Department  of Health  and Human  Services 
OFFICE  OF 
INSPECTOR  GENEML 
REVIEW AND ADJUSTMENT  OF  IV-D

CHILD  SUPPORT  ORDERS

#i Smvlcq 
&  &?a 
+  9 
JUNE GIBBS BROWN 
* 
$ 
<  Inspector  General 
z
% 
%+-~ APRIL1995 
+>da a OEI-07-92-00990  Depafiment  of Health  and Human  Services 
OFFICE  OF 
INSPECTOR  GENEML 
REVIEW AND ADJUSTMENT  OF  IV-D 
CHILD  SUPPORT  ORDERS 
.* SWJCE$,  ,  OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 
The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as 
amended, is to protect the integrity of the Department  of Health and Human Services (HHS) 
programs as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries sewed by those programs.  This 
statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits, investigations, and 
inspections conducted by three OIG operating components:  the OffIce of Audit Semites, the 
Office of Investigations, and the Office of Evaluation and Inspections.  The OIG also informs 
the Secretary of HHS of program and management problems and recommends courses to 
correct them. 
OFFICE OF AUDIT  SERVICES 
The 010s  Office of Audit Services (OAS) provides all auditing services for HHS, either by 
conducting audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. 
Audits examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in 
carrying out their respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent 
assessments of HHS programs and operations in order to reduce waste, abuse, and 
mismanagement and to promote economy and efficiency throughout the Department. 
OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 
The OIGS Office of Investigations (01) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative 
investigations of allegations of wrongdoing in HHS programs or to HHS beneficiaries and of 
unjust enrichment by providers.  The investigative efforts of 01 lead to criminal convictions, 
administrative sanctions, or civil money penalties.  The 01 also oversees State Medicaid fraud 
control units which investigate and prosecute fraud and patient abuse in the Medicaid program. 
OFFICE OF EVALUATION  AND  INSPECTIONS 
The OIGS Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts short-term management and 
program evaluations (called inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department, 
the Congress, and the public.  The findings and recommendations contained in these inspection 
reports generate  rapid, accurate, and up-to-date information on the efficiency, vulnerability, 
and effectiveness of departmental  programs. 
This report was prepared  in the Kansas City Regional Office under the direction of James H. 
Wolf, Regional Inspector General. Project staf~ 
&@=?!!  Headmxwters 
Raymond Balandron, Project Leader  David Wright, Program Specialist 
Linda Paddock, Program Inspection Assistant 
To obtain a copy of this report, call the Kansas City Regional Office at (800)241-2527.  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY 
PURPOSE 
To  determine  the  status  of States  progress  in, and  major  barriers  to, fully 
implementing  the  review  and  adjustment  provisions  for  child support  orders  as 
required  by the  Family  Support  Act  of 1988. 
BACKGROUND 
Effective  October  13, 1990, States  are  required  to develop  a plan  for  review  and 
adjustment  of child support  orders;  initiate  a review,  should  either  parent  or the  IV-D 
agency  request  one;  and  adjust  support  orders,  where  appropriate,  in accordance  with 
State  established  guidelines.  Additionally,  effective  October  13, 1993, States  are 
required  to have  implemented  procedures  whereby  support  orders  will be  reviewed  no 
later  than  36 months  from  the  date  of establishment  or last  review,  and  adjusted  in 
accordance  with  States  guidelines  for support  award  amounts. 
These  recent  amendments  of the  Family  Support  Act  of 1988 reflect  Congressional 
concern  in this area  and  its intent  that  an adjustment  to a current  child  support  order 
be  easier  to obtain,  and  that  such adjustment  should  be based  on States  rebuttable 
child  support  guidelines. 
This  report  is based  on self-reported  data  from  a mail  survey which was sent  to each 
of the  54 State  Child  Support  Enforcement  agencies.  All agencies  responded. 
STATUS  OF  STATES  REVIEW  AND  ADJUSTMENT  PROCESSES 
All  SLIJtechild supporatgenciks  have  writkm pmcedurtwgd@nes  h  place  todemonstrate 
how their review and  ad@rnentpnxefs  if lb jimctim 
We verified  this by obtaining  copies  of agencies  written  procedures/guidelines. 
Rqganilas  of procedUrwj@delines  being  in plizcej  two-think  of  State  child  supprt 
agencies acknowkdge  being behind in the review and  adjustment  requhmwnts. 
Thirty-six  (66 percent)  of the  child support  agencies  reported  they  are  behind  in 
processing  cases  due  for review. 
lhequarters  of  StatZ  ch.iki supporagtencks  tick  an  advanced  automated  system  which 
hashindered  their meeting  thereview andadjWmentm#nmen& 
Forty-one  (76 percent)  of the  child support  agencies  reported  that  their  current 
automated  system  is antiquated  causing  problems  and  delays  in processing  review  and 
adjustment  cases.  Also,  they  are  unable  to produce  statistical  data  from  which 
i  management  reports  can be  generated.  All agencies  did report  they  intend  to have 
advanced  automated  systems by September  30, 1995. 
Abrwsthalfthe State ~  citea lack of sta~g  resources as another obticle  in 
pmc&g  the huge number of revikw and adjustment  cases. 
Twenty-four  (44 percent)  of the  child support  agencies  responded  that  their  current 
number  of staff is unable  to handle  the  large  review  and  adjustment  caseload. 
Thee  out often  Sate  child support  agencies indicated  that the inconsistency by States in 
enforcing two sepuuti  bztemtate laws makes  it @7cuU  and causes deihys in the pmcessihg 
of review and adjustment  cases. 
Sixteen  (thirty  percent)  of the  State  child support  agencies  report  delays  in processing

interstate  cases  due  to two interstate  laws, the  Uniform  Reciprocal  Enforcement

Support  Act  (URESA),  later  revised  and  enacted  as the  Revised  Uniform  Reciprocal

Enforcement  of Support  Act  (RURESA),  and  the  Uniform  Interstate  Family  Support

Act  (UIFSA).

While  all 54 States  and  territories  had  previously  adopted  some  form  of

URESA/RURESA  as a matter  of State  law, concerns  existed  about  State-to-State

variances  in statute  enforcement.  In response,  a new model  act, UIFS~  was

approved  and  enacted  in varying  extent  by 22 States.  This model  was endorsed  by the

U.S.  Commission  on Interstate  Child  Support.

There  are  specific  differences  in these  laws.  Under  URESA/RURES~  more  than

one valid  order  could  exist in a case  at any one  time,  which  causes  confusion  in

calculating  an arrearage  or determining  which  order  to enforce.  Under  UIFSA  Only
one  support  order  is in effect  in a case  at any one  time  and  only that  State  has the

right  to  change  the  order.

State chiki suppmt  agencies repti  several other banim  which present problems  and 
&lays  in pmceiwing review and djustrnent  cases. 
Other  barriers  reported  include  the judicial  process  being  too  cumbersome,  the  court 
system being  too  overloaded,  conflict  of interest  issues, fiscal constraints,  and 
inadequate  training/guidance  from  the  Federal  government. 
OPPORTUMTIES  FOR  ACF  TO  IMPROVE  STATES  REVU3W  AND 
ADJUSTMENT  PROCESSES 
The  Administration  for Children  and  Families  (ACF),  Office  of Child  Support 
Enforcement,  has helped  State  child support  agencies  progress  in this area.  We 
recognize  that  ACF  is in no position  to provide  financing  to overcome  States 
ii  perceived  resource  limits  or address  every barrier  reported.  However,  we suggest  that 
ACF  continue  monitoring  the  situation  and  helping  the  States  as much  as possible.  In 
particular  ACF  should: 
.	 Communicate  with States  to determine  their  status  in updating  their  automated 
systems,  and  continue  to encourage  and  assist them  in whatever  ways possible 
to meet  the  October  1, 1995 deadline  for having  in effect  an operational  and 
certified  computerized  support  enforcement  system.  The  updated  systems 
could  ease  the  burden  of limited  staff, aid substantially  in overcoming  time 
delays,  and  provide  an information  retrieval  system  for  statistical  management 
reports. 
l(cid:1) In anticipation  of a Federal  mandate  requiring  all States  to enact  UIFS~ 
continue  technical  assistance  activities  through  training  sessions  on UIFS~  and 
using experienced  child support  practitioners  in UIFSA  to discuss  and  resolve 
implementation  issues with those  States  which  have  not  yet  enacted  UIFSA. 
.	 Continue  to provide  guidance  and  technical  assistance  to States  helping  them 
implement  and  fully understand  their  requirements  for review  and  ad@ment. 
... 
111  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 
PAGE 
EXECUTIVE  s~y 
.1

lNTRODUmON  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
PROCE=ES  . . . . . . ...3

STA71JS  OF  STAT=  REmW  AND  o~~ 
3 
Written  procedures/@delines  arein  place  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
3 
Many support  agencies  are behind  inretiews  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Primary  obstacle  is lack of an updated  automated  system  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 
.3

Seconda~obstacle  islack  of staffing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
4 
Interstate  laws cause  delays inretiews  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
4 
Other  bartiersefist  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
OPPOR~  FOR  ACF  TO  IMPROW  STAT=  REWW  AND  .5 
~w~pR~=Qo.0.Q.0.  ..  OO............... 
MPENDICES 
. .  A-1

fkComposite  of State  Responses.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
B  Barriers  Repotied  by State  Child Support  Agencies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  B-1  INTRODUCTION 
PURPOSE 
The  purpose  of this study is to determine  the  status  of States  progress  in fully 
implementing  the  review  and  adjustment  provisions  set  out in Section  103(c)  of the 
Family  Support  Act  of 1988. 
BACKGROUND 
Le@iWon/ReguMiom 
The  Administration  for Children  and  Families  (ACF),  Office  of Child  Support

Enforcement  (OCSE),  is the  organizational  unit  responsible  for the  administration  of

the  IV-D  program.  Section  103(c) of the  Family  Support  Act  of 1988 (P.L.  100-485)

requires  the  review  and,  as appropriate,  adjustment  of child support  orders  being

enforced  under  the  IV-D  program.  Under  section  103, the  Social  Security  Act was

amended  by adding  a new  section  466(a)(10)(A),  effective  October  13, 1990, which

required  States  to:  develop  a plan  for review  and  adjustment  of support  orders;

initiate  a review,  in accordance  with the  plan,  should  either  parent  or the  IV-D  agency

request  a review,  and  adjust  support  orders,  where  appropriate,  in accordance  with

State  established  guidelines.

Additionally,  a new  section  466(a) (10)(B),  effective  October  13, 1993, required  States

to have  implemented  procedures  whereby  support  orders  enforced  under  title  IV-D

will be  reviewed  not  later  than  36 months  from  the  date  the  order  was established  or

last  reviewed  and  adjusted  in accordance  with the  States  guidelines  for  support  award

amounts.  There  are,  however,  the  following  exceptions:  (1) in AFDC  cases  when  it is

determined  that  the  review  would  not  be  in the  best  interest  of the  child  and  neither

parent  has requested  a review,  and  (2) in non-AFDC  cases where  neither  parent  has

requested  a review.

Under  this legislation,  States  must  noti~  each  parent  of the  intent  to review  the  child

support  order  and  of their  right  to request  such  a review  be  conducted.  Also, each

parent  must  be  notified  of a proposed  adjustment  in the  award  amount  (or  a

determination  that  there  should  be  no change)  and  of the  right  to challenge  such

adjustment  or determination.

The  Federal  Register,  Vol.  57, No.  249, dated  December  28, 1992, states  that

historically,  most  child support  orders  were  not  adjusted  over  the  life of the  order,  and

thus  failed  to reflect  circumstances  which  changed  over  time.  Also, many  times

parents  failed  to request  adjustments  because  of the  difficulty in proving  such  changed

circumstances.  These  recent  provisions  reflect  Congressional  concern  in this  area  and

its intent  that  an adjustment  to a current  child support  order  be  easier  to obtain,  and

that  such  adjustment  should  be based  on States  rebuttable  child  support  guidelines.
 Proposed  regulations  governing  retiewand  adjustment  were  published  on Au@st  15, 
1990.  Final  regulations  governing  therequirements  effective  Octoberl3,  1990, were 
published  July  10, 1992.  Final  regulations  governing  the  requirements  effective 
October,  13, 1993, were  published  December  28, 1992, at 45 CFR  302 and  303. 
METHODOIX)GY 
Preliminary  activities  undertaken  in this inspection  included  reviewing  applicable  laws

and  regulations.  We held  interviews  with ACF/OCSE  regional  office  staff  to obtain  a

perspective  on their  oversight  activities  for  the  regions  four  States.  We  developed  a

sumey  document  for the  study and  tested  its effectiveness  in two States,  following  up

with  these  States  to discuss the  information  reported.  We  then  made  any necessary

revisions  to the  survey  document.  Contacts  were  also made  with the  ACF/OCSE

regional  offices  to determine  if any reviews  had  been  conducted.  We  concluded  these

preliminary  activities  meeting  with ACF/OCSE  headquarters  staff  and  discussed  how

we planned  to carry  out  our  study.

The  survey was mailed  to each  of the  54 State  Child  Support  Enforcement  agencies.

The  survey  contained  primarily  closed-ended  questions  and  some  open-ended

questions  which were  designed  to retrieve  responses  that  would  address  the  purpose  of

the  study.  States  were  also asked  to submit  copies  of their  written

procedures/guidelines  for processing  review  and  adjustment  cases.  All of the  child

support  agencies  responded.

Following  receipt  and  review  of the  survey  documents,  telephone  contacts  were  made

to some  child  support  agencies  to clarify any questions  raised  by the  information

provided  in the  survey.  In some  instances,  child support  agencies  qualified  some

responses  with  additional  information  and  our interpretation  was necessary  in

determining  the  specific  detail  of the  answer.  Content  analysis  was used  in

determining  the  results  of the  responses  provided  in the  surveys.

Our  intent  in conducting  this study was not  to  determine  precisely  how far behind  or

ahead  of schedule  each  State  is in implementing  the  recent  amendments  regarding

review  and  adjustment  of child support  orders.  Our  preinspection  work  made  it clear

to us that  most  States  had  fallen  behind.  We wanted  to identi~  the  rough  order  of

magnitude  of the  problem  and  identi~  the  chief barriers  that  States  believed  that  they

were  facing.  The  self-reported  data  we gathered  provided  an appropriate  basis  for

doing  that.

We  conducted  our  review  in accordance  with the  Qualdy Standards for Iizspections
issued  by the  Presidents  Council  on Integrity  and  Efficiency.

2
 STATUS  OF  STATES  REVIEW  AND 
ADJUSTMENT  PROCESSES 
Based  on our  understanding  of the  review  and  adjustment  process,  and  on our 
discussions  with ACF  and  State  officials, we identified  the  key steps  which we believe 
would  be  necessaq  for  States  to fully implement  the  new  amendments.  We  then  used 
the  sumey  results  to determine  the  progress  made  by each  State.  The  results  are 
tabulated  in Appendix  A.  Following  is a summary  of key elements  of that  analysis. 
AU Stati  child sup~  agencies have written pmcedkres/guiielina  in place  to demmstrate 
how their review and adjustrnentpmcim  k  to fiuwtio~ 
All  54 State  child support  agencies  reported  in the  survey  documents  that  they have 
procedures/guidelines  in place  to demonstrate  how their  review  and  adjustment 
process  is to function.  This was substantiated  with  copies  of the  procedures/guidelines 
supplementing  the  sumey  responses. 
Regardless of Procedures/guidelines being in placq  two-m  of State chikl suppofl 
agenciks acknowledge  beihg behhd  ti  the review and adjustment  requ.iremenLR 
Thirty-six,  or 66 percent,  of the  child support  agencies  reported  that  they  are  behind  in 
processing  those  cases which  are  currently  due  for review  and/or  adjustment. 
Additionally,  based  upon  the  overall  responses  of the  support  agencies,  only five 
(10 percent)  appear  to be  fully operational,  including  an adequate  automated  system, 
to process  review  and  adjustment  cases. 
llwee-quarten  of State child support agenciis  ihck of an advanced  automated  system 
which has hindked  their meeting k  review and adjustment  requhments. 
Forty-one,  or 76 percent,  of the  child support  agencies  reported  that  their  current 
automated  system  is antiquated  causing  problems  and  delays  in carrying  out  the  review 
and  adjustment  process.  In addition,  the  agencies  reported  that  without  an  advanced 
automated  system  they  are  unable  to produce  statistical  data  from  which  management 
reports  can be  generated.  All of the  child support  agencies  indicated  they  intend  to 
have  an  advanced  automated  system  prior  to September  30, 1995. 
Almost  half the Sate  respondents cite a lack of sta~g  resources as another obstaclk 
facing State child suppoti  agenciks in prz9c&g  the huge number of review and 
adjuWnent  cases. 
Twenty-four  (44 percent)  of the  54 child support  agencies  responded  in their  survey 
that  their  current  number  of staff is insufficient  to handle  the  large  caseload  brought 
about  by the  review  and  adjustment  provisions. 
3  Thee  outoften  State child suppoti  agencies ideated  that the incorzsiktencyby States in 
enfdg  two sepmte  intemtate lkws rnak  it _  and cauws  &lays  ih the pmcessikg 
of review and adjustment  cases. 
Sixteen  (30 percent)  of the  State  child support  agencies  report  experiencing  delays in 
processing  interstate  cases  due  to the  existence  of two interstate  laws, the  Uniform 
Reciprocal  Enforcement  of Support  Act  (URESA),  later  revised  and  enacted  as the 
Revised  Uniform  Reciprocal  Enforcement  of Support  Act  (RURESA),  and  the 
Uniform  Interstate  Family  Support  Act  (UIFSA). 
All 54 States  and  territories  had  previously  adopted  some  form  of URESA/RURESA 
as a matter  of State  law, although  Federal  law under  Title  IV-D  does  not  mandate 
that  States  have  such laws or that  State  URESA/RURESA  laws be  consistent  or 
uniform.  In response  to concerns  about  State-to-State  variances  due  to inconsistent 
enactment,  application,  and  interpretations  of URESA/RURES~  a new model  act 
was approved  and  enacted,  the  Uniform  Interstate  Family  Support  Act  (UIFSA).  This 
model  act, was endorsed  by the  U.S.  Commission  on Interstate  Child  Support,  which 
urged  Congress  to mandate  verbatim  adoption  of UIFSA  by all States  and  territories. 
To  date,  22 States  have  enacted  UIFSA  though  not  necessarily  in its entirety. 
The  primary  difference  between  the  two laws is, under  URESA/RURES~  most 
support  proceedings  are  de novo, i.e., treated  as new  cases,  resulting  in more  than  one 
valid,  co-existing  order  in a case.  This  causes  confusion  when  calculating  an  arrearage 
or determining  which  order  to enforce.  Under  UIFS~  only one  support  order  is in 
effect  in a case  at any one  time.  The  method  of enforcing  the  one  order  theory  allows 
only one  State  the  right  to change  the  order  at any one  time.  This  one  State  has what 
is referred  to as continuing  exclusive jurisdiction  over  the  case. 
Stateddd suppwatgenciin repti  several other baniers wtih  present problems  and 
dekqw in pmc&g  review and adjustment  cases. 
In addition  to the  more  serious  barriers  mentioned  above,  child support  agencies

reported  various  other  problematic  conditions,  such as the judicial  process  being  too

cumbersome,  the  court  systems  being  too  overloaded,  conflict  of interest  issues,  fiscal

constraints,  and  inadequate  training/guidance  from  the  Federal  government.

Appendix  B presents  the  list of barriers  to the  review  and  adjustment  process  as

reported  by the  child support  agencies.

4
 OPPORTUNITIES  FOR  ACF  TO 
IMPROVE  STATES  REVIEW  AND 
ADJUSTMENT  PROCESSES 
The  ACF,  Office  of Child  Support  Enforcement,  has helped  State  child  support 
agencies  progress  in meeting  the  provisions  for reviewing  and  adjusting  IV-D  child 
support  orders.  We  recognize  that  ACF  is in no position  to provide  financing  to 
overcome  states  perceived  resource  limits  or address  every barrier  reported. 
However,  we suggest  that  ACF  continue  monitoring  the  situation  and  helping  the 
States  as much  as possible.  In particular  ACF  should: 
Communicate  with  States  to determine  their  status  in updating  their  automated 
systems,  and  continue  as before,  to encourage  and  assist them  in whatever  ways 
possible  to meet  the  October  1, 1995 deadline  for having  in effect  an 
operational  and  certified  computerized  support  enforcement  system.  The  ACF 
has  successfully  assisted  some  States  with technical  assistance  workshops 
regarding  the  implementation  of their  systems,  as well as some  specialized 
workshops  for States  implementing  systems based  on like designs.  However, 
other  States  may also be  encountering  problems.  Planned  technical  and  policy 
implementation  workshops,  on-site  visits to States  by Federal  staff  and  the 
implementation  of enhanced  electronic  communication  capabilities  between 
ACF  and  States  definitely  are  positive  steps.  These  kinds  of activities  can bring 
about  the  updated  systems which  could  ease  the  burden  of limited  staff 
resources,  aid  substantially  in overcoming  time  delays,  and  provide  an 
information  retrieval  system  for statistical  management  reports. 
In anticipation  of a Federal  mandate  requiring  all States  to  enact  UIFS~ 
continue  technical  assistance  activities  through  training  sessions  on UIFS&  as 
well as Federal/State  workshops  to design  necessary  interstate  forms,  and  using 
experienced  child support  practitioners  in UIFSA  to discuss  and  resolve 
implementation  issues with those  States  which  have  not  yet enacted  UIFSA. 
Continue  to provide  guidance  and  technical  assistance  to States  helping  them 
implement  and  fully understand  their  requirements  for review  and  adjustment. 
Those  activities  already  undertaken,  such as the  distribution  of various  training 
publications  and  personal  staff presentations  at numerous  training  conferences, 
are  beneficial  towards  States  moving  to implement  a fully operational  review 
and  adjustment  process. 
5
 APPENDIX  A 
COMPOS~  OF STA~  RESPONSES 
A-1 
  COMPOSfTfZ017 STATE RESPONSES RfZFLfZCflNGPROBLEM AREAS 
IN PROCESSING REVIEW AND ADJUSIX4ENT CASES 
FACTORS OF STATESREVIEW 
AND ADJUSTMENT PROCESS 
AL]  AKIAZ 
 
SIMChas proccxfurc..for reviewing  Y  YYY  KY 
:)rdcrs36 months uhf  1-l-l-l-
-I-I---I4J 
StaIc has guidclincxfor cstoblishing 
sumrort amounts 
SlatC11;1iSln mfCqu:llCnumber 0[ $iI:lf[ 
10reviewcasesduc 
S(atc smff arc arfcquatclyIraincd 10

couducl reviews

Wrlc srxccns cxxs duc bckrrc initialing
 Y  YYYYYY 
il full-SCalCreview

S[a(c has set standards which

warrant an adjustment

Sta[c dots not have problems with

interstate cases

Surtc produces statistical reports 10rate

pcrksrmancc

SIaIc has complc;cd reviews of all

uppropri:ttc cxscs

SlaIc has a fullyautonmtcd

syslcm 10process duc cases

WI(c is not fullyaulomotcd
 YYY  .._I..=  .  -YY.Y-YY. =~-.-11-=-- -
but in[cmfs10bc hy09/301J5

..  ....  =.--.-- ._.=.

Y=  YES (+)

N=  NO  (-)

x=  NO RfiWONS13DUE-m
 LEVEL OF NoN-cofwDLIANa  f-~ 
o=  CANT DETERMNE  (-)
 II II II II 
>Zxo 
A-3  COMPOSITE OF SIATE RESPONSES REFLECIING PROBLEM ~ 
fN PROCESSING REWEW AND ADJUSTMENT CASES 
FACfWRS OF STATES RIZVLEW 
AND ADJUSIT$WNTPROCESS  STATES 
 
01 [  OK  (m  IA  m  Iu  Sc  SD  IN  Ix  UT  VI  v-l VA WA w  w  WY 
SMIChas procedures for  Y Y Y Y Y y ~ y -f y y y y y y y  y
reviewingorders 36 months old  ~llJlJllll*lJJl 
SIaIc has guidclinc$ for 
xiurblishingsupport amounts 
StaIc has an mfcquaIc number of 
;[aff 10reviewcases rluc 
State staff arc adcquatciy 
[rained to conducl reviews 
Stale scrccns c2ses duc fwforc 
initiating a foil-sdc  rcvic%v 
Staic has set standards which 
warrant :or adjustment 
SlillC  (kXX  not II:IVC  probIcms 
with interstate GJSCS 
State produces statistical 
reports [0 ra[c pcrformwtcc 
State km complctcctreviewsof 
filloppropri:!tc cases 
Slmc 11:1as fulty wkmmlut  syslcm 
to process cases duc 
SIatc is not fully automotcd  YYYYYYYY  Yyyyyyyy  y 
but intcnrfs to bc by 09/30/95 
I I  lL._J..L  1  1- 1  I  I  I I  I 
Y=  YES (+) 
N=  NO  (.} 
x=  NO I&PONSE  DUE TO LEVEL OF NON-COMPLIANCE (-) 
o=  CANT DEIERMLNE (-)  APPENDIX  B 
BARRIERS REPORTED 
BY STATE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCIES 
B-1  Barriers  Reported 
by State  ChildSupport  Agencies 
Listed  in sequence  of the number  of times  noted 
Antiquated  automation  systems  slow down the  review  and  adjustment  process 
(41) 
Insufficient  staff resources  make  it difficult  to meet  overwhelming  caseload 
demands  (24) 
Timeframes  are  difficult  to meet  under  the  conditions  listed  above  (15) 
Two  existing interstate  laws make  handling  interstate  cases  troublesome  (12) 
The  judicial  process  is too  cumbersome  (8) 
The  court  systems  are  too  overloaded  (8) 
Conflict  of interest  issues  raise  legitimate  concerns  and  slow the  process  down 
(6) 
Fiscal  constraints  can make  it difficult  to meet  the  review  and  adjustment 
provisions  (4) 
The  Federal  government  needs  to provide  training/guidance  to  child support 
agencies  so that  they fully understand  the  review  and  adjustment  regulations  (3) 
The  inability  to impute  income  hinders  the  review  and  adjustment  process  (2) 
The  review  and  adjustment  process  is a difficult  process  to implement  (2) 
Getting  all parties  cooperation  is difficult  and  prolongs  completing  reviews  (1) 
Many  cases  due  for review  are  eliminated  from  an  actual  review  once  the 
review  criteria  is applied  (1) 
Cases  could  be  easier  to handle  if standardized  financial  statements  were  used 
by all support  agencies  (1) 
It can be  difficult  to get wage  information  for  self-employed  individuals  (1) 
The  Federal  mandated  timeframes  for review  and  adjustment  are  longer  than 
those  set for  enforcing  an initial  order  (1) 
The  cooperation  from  Federal  employers  is sometimes  more  difficult  to attain 
than  other  type  employers  (1) 
B-2