Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

JANET REHNQUIST 

Inspector General 

FEBRUARY 2002 

OEI 06-00-00470 

USE OF FEDERAL CHILD SUPPORT 

CASE CLOSURE REGULATIONS 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, is to 

protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services programs as well as the health 

and welfare of beneficiaries served by them. This statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide 

program of audits, investigations, inspections, sanctions, and fraud alerts. The Inspector General 

informs the Secretary of program and management problems and recommends legislative, regulatory, 

and operational approaches to correct them. 

Office of Evaluation and Inspections 

The Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) is one of several components of the Office of Inspector 

General. It conducts short-term management and program evaluations (called inspections) that focus 

on issues of concern to the Department, the Congress, and the public. The inspection reports provide 

findings and recommendations on the efficiency, vulnerability, and effectiveness of departmental 

programs. 

OEI's Region VI prepared this report under the direction of Judith V. Tyler, Regional Inspector 

General. 

Principal OEI staff included: 

DALLAS 

Blaine Collins, Project Leader

Amy Ashcraft

Ruth Ann Dorrill, Team Leader

Jennifer Kahende

Clark Thomas

Nancy Watts

Scott Whitaker

Lisa White

HEADQUARTERS

Joan Richardson, Program Specialist

BALTIMORE

Barbara Tedesco, Mathematical Statistician

To obtain copies of this report, please call the Dallas Regional Office at 214-767-3310. 

Reports are also available on the World Wide Web at our home page address: 

http://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

PURPOSE 

To assess the use of Federal child support case closure regulations, and to identify any 

problems or vulnerabilities related to improper case closure. 

BACKGROUND 

OCSE revised Federal regulations in 1999, allowing State child support agencies to close cases 

for twelve reasons, such as when an order has been paid in full or the noncustodial parent 

cannot be located, and requiring a 60-day advance notice of closure to the client under nine of 

the reasons. Case closure can help States concentrate resources on cases with a greater 

likelihood of success, maximize Federal incentive funding, and reduce data management 

demands. However, some advocates voice concern that States could be motivated to 

improperly close difficult-to-work cases. We reviewed records of a nationally representative 

sample of child support cases closed over a three-month period in 2000. We examined these 

records on three factors: 1) whether cases met one or more of the Federal closure reasons; 2) 

whether the recipient of services (typically a custodial parent or another State) was provided 

advance written notice of the agency’s intent to close the case; and 3) whether this notification 

occurred 60 days prior to closure as required. Federal regulations regarding State selfassessment establish a performance benchmark that allows for a case closure error rate of 10 

percent. 

FINDINGS 

We estimate a national case closure error rate of 32 percent, due primarily to 

inadequate notification 

Three types of errors comprise the 32 percent error rate. Because some cases contained more 

than one error, the percentages for these three types do not total 32 percent. 

Ten percent of cases did not meet a Federal closure reason. Closing child support cases 

that do not meet one of the Federal closure reasons effectively halts enforcement action in cases 

deemed workable by Federal regulations. 

Twenty-five percent of cases requiring notice of closure did not have notice provided. 

Notice to clients of the agency’s intent to close the case is required to insure that clients are 

aware of the agency’s intended action in the case, and may prompt a client to supply additional 

information that could result in successful enforcement. 

Eleven percent of cases that received notice of closure were closed before the full 60 

days had elapsed. The 60-day advance notice is designed to provide clients sufficient time to 

react to the agency’s action. 

Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations i OEI 06-00-00470 
Cases with public assistance clients contained more errors. For reasons unknown, we 

found that closure errors occurred in a significantly greater proportion of cases involving current 

or former Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients than cases of clients 

never enrolled in the TANF program. 

Six reasons account for 94 percent of closures and 96 percent of closure errors 

The six reasons are:

C Inability to Locate Noncustodial Parent or Alleged Father

C Inability to Establish Paternity 

C No Enforceable Order, and Arrearage Less Than $500

C Non-TANF Client Requests Closure 

C Non-TANF Client Uncooperative 

C Lost Contact with Non-TANF Client

Thirty-one percent of cases were closed because the child support agency does not have

enough information to locate the noncustodial parent or alleged father, or to establish paternity. 

We found some errors in cases closed for these reasons because of a lack of required location

efforts and client interviews, but most errors associated with the use of these two closure

reasons were due to a lack of adequate notification. Twenty-six percent of cases were closed

for having no enforceable support order and little or no arrears, and these cases also often

lacked adequate advance notice to clients. Cases closed for reasons that apply only to nonTANF clients also contained errors involving notice. This was particularly true for cases closed

because the agency had lost contact with the non-TANF custodial parent. 

CONCLUSION 

It is noteworthy that the vast majority of child support case closures met at least one of the 

Federal closure reasons. However, inadequate provision of advance notice to clients appears 

to be largely responsible for preventing achievement of the 90 percent performance benchmark. 

We encourage OCSE to work with States to undertake efforts to reduce the error rate. It 

would be especially useful to focus on improving processes for providing advance notice of 

closure, particularly related to use of the six most frequently used closure reasons. A 

companion report, “Challenges in Closing Child Support Cases” (OEI 06-00-00471), 

describes effective practices States use to reduce errors and improve their case closure 

activities, and provides specific recommendations to OCSE and States. 

AGENCY COMMENTS 

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) generally agreed with the findings and 

conclusions of this report, and described on-going and planned reviews that could assist States 

in improving case closure through automation. 

Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations ii OEI 06-00-00470 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

FINDINGS

Case Closure Accuracy

Use of Closure Reasons

Conclusion

i 

1 

5 

7 

9 

ENDNOTES

APPENDIX A: Case Closure Regulations 45 CFR Sec. 303.11 A-1

APPENDIX B: Additional Statistics B-1

APPENDIX C: Agency Comments C-1

10 
INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE 

To assess the use of Federal child support case closure regulations, and to identify any 

problems or vulnerabilities related to improper case closure. 

BACKGROUND 

Federal law has long recognized that State child support agencies must have the capability to 

close cases for various reasons. For example, States close cases in which a child support order 

is no longer enforceable because the child emancipates. States may also wish to close cases 

with little likelihood of successful enforcement, such as cases in which the custodial parent 

provides little or no information about the noncustodial parent or alleged father. Because child 

support will not be enforced once a case is closed, States must exercise care in closing cases. 

Federal regulation is designed to ensure that cases are closed only after they are completely 

resolved or determined to be unworkable. 

Federal Regulations 

Under the 1988 Family Support Act, the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement 

(OCSE) established case closure criteria allowing States to close certain cases.1 However, 

these regulations were criticized by some who argued the regulations made it too difficult to 

close unworkable cases. In response to the complaints, in 1996 OCSE formed a review 

committee comprised of staff and elected officials from local, State, and Federal governments 

to review the regulations. The committee review led to revised Federal case closure regulations 

that became effective April 9, 1999.2 According to the final rule, the new regulations “balance 

[OCSE’s] concern that all children receive the help they need in establishing paternity and 

securing support, while being responsive to administrative concerns for maintaining caseloads 

that include only those cases in which there is adequate information or likelihood of successfully 

providing support.”3 The 1999 rule generally made it easier for States to close more cases. It 

also enhanced client safeguards designed to insure that States notify clients before closing 

cases. 

Current regulations allow States to close cases that meet one or more of twelve reasons. Nine 

of the twelve closure reasons require that the recipient of services (typically a custodial parent 

or another State) must be notified of the agency’s intent to close the case. 

Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations 1 OEI 06-00-00470 
Twelve Allowable Closure Reasons Under Federal Regulations 

Notice Required 

No Enforceable Order, and Arrearages Less Than $500 

Noncustodial Parent is Deceased 

Paternity Cannot Be Established 

Noncustodial Parent’s Location is Unknown 

Noncustodial Parent is Disabled, Institutionalized, or Incarcerated 

Noncustodial Parent is a Foreign Citizen 

Agency has Lost Contact with a Non-TANF Client 

A Non-TANF Client is Non-cooperative 

An Initiating State is Non-responsive in an Interstate Case 

Notice Not Required 

Agency has Completed Locate-only Services in Non-TANF Case 

Non-TANF Custodial Parent Requests Closure 

A Good Cause Exception has Been Granted 

This notice must be provided in writing 60 days before the case may be closed. A case must 

be kept open if, within 60 days, new information becomes available which could lead to the 

establishment of paternity or a support order, or to enforcement of an existing order. Once a 

case is closed, the recipient of services may request that the case be reopened if circumstances 

change and enforcement becomes possible. All records for closed cases must be retained for a 

minimum of three years. The Federal case closure regulations are reprinted in Appendix A. 

State Incentives To Close Cases 

States have at least three apparent incentives for closing cases: concentrating resources on 

cases with greater likelihood of success; maximizing Federal incentive funding; and reducing 

data management demands. Closing unworkable cases allows States to allocate their limited 

resources to cases with greater potential for successful enforcement. States can also improve 

their child support enforcement performance indicators, upon which much of Federal incentive 

funding is based, by reducing the total number of cases in their caseload.4 Additionally, case 

closure can help States reduce data management demands by eliminating duplicate and 

outdated cases. While these incentives are viewed as legitimate reasons for closing unworkable 

cases, some advocates have voiced concern that States could be motivated to close difficult-towork cases even though they may not meet a Federal closure reason. 

Monitoring Case Closures 

Until the mid-1990s, OCSE conducted compliance audits of State child support cases which 

included an analysis of closed cases. With the passage of the Personal Work and Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act, OCSE replaced compliance audits with a requirement that States conduct 

annual self-assessments of their own performance.5 States were required to begin reporting the 

results of their self-assessments, and any corrective actions proposed or taken, to OCSE in 

Fiscal Year 1998.6 States are encouraged to use their self-assessments as management tools 

to identify any weaknesses, non-compliance with 

Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations 2 OEI 06-00-00470 
regulations, and opportunities for improvement. Case closure is one of eight required 

categories States must assess. Federal self-assessment regulations require that at least 90 

percent of closed cases reviewed by States meet the Federal regulations.7 Thus, this 

benchmark allows for a case closure error rate of 10 percent. 

State self-assessments provide information about child support case closure activities in 

individual States. The reports for Fiscal Year 1999 showed many States had improperly 

closed at least some cases, and State child support agencies proposed a variety of corrective 

actions. These reports helped to identify potential vulnerabilities related to closing child support 

cases, as well as effective practices.8 However, there has been no national review since the 

new regulations were issued in 1999. 

METHODOLOGY 

To provide more comprehensive information, we reviewed the records of a nationally 

representative sample of child support cases closed over a three-month period in 2000. The 

results of our case record reviews are presented in this report. Additionally, we interviewed 

State child support agency personnel in ten States to gain an in-depth understanding of their 

experience in using the 1999 case closure regulations. We present our findings from these 

interviews in a companion report entitled, “Challenges in Closing Child Support Cases” (OEI 

06-00-00471). 

Study Focus 

Our case record reviews focused on both the case circumstances and the processes used by 

State child support agencies to close cases. We also examined case records to determine 

whether cases met one or more of the Federal closure reasons, whether the recipient of 

services was provided advance written notice of the agency’s intent to close the case, and 

whether this notification occurred 60 days prior to closure as required. 

Sample Of Closed Cases 

To obtain a nationally representative sample of closed child support cases, we used a twostage, stratified-cluster sampling method. We first stratified the 48 contiguous States9

 and the 

District of Columbia into two groups: one stratum included cases from the eight States with the 

largest child support caseloads (known as the ‘Big 8 States’);10 and the other stratum included 

cases from all other States. We stratified in this manner to insure that our sample contained 

cases from some of the Big 8 States which have about 50 percent of the nation’s child support 

caseload,11 as well as cases from a number of States with smaller caseloads. In each stratum, 

we considered a single State’s caseload as a cluster of cases. For the first stage of sampling, 

we randomly selected four States from the large-State stratum: California; New York; Ohio; 

and Pennsylvania. We also randomly selected six States from the other stratum: Alabama, 

Connecticut, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, and South Carolina.12 

Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations 3 OEI 06-00-00470 
To draw a sample of cases for review, we requested that each selected State provide a list of 

all cases closed during May, June, and July 200013 and the reason for closure.14 To focus our 

review on the twelve Federal closure reasons, we did not include in the sample frame cases 

closed because they were duplicate cases or were opened in error.15 The list of cases closed 

for a Federal closure reason made up our sampling frame for each State. At the second stage 

of sampling, we randomly selected 50 cases from each selected State’s sampling frame, for a 

total sample of 500 cases. This two-stage, stratified-cluster sample yields national estimates at 

a 95 percent confidence level, unless otherwise specified. Given our national focus for this 

study, and sampling method to achieve it, our resulting data does not allow precise analysis of 

individual States. 

Data Collection 

An OIG analyst visited each State to review the selected cases. We gathered the information 

needed primarily from official electronic records, supplemented by paper records as necessary 

to insure completeness. States provided staff to train our analysts on navigating automated 

systems. Analysts entered case information into a standardized database on-site, which we 

later merged with all other case data. However, data-cleaning revealed that five cases did not 

meet our selection criteria because they were either duplicate cases or were opened in error. 

After eliminating these cases, we had complete data on 495 cases. 

Data Analysis 

We reviewed records to determine whether each case met all Federal case closure 

requirements. We designated cases as having been closed correctly if the case record review 

revealed each of the following: 1) the case met conditions necessary to be closed for one or 

more of the twelve Federal closure reasons;16 2) the child support agency notified the recipient 

of services in writing of intent to close the case (required for nine closure reasons); and 3) 

closure occurred no sooner than 60 days after notification (when notice was required and 

provided).17 

We generated national estimates of the proportion of cases closed in accordance with all 

Federal regulations, and for each of the three factors. We used statistical software to adjust for 

the stratified-cluster sampling method, and we weighted estimates based on the number of 

cases closed by each sampled State during the sample period. Additionally, we generated 

statistics regarding the relative use of the twelve Federal closure reasons and the public 

assistance status of the recipient of services at the time of closure. Records were available for 

all sampled cases, eliminating any non-response issues. Descriptive statistics are expressed as 

percentages and, where appropriate, statistical differences between categorical variables were 

assessed using the appropriate test. 

This study was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections issued by 

the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 

Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations 4 OEI 06-00-00470 
FINDINGS 

CASE CLOSURE ACCURACY 

Nationally, our sample indicates that while 90 percent of closures met at least one of the 

Federal closure reasons, 32 percent did not meet all Federal case closure requirements (Table 

1). This overall performance level fell considerably short of the benchmark of a 10 percent 

tolerable error rate established by OCSE. However, most closure errors occurred due to a 

lack of adequate notification rather than because cases did not meet a Federal closure reason. 

Table 1: Case Closure Errors 

Overall 

Case did not meet all federal closure requirements (n=495) 

Type of Error b 

Case did not meet a federal closure reason (n=495) 

Notice was not provided to recipient of services (n=372) 

Closure occurred before 60-days had elapsed (n=267) 

Percent of Cases 

with Error a 

32 % 

10 % 

25 % 

11 % 

a Confidence intervals provided in Appendix B.

b

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

error.

About 10 percent of child support cases closed did not meet a Federal closure 

reason, halting enforcement of workable cases 

We estimate that approximately one out of every 10 child support cases closed in the nation 

during the sample period did not meet a Federal closure reason. Closing cases for unallowed 

reasons creates a great vulnerability because Federal regulations deem these workable cases at 

the time of closure, without the need for additional information or substantial changes in 

circumstances. In a few of these cases, the case record reveals that the State child support 

agency recognized the case had been closed in error, and subsequently reopened the case. 

Most cases, however, were still closed at the time of our review. While no payments were 

being made on any of these cases at the time they were improperly closed, it is possible that 

they could have become paying cases if further enforced. 

We also found an additional 11 percent of cases that did not meet the reason documented in 

the case record, but did meet another Federal closure reason. If we had reviewed these cases 

only on the closure reason documented in case records, the proportion of cases not meeting a 

Federal closure reason would have approximately doubled. Based on our 

Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations 5 OEI 06-00-00470 
review, having the wrong closure reason in case records was sometimes due to simple data 

coding errors, while other errors appear to be due to staff misunderstanding or misapplying the 

Federal closure reasons. Clients in these cases, when notification occurred, were likely given 

the erroneous closure reason, potentially hindering their appropriate reaction. 

Clients were not notified in 25 percent of cases requiring advance notice, and 

were not given the full 60 days to respond in 11 percent of cases 

Records indicate that the recipient of services was not provided written advance notice of the 

agency’s intent to close the case in 25 percent of cases requiring notification. Federal 

regulations require written notice 60 days prior to closure, partly to inform the client that the 

agency will no longer be working on the case. Notification also serves to solicit additional 

information from clients that could lead to successful enforcement of some cases. About 10 

percent of cases lacking notification also did not meet a Federal closure reason, suggesting the 

clients in those cases had no opportunity to prevent the improper closure. While the remaining 

cases lacking notification appeared to meet at least one of the Federal closure reasons, it is 

unclear whether proper notification would have changed those circumstances. 

In 11 percent of cases for which notice was provided, closure occurred before the 60-day 

notification period had elapsed. In the final rule for the new case closure regulation, OCSE 

reiterated “that the 60 calendar day time frame has worked well” [to allow clients sufficient 

opportunity to prevent an unwanted closure], and believes it would be inappropriate to shorten 

the time frame.18 Among cases closed sooner than 60 days after notice, several closed on the 

same day or within a couple of days of notification. In interviews, some State child support 

agency respondents explained that, despite Federal requirements, caseworkers may consider it 

more efficient to simply inform a client that their case has been closed rather than provide 

advance notice. Respondents added that it is fairly easy to reopen a case should the parent 

respond to a final closure letter with more information. 

Higher error rates among closures involving TANF recipients could hinder 

enforcement for vulnerable families 

Our review found some type of closure errors in 43 percent of cases involving current and 

former Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) clients, compared to only 21 

percent among never-TANF clients. This represents a significant difference in outcomes for the 

two groups.19 The reasons for this difference are currently unclear and may warrant additional 

research. Improper closures for current and former TANF recipients are of particular concern 

because child support payments can often mean the difference between reliance on public 

assistance and self-sufficiency. Closing cases that do not meet allowable reasons, or not 

providing adequate advance notice of closure, could stop enforcement efforts on workable 

cases involving families who could benefit greatly from successful enforcement. 

Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations 6 OEI 06-00-00470 
USE OF CLOSURE REASONS 

Six closure reasons account for 95 percent of all case closures 

As shown in Table 2, we estimate that six Federal closure reasons account for the vast majority 

of child support case closures, and two of these reasons are used in about half of closures. 

Many closed cases were never fully enforced, such as cases closed because the agency could 

not locate a noncustodial parent or alleged father. Other cases were closed because they had 

been successfully enforced, such as when an obligation had been paid in full and there was no 

longer an enforceable order. The following findings discuss improper closures under these six 

prominent closure reasons. 

Table 2: Distribution of Federal Closure Reasons20 

Federal Closure Reason 

Percent of Cases 

Using Reason* (N=495) 

No enforceable order, and arrearage less than $500 26 % 

Unable to locate noncustodial parent or alleged father 24 % 

Non-TANF client requests closure 18 % 

Non-TANF client uncooperative 12 % 

Lost contact with non-TANF client 8 % 

Unable to establish paternity 7 % 

All other reasons 5 % 

* Percentages reflect weighted values. 

About 26 percent of cases were closed for having no enforceable support order 

and little or no arrears, but these cases often lacked adequate notification 

Many different kinds of cases are eligible for closure under this single Federal closure reason. 

In more than half of cases closed for this reason, the child emancipated or the obligation was 

paid in full. Another large proportion of these cases were closed after a substantial change in 

family arrangements, including reconciliation of the parents, a change in custody, or an 

adoption. Other cases were closed using this reason when their orders were deemed 

unenforceable under individual State rules. Examples include when the noncustodial parent had 

low income or was receiving public assistance at the time of closure, and when the custodial 

parent moved out of the State or local jurisdiction. 

Our review revealed that cases closed for having no enforceable support order and little or no 

arrearages had the highest incidence of errors among all closure reasons. While most cases met 

the Federal closure reason, over one-third of cases closed for this reason did not include 

written notice of the agency’s intent to close the case. Advance notice might be particularly 

important in such cases as when an emancipated child is still attending high school or college 

and potentially eligible to continue collecting support payments. In 

Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations 7 OEI 06-00-00470 
such cases, it would be important for the custodial parent to communicate with the child support 

agency regarding the teenager’s academic enrollment. However, the nature of some cases 

closed for this reason, such as those involving reconciliation of the parents, provides partial 

explanation for why an agency might not have deemed it necessary to provide notice. 

Thirty-one percent of cases were closed because of an inability to locate the 

noncustodial parent or to establish paternity 

Twenty-four percent of cases were closed because the agency did not have enough information 

to locate a noncustodial parent or alleged father. Federal regulations require child support 

agencies to attempt to locate an absent parent for at least one year before closing the case in 

situations where little information exists. If the noncustodial parent’s or alleged father’s name 

and Social Security number are known, the agency must continue automated locate efforts for 

at least three years before closure. We found that in about one-fifth of cases closed for this 

reason, States either did not continue location efforts as long as required, or did not follow-up 

on recent locate information. 

States closed seven percent of cases because paternity could not be established. These 

closures mostly consisted of cases in which the client had not named an alleged father, or the 

man named was excluded by genetic testing and no additional names were provided. When the 

identity of the biological father is unknown, Federal regulations require State child support 

agencies to interview the recipient of services at least once prior to closing the case using this 

reason. While at least one interview occurred in almost every case involving this closure reason 

that we reviewed, case records indicate that a few clients were not re-contacted to provide an 

additional name when an alleged father was excluded by genetic testing. 

Most of the errors associated with the use of these two closure reasons involved lack of 

adequate notification. Notification of the agency’s intent to close the case is considered to be 

particularly crucial in cases such as these where insufficient information has been provided by 

the custodial parent. Notice could serve as a client’s last chance to relay any information they 

have about a noncustodial parent or alleged father. Additionally, families involved in cases 

closed for these reasons are potentially among the most vulnerable in the child support 

caseload. In our sample of cases closed for these reasons, most clients were current and 

former TANF recipients. 

Cases closed for reasons that apply only to non-TANF clients also contain errors 

involving notice 

Eight percent of cases were closed due to a loss of contact with the non-TANF recipient of 

services. In such cases, Federal regulations require at least one attempt to contact the client by 

mail. If the agency receives no response within 60 days, it can then mail to the client’s last 

known address the 60-day advance notice of its intent to close the case. In nearly all cases 

closed for this reason, the agency either did not make the first contact attempt, did not provide 

advance notice of its intent to close the case, or did not wait one 

Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations 8 OEI 06-00-00470 
or both of the required 60-day time periods prior to closure. Some managers reported being 

confused by the language of the regulations regarding this closure reason, while others indicated 

that the resulting two 60-day waiting periods seemed unreasonable considering that the agency 

has lost contact with the non-TANF client. 

Twelve percent of cases were closed because the agency had documented that the non-TANF 

client was not cooperating, typically by failing to respond to a letter, failing to appear for an 

interview or court hearing, or not providing additional information about the noncustodial parent 

or alleged father as requested. We generally found that the client’s non-cooperation was well 

documented, but many of these cases lacked adequate notification. Eighteen percent of cases 

were closed because the non-TANF client requested closure. Notification is not required 

when using this reason, and we found few errors with its use. 

CONCLUSION 

It is noteworthy that the vast majority of child support case closures met at least one of the 

Federal closure reasons. However, inadequate provision of advance notice to clients appears 

to be largely responsible for preventing achievement of the 90 percent performance benchmark. 

We encourage OCSE to work with States to undertake efforts to reduce the error rate. It 

would be especially useful to focus on improving processes for providing advance notice of 

closure, particularly related to use of the six most frequently used closure reasons. A 

companion report, “Challenges in Closing Child Support Cases” (OEI 06-00-00471), 

describes effective practices States use to reduce errors and improve their case closure 

activities, and provides specific recommendations to OCSE and States. 

AGENCY COMMENTS 

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) generally agreed with the findings and 

conclusions of this report. ACF described that on-going systems certification reviews and 

planned “Level of Automation” reviews could assist States in improving case closure through 

automation. We agree that improvements in automated system capabilities can certainly help to 

reduce future case closure errors. In the meantime, considering that case closure is not fullyautomated in many States, we encourage ACF to work with States to reduce errors generated 

through their current procedures. ACF comments are provided in their entirely in Appendix C. 

Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations 9 OEI 06-00-00470 
ENDNOTES

1. OCSE Action Transmittal 89-15, August 4, 1989. 

2. Federal Register, Volume 64, No.46, March 10, 1999, pp. 11810-11818. 

3. Ibid., page 11811. 

4. Federal Register Volume 64, No.195, October 8, 1999, pp. 55073 - 55102. 

5. Ibid., pages 55102 - 55110. “Federal audit requirements were changed to focus on data reliability 

and to assess performance outcomes instead of determining compliance with process steps.” 

6. 45 CFR Sec. 308.1 (e). 

7. 45 CFR Sec. 308.2 (a). 

8. At the time of our study, States had not yet standardized their self-assessment methodologies 

enough for comparison across States. 

9. Hawaii and Alaska were excluded from the sample frame because of the high cost of travel to those 

States if they had been selected. 

10. OCSE often targets technical assistance and evaluation efforts toward these Big 8 States because 

their practices affect so many families. New Jersey was added to OCSE’s large State initiative, now 

called “Big 8 + 1,” subsequent to our sample selection for this study. 

11. Office of Child Support Enforcement, Dear Colleague Letter 97-26, May 19, 1997. 

12. Resources limited us to sampling from only 10 clusters. We considered that including cases from 

half of the Big 8 States (4 clusters) was reasonable, which left 6 clusters for the other stratum. 

13. Field work revealed that seven cases in one State actually closed in August, 2000, and we kept 

these cases in our final sample. Another State provided a list of cases in which the closure process 

began in May, June, and July, 2000, rather than the actual closure occurring in that time period, and we 

used these cases as the sampling frame for that State. We do not believe these deviations had a 

substantial effect on our findings. 

14. The automated systems of California and New York would not allow inclusion of closure reasons at 

the time of sampling, although we were later able to determine the reason for closure during fieldwork. 

To insure that our sample included cases closed for one of the Federal closure reasons, we oversampled in these States and then randomly selected which cases would be reviewed once we obtained 

information about the closure reason. 

15. States reported using the ‘duplicate case’ closure reason in situations such as when two local 

jurisdictions had a case open for the same parties. Closing one of the cases simply eliminates the 

duplication, while the parties continue to have an open case in the State. The “open in error” closure 

Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations 10 OEI 06-00-00470 
reason is typically used to correct data-entry mistakes in State automated systems. 

16. We only evaluated cases on a closure reason other than the one designated in the case record when 

conditions were not met for closure under the designated reason. If such a case met the conditions for 

closure under another reason, we considered that it met Federal requirements. We did this to 

differentiate between cases closed improperly, and those in which a closure code may have been 

inadvertently input in an automated system but the case could have legitimately been closed. In such 

cases, notification was evaluated on the reason for closure that the case legitimately met rather than the 

one the State recorded. 

17. In a few cases, the recipient of services received notification and contacted the State agency to 

agree to close the case sooner than 60 days. We considered that these cases met the 60-day 

requirement. 

18. Federal Register, Volume 64, No.46, March 10, 1999, page 11817. 

19. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square Test was significant with a P-value of 0.0714, 

representing a statistical difference at a 90 percent confidence level. 

20. The frequencies and percentages in Table 2 include the 55 cases for which we reassigned the 

closure reason. 

Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations 11 OEI 06-00-00470 
APPENDIX A

Code of Federal Regulations 45 

Sec. 303.11 Case Closure Criteria. 

(a) The IV-D agency shall establish a system for case closure. 

(b) In order to be eligible for closure, the case must meet at least one of the following criteria: 

(1) There is no longer a current support order and arrearages are under $500 or unenforceable 

under State law; 

(2) The noncustodial parent or putative father is deceased and no further action, including a levy 

against the estate, can be taken; 

(3) 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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;

(iv) The identity of the biological father is unknown and cannot be identified after

diligent efforts, including at least one interview by the IV-D agency with the recipient of

services;

(4) The noncustodial parent's location is unknown, and the State has made diligent efforts using 

multiple sources, in accordance with Sec. 303.3, all of which have been unsuccessful, to locate 

the noncustodial parent: 

(i) Over a three-year period when there is sufficient information to initiate an automated

locate effort, or

(ii) Over a one-year period when there is not sufficient information to initiate an

automated locate effort;

(5) The noncustodial 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

noncustodial parent which could be levied or attached for support;

(6) The noncustodial 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;

(7) The IV-D agency has provided location-only services as requested under Sec.

302.35(c)(3) of this chapter;

(8) The non-IV-A recipient of services 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;

Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations A - 1 OEI 06-00-00470 
APPENDIX A

(9) There has been a finding by the responsible State agency of good cause or other exceptions

to cooperation with the IV-D agency and the State or local IV-A, IV-D, IV-E, Medicaid or

food stamp agency has determined that support enforcement may not proceed without risk of

harm to the child or caretaker relative;

(10) In a non-IV-A case receiving services under Sec. 302.33(a)(1) (i) or (iii), the IV-D

agency is unable to contact the recipient of services within a 60 calendar day period despite an

attempt of at least one letter sent by first class mail to the last known address;

(11) In a non-IV-A case receiving services under Sec. 302.33(a)(1) (i) or (iii), the IV-D

agency documents the circumstances of the recipient of services's noncooperation and an action

by the recipient of services is essential for the next step in providing IV-D services.

(12) The IV-D agency documents failure by the initiating State to take an action which is

essential for the next step in providing services.

(c) In cases meeting the criteria in paragraphs (b) (1) through (6) and (10) through (12) of this section, 

the State must notify the recipient of services, or in an interstate case meeting the criteria for closure 

under (b)(12), the initiating State, 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 recipient of services or the initiating State 

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)(10) of this section, if 

contact is reestablished with the recipient of services. If the case is closed, the former recipient of 

services 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 by 

completing a new application for IV-D services and paying any applicable application fee. 

(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. 

Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations A - 2 OEI 06-00-00470 
APPENDIX B

Additional Statistics: Error Rate Estimates with Confidence Intervals 

Errors Proportion 

Estimate 

95 Percent 

Confidence 

Interval 

OVERALL: Case Did Not Meet All Federal Closure Requirements 

(n=495) 

31.6 % 19.2% - 44.1% 

Case Did Not Meet A Federal Closure Reason (n=495) 9.6 % 6.7% - 12.5% 

Notice Was Not Provided to Recipient of Services (n=372) 24.7 % 9.8% - 39.6% 

Closure Occurred Before 60-Days Had Elapsed (n=267) 10.9 % 0.2% - 21.7% 

Errors Among Current and Former TANF Cases (n=261) 42.8 % 26.7% - 58.9% 

Errors Among Never-TANF Cases (n=227) 20.6 % 12.0% - 29.2% 

Cases With Wrong Reason Documented in Record (n=495) 10.6 % 5.9% - 15.2% 

Additional Sampling Statistics 

State Population of Cases Cases Selected States in Stratum 

Large State Stratum 

CALIFORNIA 18,348 50 8 

NEW YORK 30,731 50 8 

OHIO 11,773 50 8 

PENNSYLVANIA 91,591 50 8 

Other State Stratum 

ALABAMA 9,395 50 41 

CONNECTICUT 9,407 50 41 

MISSISSIPPI 13,584 50 41 

MONTANA 2,457 50 41 

NEW MEXICO 872 50 41 

SOUTH CAROLINA 10,325 50 41 

Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations B - 1 OEI 06-00-00470 
APPENDIX C

Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations C - 1 OEI 06-00-00470 
APPENDIX C

Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations C - 2 OEI 06-00-00470 
APPENDIX C

Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations C - 3 OEI 06-00-00470