational impact of its recommendations. Members polled
frontline staff, supervisors, and neighboring states. But the workgroup
also recognized the need to verify their recommendations with a broader
audience of end users and all state CSE agencies.

# Introduction

The Interstate Workgroup on Interagency Data Access was established to
assist interstate caseworkers in handling their cases more effectively
by improving information sharing state to state. The workgroup was
chartered to address interstate information needs -- including
financial, court order, and case information -- and to recommend a
standard financial record that can be used and consistently understood
across state lines.

## Scope

The workgroup met four times on the following dates at the following
locations:

-   November 5-6, 2002 in Herndon, Virginia;

-   January 8-9, 2003 in Reston, Virginia;

-   February 5-6, 2003 in Phoenix, Arizona; and

-   March 11-12, 2003 in Reston, Virginia.

## Participants

Key representatives from the Administration for Children and Families
(ACF), Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE); state technical and
program staff; and several OCSE partners were in attendance. State
Information Technology Consortium (SITC) staff supported attendee travel
and meeting accommodations, performed research and analysis work, and
facilitated meeting discussions. The following individuals participated
in the meetings. A roster is provided in Appendix A.

### State Representatives 

The following state participants were selected to provide representation
from different facets of the CSE Program, including child support policy
knowledge, technical expertise specific to statewide child support
systems, and specific interstate experience. These participants
represent large and small states, judicial vs. administrative process,
and states that have already implemented customer service websites.
Participants are listed in alphabetical order by state:

-   Annmarie Mena, Arizona

-   Craig Goellner, Colorado

-   Mary Loven, Iowa

-   Cheryl Traina, Massachusetts

-   Phillip Herndon, New Mexico

-   Barry Burger, North Carolina

-   Mike Noreika, Pennsylvania

-   Larry Davis, Texas

-   Jeffrey Cohen, Vermont

-   Connie White, Virginia

-   Aaron Powell, Washington

### OCSE and Partner Representatives

The following individuals participated in the meetings, by facilitating
and supporting the workgroup, providing policy knowledge, and sharing
experience about other interstate initiatives:

-   Helen Smith, OCSE

-   Robin Rushton, OCSE

-   Eileen Brooks, OCSE

-   Dianne Offett, OCSE

-   Patricia Crawford, LMIT

-   Kerry Newcombe, Northrup Grumman

-   Christi Oakley, SITC

-   Cynthia Olson, SITC

-   Suzanne Poe, SITC

-   Sheila Drake, SITC

## Process

The workgroup was chartered to address providing needed information
electronically to interstate caseworkers and recommending a standard
financial record for use state to state. Key topics included:

-   Interstate information needs -- identifying the information that
    interstate caseworkers need to do their jobs more effectively,
    including who needs the information, what information is required,
    and when it is needed.

-   Common definitions -- defining terms so states can interpret
    information consistently and correctly.

-   Presentation of the information and its accessibility.

    At the conclusion of each meeting, a list of action items was
    created to document activities to accomplish between meetings.
    Summary minutes were produced and distributed to workgroup members
    following each meeting. A conference call was conducted in December
    2002 to solicit feedback from workgroup members regarding input from
    their staff. This conference call confirmed that the workgroup was
    moving in the right direction.

# data identification and definition

The workgroup determined that identifying the types of data that
interstate caseworkers need was crucial to achieving the goal of
assisting interstate caseworkers in handling their cases and developing
some commonality. Thus, a methodology was followed, assumptions were
made, and techniques were used to derive, define and validate the
required data elements.

## Methodology 

The process employed to construct the list of data elements began with a
brainstorming session. A spreadsheet was used to assist the group both
as a visual tool and as a documentation medium. For the identified
information needs that were broad categories (such as payment
information, contact information), the discussion drilled down to the
specific related data elements.

The next step was to complete a gap analysis to distinguish data
currently available in an electronic format from data not available
electronically. This initial analysis showed that the largest gap in
interstate case data is payment information. For those elements
currently available electronically to caseworkers, the source of the
data was identified. The group then evaluated the importance of data
elements to interstate caseworkers and indicated the priority to provide
(assessing each as high, medium, or low). This process was iterative in
nature; and as such, some data elements were dropped and others were
added. When the group was satisfied with this initial list, members were
asked to validate the list with their staff.

The next step was to provide a "layman's definition" for those elements
not available electronically. Throughout this discussion, comments and
needs/actions were identified and documented in the spreadsheet. As work
on data progressed, group members recognized that they needed to focus
on particular functions and decided to concentrate on those data
elements specific to case management and customer service. They also
decided that categorizing the information would assist the process. Data
elements were categorized into Financial Information, Court Order
Information and Case Information, as a way to organize the data elements
and to assist, logically, with the development of their definitions.

The information contained in the spreadsheet was used to assist with
researching various documents and websites to determine if complete and
acceptable definitions could be found. The sources used for this task
can be found in Appendix B.

The next step of the process was a consensus-building exercise. Each
definition was presented as found in one or more of the sources. The
group discussed the presented definition, and either revised the found
definition, accepted the definition as stated, or created a new
definition. As the definitions were finalized, they were documented in a
glossary, which includes the definition, the source of the definition,
any relevant notes and comments along with any assumptions that are
specific to a particular data element. In addition, an "information
needs status" matrix was used to keep track of and document how the
definitions were developed, any newly identified needs, any deleted
needs, and any other decisions relevant to the definitions. This matrix
is provided in Appendix C. The glossary is provided in Appendix D.

To support the process described above, several demonstrations and
reviews were conducted with the intention to educate the group, spark
conversation, and provide impetus to the task of selecting the
appropriate data elements, including:

-   Colorado's Needs Assessment Report, which was completed for the
    state's e-commerce initiative, includes information on what
    interstate caseworkers need. The materials reviewed included
    customer and caseworker input taken from surveys and focus groups.

-   Customer Service Web Functionality Matrix, which lists each state
    and the information that is available on its respective website.

-   Washington's DebtCalc 2000 tool, which is a case-based tool with a
    web front-end, mainframe back-end and legacy server. This tool
    provides the client's debt and all payment information.

-   Arrears Reconciliation Calculator Project, which offers states an
    easy-to-use tool to calculate the consolidated arrears balance from
    orders in different states.

## Data Definitions 

The purpose of this workgroup was to assist interstate caseworkers in
handling their cases more effectively, by improving the accuracy and
consistency of interstate data. One crucial aspect in achieving this
purpose was to provide common definitions of the data elements. The
group's primary effort was on defining those elements that were not
already available electronically. This was accomplished following the
methodology described above. For those elements already available
electronically, their definitions were reviewed and modified, if
required, to enhance understandability.

A parallel activity was to validate the requirement for each data
element. Several techniques were used to assist with this validation.

For financial information, 22 state payment statements were gathered and
analyzed, from both a content and readability perspective. Each
workgroup member discussed likes and dislikes about the various payment
statements.

In addition, a matrix was generated that listed the data elements for
which definitions had been created or reviewed versus the states that
had submitted a payment statement. A checkmark was made for each data
element that was presented on a state's payment record. This matrix was
used to determine if any data elements had been overlooked. The list
generated by the workgroup was more comprehensive than any of the
examined payment statements. This discussion and review led to the
development of a list of general recommendations for overall financial
record readability, which is described in Section 4. Another technique
that was employed was the creation of two mock-ups of standard payment
records. This, too, is further described in Section 4.

Those data elements categorized under "court information" were fairly
straightforward and self-evident. For example, the "order identifier"
and the designation for which party is ordered to provide medical
support are not as open to interpretation as other terms.

For case information, the focus was on recent and pending
administrative/court actions. Colorado's E-Commerce Application Design
Document (specifically "designlet 24"), the 45 CFR and Section 466 of
the Social Security Act were used to compile an all-inclusive list of
actions. This list is available as part of the task documentation.

# Recommendations for data Presentation

For clear interstate communication, the workgroup recognized that the
format and presentation of a common set of data elements could be as
critical as the content of that data. Consistent presentation of
information (specifically financial) across states is key to improving
interstate case processing. The group decided to capture a set of
presentation standards, so that states could communicate more
effectively. By moving beyond just a list of the data elements (and
definitions for the data) to ways the information might be displayed,
they attempted to put the data in context and confirm its utility.

## Methodology

The group assembled current payment statements from as many states as
possible, in order to understand how and what was being transmitted
today. They submitted payment records from their own states and
neighboring states for this analysis. In total, 22 payment statements
were reviewed. Included were:

+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| -   Alabama                | -   Nebraska                            |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| -   Alaska                 | -   New Mexico                          |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| -   Arizona                | -   New York City                       |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| -   Colorado               | -   North Carolina                      |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| -   Georgia                | -   Oregon                              |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| -   Iowa                   | -   Pennsylvania                        |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| -   Kansas                 | -   South Dakota                        |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| -   Kentucky               | -   Texas                               |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| -   Massachusetts          | -   Vermont                             |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| -   Missouri               | -   Virginia                            |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| -   Montana                | -   Washington                          |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+

The workgroup then reviewed these payment statements. Workgroup members
and some members' field staff rated the ease of use and
comprehensiveness of content, in order to arrive at a set of preferred
presentation standards. Their purpose was to provide guidance and not
fixed requirements for formatting financial information. They also
recognized that their role was not to decide the best technologies to
accomplish data transmission.

A matrix of those data elements appearing in the collected payment
statements versus those deemed as essential by the group was also
developed. Other than the "incoming payment amount" and its associated
date (which all states provided), there was a wide variance in the data
on each payment statement.

The workgroup further agreed that the term "payment statement" or
"payment record" did not encompass all the data elements an interstate
caseworker would need to effectively manage interstate cases and provide
customer service. They, therefore, renamed the conceptual template that
they hoped to provide to other states as "Financial Record".

## Standardizing Shared Financial Information 

After examining existing payment statements, the group's general
consensus was that those payment statements that were concise and
self-evident would be of most immediate use. State codes for case
actions made some statements difficult to decipher. Data expressed in
logical groupings was deemed as more readable. The workgroup listed the
following general recommendations for overall financial record
readability:

-   Provide sufficient "white space" on the record

-   Right justify dollar amounts

-   Present information left to right; top to bottom

-   Show "\$" signs to indicate an amount is money

-   List case events in reverse chronology

-   Use column titles

-   Provide the ability to sort by column

-   Avoid abbreviations

-   For dates, use month, day, year (century) format

-   "Box" information by year

-   Show gridlines

-   Use shading to distinguish entries

-   Use 12 point type size or larger

-   Avoid combining too much information into one view

-   Allow the reader the ability to "do the math" (i.e., ensure numbers
    flow from visually logical equations)

-   Organize by case level (static) information and then by transaction
    level (changing) information.

-   Show logical groupings of data elements on the same screen

-   Show page numbers (i.e., 1 of 10)

-   Ensure ADA compliance

-   Show the date a record was generated

The workgroup identified the following categories within which to
logically group information:

-   Disbursement (including date, amount, recipient)

-   Incoming payment

-   Outgoing payment

-   Case (static) information, such as name of the noncustodial parent
    and case identification number

-   Transaction information

-   Summary information, all totals and balances by category; that is
    "payments", "interest", "arrearages"

## RECORD MOCK-UPS 

Armed with the specifications for readability and for the logical
grouping of data elements, outlined immediately above, two members of
the workgroup volunteered to have their development teams, from Vermont
and Washington State, create graphic representations of the presentation
standards and concepts the workgroup had generated.

In both states, the development teams grappled with the same issue
before proceeding: the need to somehow identify cases in other states
through a query function. Both sets of developers needed to assume that
this capability existed before proceeding with the visual mock-ups.

Washington State approached the task of developing a sample financial
record with a "less is more" philosophy and presented a streamlined
record, geared to address immediate customer service needs with readily
available data. This effort sought to balance the number of data
requirements suggested by the workgroup with the need to train workers
to use extensive amounts of data.

Vermont's record mock-up was designed with an eye to presenting all
possible available information using multiple screens, while not
overwhelming the caseworker with information s/he might not need to see.
The user has the ability to see only summary information as well as
detailed information if needed.

Neither of the sample mock-ups incorporated all of the data elements
defined by the workgroup. As shared financial information is refined and
automated to accommodate continuing improvements to interstate
information access, the workgroup recognizes that the list of data
elements should also be refined.

The attempt to make their recommendations tangible, by quickly sketching
out ways the data elements might be presented, emphasized to the
workgroup that the technologies to accomplish electronic efficiencies
can readily accommodate their ideas for improvement. In the next
section, under "Critical Success Factors", the group's thoughts on
overcoming other potential barriers to institutionalizing their efforts
are provided.

# GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS

During the course of its meetings, the workgroup captured general
recommendations for improving interstate data access, as well as
recommendations specific to formatting and working with common
definitions for terms. The group also realized that certain general
assumptions were necessary to remain productive and focused for the time
allotted to this task.

To assist in furthering this effort, the workgroup also formulated a
recommended set of next steps and actions critical to future success.

## General Assumptions 

Initially, workgroup members looked at interstate data access from
multiple perspectives, but then narrowed their focus to those areas they
believed would have the most immediate impact: case management and
customer service.

#####  {#section .unnumbered}

####  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

***Workgroup's Focus***

The workgroup felt that their efforts should be expanded to incorporate
more court-related and distribution requirements over time. The group
realized and assumed that this would be an on-going effort, subject to
change, evolution, and modification; one that will likely lend itself to
a staged solution.

While the workgroup recognized that additional work needs to be done to
implement some of their recommendations, some of their work can be used
immediately. Time and energy can immediately be saved by states
developing websites, and states with websites that share CSE case
information can consider modifications to reduce interstate
miscommunication. States can also begin to "map" state-specific terms to
commonly accepted definitions as soon as these are communicated and
accepted.

Although they touched on exceptions, the group primarily focused on
addressing the automation of 80% of potential CSE scenarios and not on
those scenarios unique to less than 20% of CSE cases. Variations in
state policies reduce the feasibility of addressing all possible
scenarios.

Finally, from the outset, the workgroup intended to make full use of
existing tools that support interstate efforts, like CSENet, FCR,
websites, and automated voice response systems. This work augments those
tools; it does not replace them. Also, the workgroup focused on data
that already resides in state systems so states can avoid modifying
their systems to capture new data elements.

## Key Recommendations 

The following summarizes the key recommendations of this workgroup:

-   All states should translate obligation information to monthly data,
    as opposed to other state-specific reporting periods (weekly
    obligations should be translated to monthly amounts).

-   In addition to individual financial transactions, a monthly summary
    view should be an option.

-   Transmissions of interstate information should include an "as of"
    date and the name of the state providing the information in the
    transmission header.

-   Identifying information, such as name, SSN, and date of birth, are
    required and should be included in the transmission header.

-   The state should be mindful of the need for non-disclosure when a
    family violence indicator for the case is present. If relevant, a
    non-disclosure indicator should be included in the header of an
    interstate transmission.

-   Whenever possible, define financial information needs in the form of
    an equation; going forward use a standard financial record
    "template" that expresses the requested financial data elements in
    the form of an equation. (Financial information needs to "add up" in
    a way that is understandable.)

-   Keep "interest" and "arrearage" separate.

-   If available electronically, provide all financial information on a
    case. However, at a minimum, interstate caseworkers need a year, by
    month, of payment history.

-   State caseworkers should be aware of the fact that balances listed
    in transmissions may not include everything; for example, cost
    recovery and custodial parent fees.

During the course of the discussions, the capability to provide
certified court/administrative documents electronically also surfaced as
a worthwhile pursuit. The group envisioned this as a parallel activity,
not directly related to any follow-on activities of this workgroup.

## Critical Success Factors 

At a high level, the group recognized that OCSE should provide direction
and leadership for interstate coordination, and that there should be a
shared strategic vision and a coordinated communications effort for
interstate issues and initiatives.

The workgroup also agreed on a set of "guiding principles" to inform
future efforts. The following were listed:

-   Build on existing information and tools, minimizing duplication of
    data and processes. Consider the impact on state systems and
    operations and assess the level of effort -- Will the effort involve
    data mapping, new coding, and increased security? Is this worth the
    effort? Can the majority of states achieve this?

-   Strive to present data as current as possible.

-   Analyze and refine the immediacy of data needs.

-   Consider ease of use and access for ultimate users.

-   Consider system stability, reliability, and accessibility.

-   Look at 24/7 availability and availability in all time zones.

-   Help ensure the ease of implementation, including the potential of
    national models and templates for information sharing.

-   Keep costs reasonable.

-   Maintain data security. Provide the ability to control access.

-   Help ensure ease of maintenance.

-   Provide flexibility that allows incremental phasing, thereby adding
    more functions, adding new data elements, and increasing access to
    more stakeholder groups.

-   Provide for a staggered implementation. Not all states will be ready
    at the same time.

-   Consider alternative technologies and scalability. Strive for open
    systems.

-   Consider training and support.

-   Strive for a consistent look and feel across state lines.

The following graphic puts the work of this group in context with some
recommended next steps. The actions in bold have been accomplished.

***Some Success Factors***

A more detailed discussion of the group's recommended near term actions
to achieve success follows.

## Recommended Next Steps

The workgroup identified several action items and recommended next steps
to advance the completed work toward implementation of a solution that
will benefit states in performing interstate case management and
providing customer service to interstate clients.

### Action Items

-   Validate recommended data elements. Based on Federal feedback
    regarding certification guidelines for statewide child support
    systems and their required data elements, the workgroup will
    validate that the recommended information is currently captured by,
    or can be derived from, data already contained in state systems. The
    workgroup wants to avoid recommending new data elements and to
    minimize the impact on states.

-   Analyze the immediacy of data needs. The workgroup will carefully
    consider the possibility of implementing a solution in phases,
    making the most critical data available first or serving the needs
    of one stakeholder group at a time.

-   Request policy clarification from OCSE. The workgroup referred the
    policy issue of which state sends the withholding notice in a
    two-state process to OCSE.

-   Solicit feedback from states. OCSE will disseminate the information
    contained in this report to solicit feedback from a broader state
    audience and validate the workgroup's recommendations and
    assumptions. In addition, to further ensure state acceptance, OCSE
    will sponsor opportunities for states to comment and offer input,
    such as conducting conference calls and spotlighting the group's
    work at conferences, such as IV-D Directors' meetings and possibly
    NCSEA, the National Judicial Symposium, WICSEC, ERICSA, and ACF
    State Systems Meetings. Comments received will be thoughtfully
    considered.

### Next Steps

During the next phase of this initiative, workgroup members would like
to pursue the following:

-   Collect, analyze, and incorporate, where applicable, information on
    data security and confidentiality and the ability to control access
    to information.

-   Investigate possible statutory/regulatory issues (such as IRS) that
    could affect how the data is presented.

-   Complete a feasibility study to evaluate different implementation
    approaches, following the guiding principles already identified for
    how to implement a solution. This feasibility study would include
    analysis of alternatives, risk, costs and benefits, and impact to
    states.

-   Recommend a solution, create a prototype, and see it through the
    testing and pilot phases.

# APPENDICES

A.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc46906043 .anchor}ROSTER

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **ARIZONA**                       | **NEW MEXICO**                    |
|                                   |                                   |
| **Ms. Annmarie Mena**             | **Mr. Phillip Herndon**           |
|                                   |                                   |
| Policy & Resources Administrator  | Deputy Bureau Chief               |
|                                   |                                   |
| Division of Child Support         | CSED/Information Systems Bureau   |
| Enforcement                       |                                   |
|                                   | 2009 S Pacheco St.                |
| P.O. Box 40458                    |                                   |
|                                   | PO Box 25110                      |
| Site Code 776A                    |                                   |
|                                   | Santa Fe, NM 87505                |
| Phoenix, AZ 85067                 |                                   |
|                                   | Ph T, W, Th 505-827-6287          |
| Phone 602-274-7703                |                                   |
|                                   | Ph M, F 505-841-4451              |
| Fax 602-277-0517                  |                                   |
|                                   | Fax 505-476-7191                  |
| Email                             |                                   |
| <annmarie.mena@de.state.az.us>    | Cell 505-412-0411                 |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | Email                             |
|                                   | <phillip.herndon@state.nm.us>     |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **COLORADO**                      | **NORTH CAROLINA**                |
|                                   |                                   |
| **Mr. Craig Goellner**            | **Mr. Barry Burger**              |
|                                   |                                   |
| CSE Systems Director              | Chief of Program Operations       |
|                                   |                                   |
| Division of Child Support         | Child Support Enforcement         |
| Enforcement                       |                                   |
|                                   | P.O. Box 20800                    |
| 303 E. 17^th^ Ave.                |                                   |
|                                   | Raleigh, NC 27619-0800            |
| Suite 200                         |                                   |
|                                   | Phone 919-255-3807                |
| Denver, CO 80203                  |                                   |
|                                   | Fax 919-212-3842                  |
| Phone 720-947-5060                |                                   |
|                                   | Email <barry.burger@ncmail.net>   |
| Fax -- Unavailable                |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| Email                             |                                   |
| <craig.goellner@state.co.us>      |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **IOWA**                          | **PENNSYLVANIA**                  |
|                                   |                                   |
| **Ms. Mary Loven**                | **Mr. Mike Noreika**              |
|                                   |                                   |
| Management Analyst                | Interstate/CSENet Subsystem Lead  |
|                                   |                                   |
| Bureau of Collections             | PACSES                            |
|                                   |                                   |
| 400 S.W. 8^th^, Suite M           | 30 North Third Street             |
|                                   |                                   |
| Des Moines, IA 50309              | Harrisburg, PA 17101              |
|                                   |                                   |
| Phone 515-281-8377                | Phone 717-705-5158                |
|                                   |                                   |
| Fax 515-281-8854                  | Fax 717-772-1279                  |
|                                   |                                   |
| Email <mloven@dhs.state.ia.us>    | Email <MikeNoreika@PACSES.com>    |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **MASSACHUSETTS**                 | **TEXAS**                         |
|                                   |                                   |
| **Ms. Cheryl L. Traina**          | **Mr. Larry Davis**               |
|                                   |                                   |
| Director of Customer Service      | Senior Systems Analyst            |
|                                   |                                   |
| Child Support Enforcement         | 5500 E. Oltorf                    |
| Division                          |                                   |
|                                   | Austin, TX 78711                  |
| PO Box 7057                       |                                   |
|                                   | Phone 512-460-6826                |
| Chelsea, MA 02204                 |                                   |
|                                   | Fax 512-460-6800                  |
| Phone 617-887-7611                |                                   |
|                                   | Email                             |
| Fax 617-887-7540                  | <larry.davis@cs.oag.state.tx.us>  |
|                                   |                                   |
| Email <trainac@dor.state.ma.us>   |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **VERMONT**                       | **Ms. Robin Rushton**             |
|                                   |                                   |
| **Mr. Jeffrey Cohen**             | Director, Div. of State & Tribal  |
|                                   | Systems                           |
| IV-D Director, Office of Child    |                                   |
| Support                           | Phone 202-690-1244                |
|                                   |                                   |
| 103 South Main Street             | Fax 202-401-4582                  |
|                                   |                                   |
| Waterbury, VT 05671-1901          | Email <rrushton@acf.hhs.gov>      |
|                                   |                                   |
| Phone 802-241-2319                |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| Fax 802-244-1483                  |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| Email <jeffc@ocs.state.vt.us>     |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **VIRGINIA**                      | **Ms. Helen Smith**               |
|                                   |                                   |
| **Ms. Connie White**              | Assistant Associate Commissioner  |
|                                   |                                   |
| Program / Systems Dev. Manager    | Phone 202-690-6639.               |
|                                   |                                   |
| Division of Child Support         | Fax 202-401-5558                  |
| Enforcement                       |                                   |
|                                   | Email <hsmith@acf.hhs.gov>        |
| 730 E. Broad Street               |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| Richmond, VA 23219                |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| Phone 804-692-1513                |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| Fax 804-786-0546                  |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| Email                             |                                   |
| <cjw900@dcse.dss.state.va.us>     |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **WASHINGTON**                    | **Ms. Patricia Crawford**         |
|                                   |                                   |
| **Mr. Aaron Powell**              | Manager Oper. & Tech. Support,    |
|                                   | LMIT                              |
| Information Systems Manager       |                                   |
|                                   | 9500 Godwin Drive                 |
| Division of Child Support         |                                   |
|                                   | Bldg. 120/023, Box 136            |
| P.O. Box 9162                     |                                   |
|                                   | Manassas, VA 20110-4157           |
| MS 45860                          |                                   |
|                                   | Phone 703-367-3949                |
| Olympia, Washington 98507-9162    |                                   |
|                                   | Fax 703-367-3143                  |
| Phone 360-664-5402                |                                   |
|                                   | Email                             |
| Fax 360-664-0729                  | <Patricia.Crawford@lmco.com>      |
|                                   |                                   |
| Email <apowell@dshs.wa.gov>       |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **[Federal Office of Child        | **Ms. Kerry Newcombe**            |
| Support Enforcement               |                                   |
| (OCSE)]{.underline}**             | Technical Support Liaison         |
|                                   |                                   |
| Address for following             | Northrop Grumman                  |
| participants:                     |                                   |
|                                   | Reston, VA                        |
| Office of Child Support           |                                   |
| Enforcement                       | Phone 703-345-8094                |
|                                   |                                   |
| 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW         | Fax 703-345-8146                  |
|                                   |                                   |
| Washington, DC 20447              | Email                             |
|                                   | [kerry.newcombe@trw.com](m        |
|                                   | ailto:Christine.Jennings@trw.com) |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Ms. Eileen Brooks**             | **[State Information Technology   |
|                                   | Consortium (SITC)]{.underline}**  |
| Deputy Director, Policy Division  |                                   |
|                                   | c/o Software Productivity         |
| Phone 202-401-5369                | Consortium                        |
|                                   |                                   |
| Fax 202-401-4054                  | 2214 Rock Hill Road               |
|                                   |                                   |
| Email <ebrooks@acf.hhs.gov>       | Herndon, VA 20170-4227            |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Ms. Dianne Offett**             | **Ms. Sheila R. Drake**           |
|                                   |                                   |
| Interstate Liaison Officer        | Event Planner                     |
|                                   |                                   |
| Phone 202-401-5425                | Phone 703-742-7127                |
|                                   |                                   |
| Fax 202-205-4315                  | Fax 703-742-7350                  |
|                                   |                                   |
| Email <doffett@acf.hhs.gov>       | Email                             |
|                                   | [drake@software.or                |
|                                   | g](mailto:sitc_temp@software.org) |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ms. Christi Oakley**                                                |
|                                                                       |
| Project Manager                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| Phone 703-742-7297                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Fax 703-742-7350                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| Email <oakley@software.org>                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ms. Cynthia Olson**                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| Consultant                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| Phone 703-938-2194                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Fax 703-938-0467                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| Email <cynpib@aol.com>                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Ms. Suzanne Poe**                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| Consultant                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| Phone 540-843-0788                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Fax 540-843-0887                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| Email <Suzanne@shentel.net>                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

B.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc46906044 .anchor}SOURCES

The workgroup used the following sources:

-   ACF/OCSE Website

    -   Glossary of Child Support Terms,

> <http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/im-00-08.htm>

-   Calculating Payments from document \"Essentials for Attorneys in
    Child Support Enforcement\",
    <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/reports/essentials/c10.html>

-   "Instructions for the distribution of child support under section
    457 of the Social Security Act (the Act)",
    <http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/at-9717.htm>

-   Income Withholding Order/Notice,
    <http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/newhire/employer/income/income.htm>

-   OCSE-IM-97-05, Subject: Summaries from the "One-State" Interstate
    Retreat Held April 14-16, 1997 in Providence, RI,

> <http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/im-9705.htm>

-   Child Support Report, January 2000,
    <http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/new/csr0001.htm>

-   Document \"One-State & Limited-Services Interstate Case Processing\"
    Glossary of Terms,
    <http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/im-01-08a.htm#N10361>

-   Related Program Statutes and Regulations

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   45 CFR

-   Colorado E-Commerce Business Area Analysis Needs Assessment Report

-   Colorado E-Commerce Application Design Document

-   CSENet 2000 Interface Guidance Document

    -   Data Dictionary

    -   Glossary of Terms

-   Massachusetts Department of Revenue CSE Vocabulary for parents,
    [www.cse.state.ma.us/CSEVocabulary.htm](http://www.cse.state.ma.us/CSEVocabulary.htm)

-   National Center for State Courts Website,
    <http://www.ncsconline.org/wc/publications>

    -   English Legal Glossary

-   National Medical Support Notice

-   OCSE-34A Child Support Enforcement Quarterly Report of Collections

-   OCSE-157 Child Support Enforcement Annual Data Report

-   OCSE-396A Child Support Enforcement Program Financial Report

-   Social Security Act, Section 466

-   UIFSA Act

-   UIFSA Forms

    -   General Testimony

    -   Glossary

    -   Locate Data Sheet

-   Notice of Determination of Controlling Order

-   Transmittal #1 Initial Request: Period of Computation

C.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc46906045 .anchor}information needs matrix

**Financial Information**

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Status**   **Need**                                        **Electronically
                                                               Avail.**
  ------------ ----------------------------------------------- ------------------
  2            Incoming Payment Amount                         NO

  2            Incoming Payment Date                           NO

  2            Incoming Payment Source                         NO

  2            Current Support Due                             NO

  2            Date Associated with Current Support Due        NO

  2            Arrears Balance Owed                            NO

  2            Date Associated with Arrears Balance Owed       NO

  2            Interest Balance                                NO

  2            Date Associated with Interest Balance           NO

  2            Fees                                            NO

  2            Total Amount Owed                               NO

  2            Date Associated with Total Amount Owed          NO

  2            Judgment Amount                                 NO

  2            Adjustments                                     NO

  2            Cash Medical Support                            NO

  2            Assigned Arrears Balance                        NO

  2            Date of Disbursement                            NO

  4            Amount Disbursed                                NO

  4            Payment Recipient                               NO

  4            Instrument Identifier                           NO

  2            Last Payment Amount                             CSENet

  2            Last Payment Date                               CSENet

  11           Current Support (Note: this is "Current Support CSENet
               Due")                                           

  5            1 yr history or longer                          NO

  11           Arrears owed to CP                              NO

  11           Amount Kept by State                            NO
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Court Order Information**

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Status**   **Need**                                        **Electronically
                                                               Avail.**
  ------------ ----------------------------------------------- ------------------
  2            Order Identifier                                NO

  4a           Tribunal Identifier                             CSENet

  2            Which Party is Ordered to Provide Medical       NO
               Support                                         

  2            COS (Controlling Order State)                   NO

  10           Electronic Version of Certified Copy of Orders  NO

  11           Multiple Jurisdictions                          FCR

  4a           State(s) with an Interest in a Case             FCR, research
                                                               further

  11           Court/Admin Order Document Identifier (Note:    CSENet
               same as Order Identifier)                       

  2            Request Copy of Court Order / Documents         CSENet, (MA
                                                               website-request
                                                               only)

  11           Existing IWO: One State                         NO

  11           Existing IWO: Two State                         CSENet
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Case Information**

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Status**   **Need**                                        **Electronically
                                                               Avail.**
  ------------ ----------------------------------------------- ------------------
  2            Arrears Only Case Indicator                     NO

  2            Case Closure Reason                             NO

  2            Pending and Recent Court Administrative Actions NO

  2            Status/Reason                                   NO

  2            Worker to Worker Contact Capability/Information NO

  2            Caretaker Indicator                             NO

  4            Date IWN Sent                                   NO

  4            Employer Receiving Income Withholding Notice    NO

  2            Case Status                                     CSENet, FCR

  4a           Case Category                                   CSENet

  4a           Case Function                                   NO

  4a           Case Event/Action                               NO

  11           Case Status: Lien Filed Indicator               CSENet

  11           Case Status: TANF vs. Non-TANF                  CSENet

  11           Case Status: Court Hearings                     CSENet

  11           Case Status: Tax Offset                         CSENet
                                                               (collections)

  11           Case Status: Outstanding Warrant                CSENet

  11           Case Status: Genetic Testing                    CSENet

  11           Case Status: Paternity Establishment            CSENet

  11           Case Status: Open or Closed                     CSENet, FCR

  2            Children's Names, SSN and DOB                   CSENet, FCR

  2            IV-D Case \# for Initiating State               CSENet, FCR

  11           Asset/ Income Info                              CSENet, NDNH,
                                                               MSFIDM, 1099

  2            Multiple Cases Alert                            FCR

  11           Case Lookup Capability w/Verification           CSENet (CSI), FCR

  11           Case Specific Contact Information               CSENet

  11           Employer                                        NDNH, CSENet (out
                                                               of date)

  6            Timeframes                                      NO

  7            IRG Contact Information                         NO

  7            State Law/ Environment                          NO

  7            FIPS Codes                                      NO

  8            Family Violence Indicator                       NO

  9            Interstate Notice Matrix                        Various

  11           Case and/or Participant: Obligation Info by     NO
               Child                                           
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Status Codes:

1= Data already available; definition to be clarified by group

2= Definition complete

3= Definition needs to be addressed/completed

4= New information need identified and definition completed during
February meeting

4a= New information need identified and definition completed during
March meeting

5= Not information need; presentation of information

6= Not information need; how information is used

7= Not information need; hot link capability

8= Not information need; consider how information is transmitted where
family violence

is involved/an issue

9= Not information need; needed as a resource

10= Not information need; capability that workgroup would like to have

11= Information need deleted by workgroup

Information Needs removed during January meeting:

-   Case Notes: Overall Summary

-   Case Notes: Event History

Information Needs removed during February meeting:

-   Current Support -- Deleted because it is the same as Current Support
    Due

-   Arrears Owed CP -- Deleted because for a customer service view it
    could be misleading to parents, an extra step needs to be taken to
    make this determination (i.e., check other states with an interest
    in this case), and multiple states could be tracking the same
    information.

-   Amount Kept by State -- Deleted because the definition of assigned
    arrears was changed to reflect the amount owed to the state
    providing the information

-   Existing IWO: One State -- Created an element under Case
    Information: Date IWN Sent, which will indicate if a state already
    has income withholding in place

-   Existing IWO: Two State -- Taken care of in one-state

-   Periods of Assignment of Arrears (Public Assistance) -- Considered
    and then deleted because the definition of assigned arrears was
    changed to reflect the amount owed to the state providing the
    information

-   Case and/or Participant: Obligation Info by Child -- Deemed
    unnecessary with financial history information provided

Information Needs removed during March meeting:

-   Multiple Jurisdictions -- Replaced with "State(s) with an Interest
    in a Case"

-   Case Status was clarified to mean "indication of whether case is
    open or closed"

-   Individual Case Status Events/Actions -- Replaced with Case
    Event/Action

-   Asset/Income Information -- Not required after further consideration

-   Case Lookup Capability w/Verification -- Not a data element

-   Case Specific Contact Information -- Covered by Worker to Worker
    Contact Capability/ Information

-   Employer -- Information required contained in Employer Receiving
    Income Withholding Notice

D.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc46906046 .anchor}GLOSSARY OF DATA ELEMENTS

Financial Information

**[Incoming Payment Amount]{.underline}** [^1] - Indicates the total
payment received for a case.

> *Note: Added phrase "for a case" to CSENet definition.*

**[Incoming Payment Date]{.underline}** [^2] - A child support payment
is considered to be received on the date it arrives at the SDU.

> *Note: Modified OCSE 34A definition.*

**[Incoming Payment Source]{.underline}** Error: Reference source not
found --

2a. From the Offset of Federal Tax Refunds. Amounts received as a result
of the IRS offset of Federal income tax refunds. The full amount of the
collection is reported, prior to the reduction for the FMS service fee.

2b. From the Offset of State Tax Refunds. Amounts received as a result
of the offset of State income tax refunds.

2c. From the Offset of Unemployment Compensation Payments. Amounts
received as a result of the offset of unemployment compensation
insurance payments.

2d. Through Procedures for the High Volume, Automated Administrative
Enforcement in Interstate Cases (AEI). Amounts received as the
\"assisting state\" for AEI request in accordance with Section
466(a)(14) of the Social Security Act. (Amount reported will be
forwarded to another State during the current quarter or in a subsequent
quarter.)

2e. From Income Withholding. Amounts received as a result of either
voluntary or involuntary income withholding from Title IV-D cases,
including withholding actions initiated prior to the effective date of
Section 466(a)(1) of the Social Security Act. Also includes amounts
received from non IV-D child support cases for processing through SDU.

2f. From Other Sources. Amounts received from another state, including
any amounts received as the initiating state, either in Interstate or
AEI cases.

2g. From Other Sources. All other amounts received through the State\'s
own collections procedures, including: payments received directly from
non-custodial parents; collections received through the IRS\' full
collection process; collections received as a result of the
administrative offset process (prior to reduction for FMS service fee);
collections received through the Financial Institution Data Match; and
collections made as a result of the passport denial process.

> *Note: Clarification for 2f -- add state identifier. Requires an
> additional data element.*

**[Current Support Due]{.underline}** [^3] - The amount of monthly
current support payments (spousal, child, cash medical) owed under the
order less any payments received (does not include amounts on arrears).

> *Note: Distinguish from obligation.*
>
> *Note: It is strongly recommended that financial information be
> presented as a monthly amount when transmitting financial records.*

**[Date Associated with Current Support Due]{.underline}** Error:
Reference source not found - As-of date

**[Arrears Balance Owed]{.underline}** [^4] - The total unpaid support
obligation for past periods owed by a parent who is obligated to pay
(includes judgments).

> *Note: Added phrase "includes judgments" to MA Dept. of Revenue CSE
> Vocabulary for Parents definition.*

**[Date Associated with Arrears Balance Owed]{.underline}** Error:
Reference source not found - As-of date

**[Interest Balance]{.underline} Error: Reference source not found**-
Total amount of unpaid interest.

> *Assumption: Amount reflected on the system of the state providing the
> information.*

[Date Associated with Interest Balance]{.underline} Error: Reference
source not found - As-of date

**[Fees]{.underline}** Error: Reference source not found - Fees charged
to the NCP (e.g. legal, blood testing, filing).

> *Assumption: How much NCP owes; what goes into the arrears balance.*
>
> *Assumption: Not trying to address every fee (e.g. cost recovery fees,
> CP fees, Federal Offset).*

**[Total Amount Owed]{.underline}** Error: Reference source not found -
Current support due + arrears balance owed + interest balance + fees.

> *Assumption: This is a derived number* - *the sum of different
> elements.*
>
> *Assumption: This amount does not explain all discrepancies but is the
> basis for questions such as CP fees and cost recovery.*

**[Date Associated with Total Amount Owed]{.underline} Error: Reference
source not found** - As-of Date.

**[Judgment Amount]{.underline}** Error: Reference source not found -
Amount of arrears reduced to a recorded judgment.

> *Note: For case management purposes; part of order information.*

**[Adjustments]{.underline}** Error: Reference source not found -
Entries to payment history that change the balance; examples are bounced
checks, monies misdirected, injured spouse returns.

**[Cash Medical Support]{.underline}** [^5] - Cash payments for health
insurance and/or medical bills.

> *Note: A portion of the OCSE-157 definition was used.*

**[Assigned Arrears Balance]{.underline}** Error: Reference source not
found - Total amount of unpaid arrears assigned for the period of time
the custodial person (CP/obligee) received public assistance in the
state providing the information.

> *Assumption: Assume capability exists to check all state systems for
> other state(s) that may have an interest in the case.*
>
> *Assumption: For determining assigned arrears in other states, it may
> be necessary to check other sources such as FCR, other state systems,
> case file, etc.*

**[Date of Disbursement]{.underline}** Error: Reference source not
found - Date money is sent to each recipient for a case.

**[Amount Disbursed]{.underline}** Error: Reference source not found -
Amount of money sent to each recipient for a case.

**[Payment Recipient]{.underline}** Error: Reference source not found -
Entity who received the money (such as CP, state, other jurisdictions,
Foster Care, etc.).

**[Instrument Identifier]{.underline}** Error: Reference source not
found - Check or trace number of the outbound disbursement.

> *Note: The workgroup was not clear on how big an issue this is; needs
> more investigation.*

**[Last Payment Amount]{.underline}** Error: Reference source not
found - Amount of the last payment received for a case.

**[Last Payment Date]{.underline}** Error: Reference source not found -
Date the last payment was received in this case.

> *Note: Required because it could be a long time since a payment was
> received. Still want to know the date and amount of the last payment
> received.*

**Court Order Information**

**[Order Identifier]{.underline} Error: Reference source not
found**^,^[^6] - Number/characters that uniquely identify the order; may
be the tribunal number, docket number, cause number or any other
appropriate reference information. Depending on state policy this
identifier may remain constant or may change when the support order is
modified.

> *Note: Used part of UIFSA General Testimony definition.*

**[Tribunal Identifier]{.underline} Error: Reference source not found**
-- FIPS code of the tribunal that is associated with the order
identifier.

**[Which Party is Ordered to Provide Medical Support]{.underline}**
Error: Reference source not found - The parent obligated to provide
medical support, either cash or health insurance, for a case.

**[COS (Controlling Order State)]{.underline}** Error: Reference source
not found- State abbreviation of controlling order state, if a
determination has been made.

> *Assumption: If State code is present for the COS, then the Order
> Identifier identifies the controlling order. If the order identifier
> is present, but the state code for COS is blank, don't assume this
> order is the controlling order.*
>
> *Note: This links the order identifier with the controlling order
> state.*

**[Electronic Version of Certified Copy of Orders]{.underline}** Error:
Reference source not found -

> *Note: Not defining anything new; instead, documenting that the
> workgroup would like to be able to send copies electronically.*
>
> *Note: Look at existing request definitions in CSENet and state
> websites like MA.*

**[State(s) with an Interest in a Case]{.underline} Error: Reference
source not found** -- State abbreviations of those states that have
indicated to the FCR that they have an interest in the case.

**[Request Copy of Court Order/Documents]{.underline}** ^1^ -- Indicator
that provides the capability to request a copy of court order/documents.

**Case Information**

**[Arrears Only Case Indicator]{.underline} Error: Reference source not
found** - Current support obligation has ended, but arrears are still
outstanding. Value of Indicator: Y, N

**[Case Closure Reason]{.underline}** [^7] --

303.11 Case closure criteria.

The IV-D agency shall establish a system for case closure. In order to
be eligible for closure, the case must meet at least one of the
following criteria:

> \(1\) In the case of a child who has reached the age of majority,
> there is no longer a current support order and arrearages are under
> \$500 or unenforceable under State law;
>
> \(2\) In the case of a child who has not reached the age of majority,
> there is no longer a current support order and arrearages are under
> \$500 or unenforceable under State law;
>
> \(3\) The absent parent or putative father is deceased and no further
> action, including a levy against the estate, can be taken;
>
> \(4\) Paternity cannot be established because:
>
> \(i\) The child is at least 18 years old and action to establish
> paternity is barred by a statute of limitations which meets the
> requirements of 302.70(a)(5) of this chapter;
>
> \(ii\) A genetic test or a court or administrative process has
> excluded the putative father and no other putative father can be
> identified; or
>
> \(iii\) In accordance with 303.5(b) of this part, the IV-D agency has
> determined that it would not be in the best interests of the child to
> establish paternity in a case involving incest or forcible rape, or in
> any case where legal proceedings for adoption are pending;
>
> \(5\) The absent parent\'s location is unknown, and the State has made
> regular attempts using multiple sources to locate the absent parent
> over a three-year period, all of which have been unsuccessful;
>
> \(6\) The absent parent cannot pay support for the duration of the
> child\'s minority because the parent has been institutionalized in a
> psychiatric facility, is incarcerated with no chance for parole, or
> has a medically-verified total and permanent disability with no
> evidence of support potential. The State must also determine that no
> income or assets are available to the absent parent which could be
> levied or attached for support;
>
> \(7\) The absent parent is a citizen of, and lives in, a foreign
> country, does not work for the Federal government or a company with
> headquarters or offices in the United States, and has no reachable
> domestic income or assets; and the State has been unable to establish
> reciprocity with the country;
>
> \(8\) The IV-D agency has provided location-only services as requested
> under 302.35(c)(3) of this chapter;
>
> \(9\) The non-AFDC custodial parent requests closure of a case and
> there is no assignment to the State of medical support under 42 CFR
> 433.146 or of arrearages which accrued under a support order;
>
> \(10\) There has been a finding of good cause as set forth at
> 302.31(c) and either 232.40 through 232.49 of this chapter or 42 CFR
> 433.147 and the State or local IV-A, IV-E, or Medicaid agency has
> determined that support enforcement may not proceed without risk of
> harm to the child or caretaker relative;
>
> \(11\) In a non-AFDC case receiving services under 302.33(a)(1) (i) or
> (iii), the IV-D agency is unable to contact the custodial parent
> within a 30 calendar day period despite attempts by both phone and at
> least one certified letter; or
>
> \(12\) In a non-AFDC case receiving services under 302.33(a)(1) (i) or
> (iii), the IV-D agency documents the circumstances of the custodial
> parent\'s non-cooperation and an action by the custodial parent is
> essential for the next step in providing IV-D services.
>
> \(c\) In cases meeting the criteria in paragraphs (b) (1) through (7)
> and (11) and (12) of this section, the State must notify the custodial
> parent in writing 60 calendar days prior to closure of the case of the
> State\'s intent to close the case. The case must be kept open if the
> custodial parent supplies information in response to the notice which
> could lead to the establishment of paternity or a support order or
> enforcement of an order or, in the instance of paragraph (b)(11) of
> this section, if contact is reestablished with the custodial parent.
> If the case is closed, the custodial parent may request at a later
> date that the case be reopened if there is a change in circumstances
> which could lead to the establishment of paternity or a support order
> or enforcement of an order.
>
> \(d\) The IV-D agency must retain all records for cases closed
> pursuant to this section for a minimum of three years, in accordance
> with 45 CFR Part 74, Subpart D.
>
> \[54 FR 32311, Aug. 4, 1989, as amended at 56 FR 8004, Feb. 26,1991\]
>
> *Note: Use only reasons contained in regulations*

**[Pending & Recent Court/Administrative Actions]{.underline}** Error:
Reference source not found - List of actions of interest to another
state. List of actions (pending and recent) taken; (e.g., court date
scheduled, actions taken, appeal hearing scheduled); both time period
and number of actions.

> *Note: Recent events for case; action code with reason codes.*

**[Status/Reason]{.underline}** Error: Reference source not found - To
indicate or explain why there is no activity on the case. Examples
include: address unknown, bankruptcy, incarcerated, SSI, disability,
employer unconfirmed (special circumstances).

> *Note: To be used only when no recent activity is recorded in the
> \"Pending & Recent Court/Administrative Actions\" field.** ***

**[Worker to Worker Contact Capability/Information]{.underline} *Error:
Reference source not found***- Other method of direct worker-to-worker
contact; for example email address (not available to the public).

> *Note: This should be part of the CSENet transaction. Should be at
> state discretion. Confidentiality and access control issues need to be
> resolved here.*

**[Caretaker Indicator]{.underline} Error: Reference source not
found** - Caretaker who is custodian of the child(ren), but who is not
the mother or father of the child(ren). Value of indicator: Y, N

**[Date IWN Sent]{.underline}** Error: Reference source not found - Date
the providing state last sent a withholding notice.

> *Note: Applies to both one-state and two-state.*
>
> *Issue: Timing of update; potential candidate for batch transmission
> in addition to real-time.*
>
> *Issue: How do we prevent states from stepping on each others' toes?*
>
> *Referred policy issue of which state sends the withholding notice in
> a two-state process to OCSE.*

**[Employer Receiving Income Withholding Notice]{.underline}** Error:
Reference source not found - FEIN (if available) and name of employer to
whom the last withholding notice was sent.

> *Note: Question of whether to include address; depends on
> implementation.*

**[Case Status]{.underline} Error: Reference source not found** --
Indication of whether the case is open or closed.

**[Case Category]{.underline} Error: Reference source not found** --
Indication of whether the case is TANF, Non-TANF, Foster Care, Non IV-D,
or Medicaid Only.

**[Case Function]{.underline} Error: Reference source not found** --
Indication of the phase in the workflow of a case (intake, locate,
paternity establishment, support order establishment, enforcement).

**[Case Event/Action]{.underline}** Error: Reference source not found --
Recent actions concluded with associated dates; recent actions pending
with associated dates; at a minimum include the last action taken and
its associated date.

Examples of actions concluded:

> Paternity established, genetic testing completed, service of process
> achieved, lien filed, withholding order sent, reported to credit
> bureau, driver's license suspended, bank account frozen
>
> Examples of actions pursued: Same, but framed in another tense

**[Children's Names, SSN, and DOB]{.underline}** -- Self-explanatory.

**[IV-D Case Number for Initiating State]{.underline}** --
Self-explanatory.

**[Multiple Cases Alert]{.underline} Error: Reference source not found**
-- Indicates that the obligor has more than one case recorded on the
state system.

> *Note: This may be a derived element.*

[^1]: ^1^ Definition Source: CSENet Data Dictionary

[^2]: ^2^ Definition Source: OCSE-34A

[^3]: ^3^ Definition Source: OCSE Interstate Workgroup on Interagency
    Data Access

[^4]: ^4^ Definition Source: MA Department of Revenue CSE Vocabulary for
    Parents

[^5]: ^5^ Definition Source: OCSE-157

[^6]: ^6^ Definition Source: UIFSA General Testimony

[^7]: ^7^ Definition Source: OCSE Website: (Related Program Statutes and
    Regulations are the preamble to the final rule on case closure (64
    FR 11810, 11812 (March 10, 1999); OCSE-AT-99-04 and 45 CFR 303.11.