Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENEML 

REVIEW AND ADJUSTMENT OF IV-D


CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS


#i Smvlcq 

& ‘&?a 

+ 9 

* 

$ 

< 

z

% ~ %+-­

‘+daa > 

JUNE GIBBS BROWN 

Inspector General 

APRIL1995 

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 010’s 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 supportagenciks have writkm pmcedurtw’gd@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. 

l’hequarters of StatZ ch.iki supportagencks 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. 

Abrwst halfthe 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. 

● 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~~ 

Written procedures/@delines arein place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Many support agencies are behind inretiews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Primary obstacle is lack of an updated automated system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

.3


Seconda~obstacle islack of staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Interstate laws cause delays inretiews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Other bartiersefist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

OPPOR~ FOR ACF TO IMPROW STAT=’ REWW AND 

~w~pR~=Qo.0”.Q.0”. .“. OO.......’””...”...”..””’ 

MPENDICES 

. . A-1


fkComposite of State Responses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

B Barriers Repotied by State Child Support Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 

3 

3 

4 

4 

.5 
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 region’s 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 headquarter’s 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 President’s 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 suppwtagenciin 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 RfZFLfZCf’lNGPROBLEM AREAS 

FACTORS OF STATE’SREVIEW 

AND ADJUSTMENT PROCESS 

SIMChas proccxfurc..for reviewing 

:)rdcrs36 months uhf 

StaIc has guidclincxfor cstoblishing 

sumrort amounts 

SlatC11;1Siln mfCqu:llCnumber 0[ $iI:lf[ 

10review cases duc 

S(atc smff arc arfcquatclyIraincd 10


couducl reviews


Wrlc srxccns cxxs duc bckrrc initialing


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


but in[cmfs 10bc hy 09/301’J5°
 ..— .... —=.-—-.-——- ._.=.


Y= YES (+)


N= NO (-)


x= NO RfiWONS13DUE-m


o= CANT DETERMNE (-)


IN PROCESSING REVIEW AND ADJUSIX4ENT CASES 

AL] AKIAZ —— 

Y YYY KY 

–1—-l-—l-l- —-I-I—--—-I————4——J——— 

Y YYYYYY 

YYY YYYYY 

—.——_I..=. -.-.=-~11--—-

LEVEL OF NoN-cofwDLIANa f-~ 
II II II II 

>Zxo 

A-3 
COMPOSITE OF SI’ATE RESPONSES REFLECI’ING PROBLEM ~ 

FACfWRS OF STATE’S RIZVLEW 

AND ADJUSIT$WNTPROCESS 

SMIChas procedures for 

reviewingorders 36 months old 

SIaIc has guidclinc$ for 

xiurblishingsupport amounts 

StaIc has an mfcquaIc number of 

;[aff 10 reviewcases 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 11:1sa fulty wkmmlut syslcm 

to process cases duc 

SIatc is not fully automotcd 

but intcnrfs to bc by 09/30/95 

Y= YES (+) 

N= NO (.} 

fN PROCESSING REWEW AND ADJUSTMENT CASES 

STATES — 

01 [ OK (m I’A m Iu Sc SD IN “Ix UT VI v-l” VA WA w w WY 

Y Y Y Y Y y ~ y -f y y y y y y y y

~l—lJ—lJ—l—l—l—l*lJJ—l— 

YYYYYYYY Yyyyyyyy y 

I I lL._–J..——L 1 1- 1 I I I I I 

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