# Presentation: 351031

## Office of Child Support EnforcementDivision of State and Tribal Systems

- Post – Certification
- Level of Automation
- Technical Assistance

## State Systems Update

- Not FSA Certified = 2 States
- Not PRWORA Certified = 5 States

## Post-Certification Focus

- Now it’s all about IMPROVING the level of AUTOMATION...
- Most States have automated each of their major
- 		Child Support processes to some degree.
- But does your system maximize the level of
- 		automation that is possible?
- We want to provide tools that will make that evaluation
- 		easier.

## Automation Improvements

- We have talked with several States who have significantly improved their processes through enhanced automation
- Their message is similar...
- Caseworker’s spend less time reacting to and more
- 	    time proactively resolving issues
- Mandated time frames are adhered to
- Consistency is greatly improved
- Data is more reliable

## Federal Support

- Improving the level of automation makes sense, but we understand that States cannot do it alone.
- So we are committed to helping States by providing technical assistance and supporting innovative solutions.

## Types of Support

- Research
- Identify and promote innovative solutions developed by your peers
- Technical Assistance
- Site Visits
- Tool Kits
- Trainings
- Demonstration Projects
- Provide resources to implement promising approaches

## Current InitiativesLevel of Automation

- Case Closure
- Review and Adjustment
- Alerts
- State Systems Profile

## Case Closure Guide 

- Chapter 1:  Introduction
- Findings
- Chapter 2:  Case Closure Automation Starter Kit
- 303.11 regulations
- Business and system requirements matrix
- Case closure process flowcharts
- Sample case closure intent notice
- Case study: State of Virginia
- Chapter 3:  Case Closure Automation Discussion Guide

##   OIG Findings

| Overall | Percent of Cases   with Error  |
| --- | --- |
|     Case did not meet all Federal closure requirements (n=495) | 32 % |
| Type of Error * |  |
|   Case did not meet a Federal closure reason (n=495) | 10 % |
|   Notice was not provided to recipient of services (n=372) | 25 % |
|   Closure occurred before 60-days had elapsed (n=267) | 11% |

**  **_**OIG Findings**_

- *Type of error percentages do not total 32 percent because some cases contain more than one error.

## Top  6 Case Closure Reasons (95% of Cases, 96% of Errors)

| Federal Closure Reason  | Percent of Cases Using Reason* |
| --- | --- |
| [1] No enforceable order, and arrearage less than $500 | 26% |
| [4] Unable to locate noncustodial parent or putative father   | 24% |
| [8] Non-TANF client requests closure  | 18% |
| [11] Non-TANF client uncooperative  | 12% |
| [10] Lost contact with non-TANF client  | 8% |
| [3] Unable to establish paternity  | 7% |

- (*N=495)

## OIG Recommendation

- Recommended OCSE assist states in further automating case closure to reduce the error rate.
- OCSE response
- Automating Case Closure Guide
- Training
- Technical Assistance

## Benefits of Automating Case Closure

- Reduce case closure errors
- Ensure that next actions are taken in a timely manner and uniformly across cases
- Reduce or eliminate backlogs so states can concentrate resources on cases requiring worker determination
- Reduce data management demands by eliminating duplicate and outdated cases

## Using the Requirements Matrix: Reg. 303.11 (b) (1)

| OIG % Cases Closed  | Req. 1  | Req. 2 | Req. 3  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 26%  | *There is no longer a current support order (includes temporary orders - AT-99-04) (AUTO) | *Arrearages are under $500 (AUTO) | *60-day notice required
303.11(c)
(DOCUMENT) |

**Shaded cells marked with an * contain requirements **
**that could be considered for automation **

| OIG % Cases Closed  | Req. 1  | Req. 2 | Req. 3  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 26%  | *There is no longer a current support order (includes temporary orders - AT-99-04) (AUTO) | Arrearages are unenforceable under State law (UNKNOWN STATE LAW) | *60-day notice required
303.11(c)
(DOCUMENT) |

- Using the Requirements Matrix: Reg 303.11 (b) (1) – cont.

## Using the Process Flowcharts:Reg. 303.11 (b) (1)

## Using the Discussion Guide

-    Intended for use by State child support enforcement (CSE) stakeholders, both state policy, program operations, technical personnel and their contractors, and Federal OCSE technical assistance staff, to:
- Consolidate and document their knowledge of their CSE system’s current level of automation
- To identify further opportunities for automation

## EXAMPLE – Completed Discussion GuideSec.303.11(b)(1) only

##     Virginia’s Experience 	

- Manual  & Automated

**Presented by:**

**Connie White, **
**Virginia**** ****DCSE**

- Reaching New Heights with Case Closure

**Notes:**
Introduction

## JLARC Study 1999Requirements:

- Examine caseload, employment levels and workload
- Recommend how to improve the program

**Notes:**
The study was required to include an examination of the caseload, management employment levels and workload of the State and district DCSE offices

It would also make recommendations as to how the program could be improved to better meet the needs of Virginia’s  children.

## Findings

- Between 9% and 26% of caseload estimated to be “unworkable” or “inactive”:
- Cases that can be closed (using Case Closure criteria)
- Unworkable (in one status for over three years or very little information)
- Inactive (cases with no action in over a year)

**Notes:**
The estimated number of cases that could be closed was 110, 813, dropping the average caseload per worker from 878 to 648

## Recommendations

- The Department of Social Services should initiate a statewide caseload cleanup effort to remove old cases from DCSE’s active caseload.
- DCSE should make analyzing and cleaning up the statewide caseload a priority

**Notes:**
The two year manual cleanup effort reduced the State’s caseload from 420,000 to 359,000, but was too time-consuming to sustain with other responsibilities.

## Manual Cleanup

- Two year manual cleanup resulted in a net reduction in the State’s caseload from 420,000 to 381,000
- To supplement the manual process, we developed an automated closure process

## Automated Case Closures	

- Closure reasons:
- There is no longer a current support order and arrearages are under $500 or unenforceable under State law  - Section 303.11, (b) (1)
- The non-custodial parent or putative father is deceased – Section 303.11 (b) (2)
- The non-custodial parent’s location is unknown – Section 303.11 (b) (4)

## No Longer an Order/Arrears under $500 or unenforceable

- There is no longer a current support order and arrearages are under $500 or unenforceable under State law  - Section 303.11, (b) (1)
- Zero Arrears
- All children have reached emancipation age
- No payments in last 30 days

**Notes:**
Based on focus group input, the team developed an automated process with even stricter closure criteria than the Federal regulation.  The stiffer closure criteria include $0 arrearage , no support payments in the last thirty days and all children are over 18 or have reached emanicipation  age.

## NCP is Deceased

- The non-custodial parent or putative father is deceased – Section 303.11 (b) (2)
- No further action can be taken by the Division
- The NCP has been deceased for 13 months
- Use Vital Records & FCR data

**Notes:**
Worklist is sent to worker when date of death information is received 

## NCP’s Location Unknown

- The non-custodial parent’s location is unknown – Section 303.11 (b) (4)
- There is insufficient information available to initiate automated locate searches, and locate efforts have been unsuccessful for over a one year period.
- NCP has no SSN or Date of Birth
- NCP in locate status for over one year
- Sufficient information is available to initiate automated locate efforts and regular attempts using multiple sources to locate NCP have been unsuccessful for more than three years
- NCP has SSN and DOB, no locate matches for 3 years or unsuccessful matches

## Automated Assist for Worker-Initiated Case Closures

- Worker marks case for closure by entering a closure reason.
- Closure notice is generated in nightly batch processing & mailed by mailing vendor.
- Worker may chose to print closure notice in their office.
- Worker can stop closure by deleting closure reason.
- System closes case after 65 days.
- Edits prevent worker from closing a case on the same day the closure code is entered.

## Benefits of Case Closure-Automated

- Number of cases closed in compliance with Federal criteria has increased.
- There are fewer case closure errors compared to manual processing.
- Case closures are more timely.

## Benefits of Case Closure-General

- Reduced Caseloads
- Worker caseloads have decreased significantly, from 1,100 to 950 per caseworker.  Workers feel less overwhelmed and have more time to focus on collections

## Slide 30

## Case Closure Improves Performance

- Close cases that meet criteria
- Reduces the denominator
- Eliminates old, unproductive, error-prone cases
- Allows staff time to focus on productive cases
- Virginia has passed  the data reliability audit at 95% for the past 4 years

## Results	

- Using a combination of manual and automated case closure the Division has closed 300,000 cases from December 1999 through April 2004.

## Automating case closure has reduced Virginia’s caseload

## Reaching New Heights with Case Closure!!!

## Support Review and Adjustment Tool Kit

- Child support review and adjustment is one of several administrative processes addressed by PRWORA.
- Custodial and non-Custodial parents are required to receive notice regarding their right to have the amount of support reviewed if circumstances change.
- In addition to a review initiated by either case party, CSE programs can initiate a review using the following methods:
- Adjust the current order in accordance with guidelines if the current support amount differs from the guidelines calculation;
- Apply a cost-of-living adjustment in accordance with a State developed formula;
- Use automated methods to identify orders eligible for review and apply the appropriate adjustment

## Support Review and Adjustment Tool Kit

- The Support Review and Adjustment Tool Kit targets states that have not yet automated, or fully automated, their Review & Adjustment process.
- It highlights innovative solutions implemented by states that have successfully automated the process.
- The kit includes information about the benefits of automation, applicable policy and legislation, case studies, and relevant tools that assist with automation assessment and development.

## Support Review and Adjustment Tool Kit

- Innovative solutions implemented by 4 states will be presented via case studies:
- Alaska
- Maine
- Minnesota
- Vermont
- Both automated wage / income comparisons and COLA adjustments will be highlighted.

## Support Review and Adjustment Tool Kit

- Process flowcharts will highlight points in the process that are best served by automation
- Tools for assessing existing level of automation and potential for improvement to be developed.

## Support Review and Adjustment Tool Kit

- Site Visit Itinerary
- Vermont : June (completed)
- Minnesota: July (completed)
- Alaska: August (completed)
- Maine: September (planned)
- Draft tool kit document scheduled for fall 2004.

## Planning for Technical Assistance

- In order to plan how we will provide technical assistance, we first need to know what is most important to you
- Most likely you are juggling multiple IT projects ... some are in progress and some might be planned for a future time when resources are available

## What are your automation priorities? Think about your top 2 or 3 automation projects. Do they:
Add new functionality or enhance existing functionality 
Respond to a Federal or State mandate, or are they in response to program planning
Involve vendor involvement or will you build them in-house?

Other than financial assistance (that’s a given!), what type of OCSE support would most help you improve your current level of automation?

- Add new functionality or enhance existing functionality
- Respond to a Federal or State mandate, or are they in response to program planning
- Involve vendor involvement or will you build them in-house?
- Other than financial assistance (that’s a given!), what type of OCSE support would most help you improve your current level of automation?

**Questions for Audience**