AUTOMATED SYSTEMS FOR 

 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT: 

A GUIDE FOR AUTOMATING CASE CLOSURE 

 June 2004 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Children and Families 

Office of Child Support Enforcement

 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

PREFACE 

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Child Support 

Enforcement (OCSE) developed this Guide for Automating Case Closure to support 

states in increasing the efficiency and accuracy of case closure in their Child Support 

Enforcement (CSE) systems. 

The audience for this Guide includes state CSE policy, program operations, 

technical personnel and their contractors, and Federal OCSE technical assistance 

staff. 

Comments were requested and received from states and were incorporated, 

wherever possible, in this Guide. ACF welcomes additional comments and 

suggestions from those using this Guide. Comments may be sent to: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Administration for Children and Families 

Office of Child Support Enforcement 

370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20447-0001 

Attn: Robin Rushton, Director 

Division of State and Tribal Systems 

or via E-mail at: rrushton@acf.hhs.gov

 Page i
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

Table of Contents 

PREFACE ................................................................................................................................... i

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1

A. LEVEL OF AUTOMATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE......................................................1

B. OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) REPORT ON USE OF CASE

CLOSURE CRITERIA...................................................................................................................2

C. OCSE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR CASE CLOSURE AUTOMATION ......................2

D. BENEFITS OF CASE CLOSURE AUTOMATION....................................................................3

CHAPTER II: CASE CLOSURE AUTOMATION STARTER KIT.................................... 5

A. BUSINESS AND SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS ..........................................................................5

A-1. REGULATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 5

A-2. REQUIREMENTS MATRIX................................................................................................................ 8

A-3. FLOWCHARTS................................................................................................................................... 17

B. HELPFUL INFORMATION........................................................................................................32

B-1. TIPS FROM OIG REPORTS............................................................................................................... 32

B-2. GENERIC TEMPLATE FOR CASE CLOSURE INTENT NOTICE.............................................. 33

B-3. EXCERPTS FROM THE FEDERAL CASE REGISTRY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

GUIDE, RELEASE 3.0 ........................................................................................................................ 35

B-4. PERFORM ROUTINE MONITOR/SUPERVISORY REVIEW ..................................................... 38

B-5. CASE STUDY – STATE OF VIRGINIA........................................................................................... 39

CHAPTER III: CASE CLOSURE AUTOMATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE......... 44

A. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................44

B. CASE CLOSURE AUTOMATION DISCUSSION GUIDE.....................................................45

 Page ii 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

This page intentionally left blank.

 Page iii 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 

This Introduction contains background information on collaborative Federal and state

strategies for increasing the level of automation in state Child Support Enforcement (CSE)

systems, with a focus on case closure automation. Section A describes Office of Child 

Support Enforcement (OCSE) Level of Automation Technical Assistance. Section B 

summarizes important findings from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

(DHHS), Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Report on case closures using the Federal 

case closure criteria. Section C describes OCSE Technical Assistance specifically for case 

closure automation. Section D lists the benefits states are already realizing from automating

case closure. 

The Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families 

(ACF) provides national leadership and direction in planning, managing, and coordinating 

the nationwide administration and financing of a broad range of comprehensive and 

supportive programs for children and families, including Child Support Enforcement.

State and local agencies in large part carry out the Child Support Enforcement program. 

ACF retains the responsibility to monitor and evaluate programs to ensure that they are 

being operated as intended by law and regulation and that the expenditure of Federal funds 

is made in accordance with Federal regulation. 

In 1999, the OCSE published revised Federal regulations 45 CFR 303.11 which define 

twelve case closure criteria. The revised regulations allow states to close cases that meet

one or more of the twelve criteria. For nine of these twelve criteria, the regulations require 

that the recipient of services (typically a custodial parent or another state) receives advance 

notice of intent to close the case. The revised regulations make it easier for states to close

more cases, and also to enhance recipient safeguards for notification prior to case closure. 

A. LEVEL OF AUTOMATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

Level of automation technical assistance is intended as a mechanism by which OCSE can 

provide direction and share knowledge among states about increasing the automation of 

their CSE systems. This technical assistance can help ensure that CSE systems are efficient 

and effective, as defined in the ACF publication Automated Systems for Child Support

Enforcement: A Guide for States (Revised for PRWORA, April 1999 - updated December 

1999 - updated August 2000). 

Subject areas for level of automation technical assistance are derived from OIG reports and 

ACF technical assistance surveys. Regular Federal Financial Participation (FFP) at the 66 

percent rate is available for enhancing the level of system automation. 

 Page 1 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

B. OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) REPORT 

ON USE OF CASE CLOSURE CRITERIA 

In 2002, the OIG assessed the use of the CSE case closure regulations. Refer to Appendix 

A, “Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations,” February 2002, OEI 06-00-

00470. The OIG Report estimates a national CSE case closure error rate of 32 percent (vs. 

the performance benchmark of a 10 percent error rate), due primarily to inadequate advance 

notification of intent to close a case. The OIG Report also found that six case closure

reasons account for 95 percent of case closures and 96 percent of case closure errors. 

The six high volume closure reasons1

 are: 

 

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 putative 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%

* Percentages reflect weighted values 

The OIG report states, “We encourage OCSE to work with states to undertake efforts to

reduce the error rate.” A companion report, “Barriers in Closing Child Support 

Enforcement Cases,” September 2002, OEI 06-00-00471, identifies problems in case

closure procedures and potential solutions. This report notes that automating state processes

for identifying and closing cases is one of the major opportunities for improvement, with a 

particular focus on processes for advance notice of intent to close in the six most frequently 

used case closure reasons. 

C. OCSE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR CASE CLOSURE 

AUTOMATION 

 

In response to the OIG Report findings, OCSE is providing level of automation technical

assistance for case closure. Federal OCSE staff will work in close collaboration with state 

CSE technical, policy, and program operations personnel. Together, they will focus on 

improving case closure automation, with a special emphasis on the six most frequent case

closure reasons cited in the OIG Report as well as ensuring appropriate advance notification 

when required. 

OCSE will provide level of automation guidance documents such as this Guide For 

Automating Case Closure to facilitate the technical assistance process. OCSE and state 

 

1

 “Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations,” OEI 06-00-00470, p. 7. 

 Page 2 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

personnel will schedule collaborative sessions using the Guide to consolidate and document 

knowledge of their CSE system’s current level of automation and to identify further

opportunities for automation. As part of its technical assistance, OCSE may conduct site 

visits to observe the state system and interview state personnel. OCSE and state personnel 

will document their findings and recommendations for further state system automation. 

State personnel will be encouraged to share documentation and lessons learned that OCSE 

can disseminate to other states. 

Observing caseworkers managing their caseloads has given the best guidance for 

automating responses. Actions that require little or no worker discretion are ideal for 

automated solutions. Even those situations in which caseworkers review specified case

conditions before deciding upon a course of action can be partially automated through a 

careful course of selection criteria. Examples of case closure automation include:

• Queries of state caseload databases for cases meeting specific closure criteria 

• Alerts to caseworkers when cases are eligible for closure 

• Notice generation 

• Tracking required timeframes 

• Checking selection criteria, for example, noncustodial parent deceased; child 

reaches age 18 or age of emancipation; no current support order and 

arrearages less than $500. 

D. BENEFITS OF CASE CLOSURE AUTOMATION 

States employing case closure automation can realize significant benefits. Case closure

automation can provide these direct benefits: 

• Reduce case closure errors 

• Ensure actions are taken in a timely manner and uniformly across cases 

• Reduce or eliminate backlogs so states can concentrate on cases requiring 

worker determination 

• Reduce data management demands by eliminating duplicate and outdated

cases. 

 Page 3 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 Page 4 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

CHAPTER II: CASE CLOSURE AUTOMATION 

STARTER KIT 

State personnel can use this Starter Kit to help begin or further automate their case 

closure processes. Section A includes several analysis and design aids for clarifying 

case closure business and system requirements. Section B includes helpful 

information on case closure automation from various sources. 

A. BUSINESS AND SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS 

This section helps states clarify case closure business and system requirements at the 

“front end” of the CSE system lifecycle, thereby resulting in potentially lower 

overall system costs for both system development and enhancements. It includes the 

following analysis and design aids: 

A-1. 45 CFR 303.11 regulations 

A-2. Requirements Matrix mapped to 45 CFR 303.11 and annotated for potential 

automation opportunities 

A-3. Flowcharts showing one possible implementation of 45 CFR 303.11 

requirements

A-1. REGULATIONS

The relevant regulations covering case closure, as cited in the certification 

requirements, are at 45 CFR 303.11 (see below). Additional information on these

regulations can be found in: 

• OCSE-AT-93-03 Clarification of Case Closure Criteria 

• OCSE-AT-99-04 Case Closure Criteria Final Rule, 45 CFR Part

303 

• OCSE-PIQ-00-02 Interstate Case Closure When Custodial Parent 

Location is Unknown 

• OCSE-PIQ-03-09, Case Closure of Child-Only Medicaid Cases. 

Refer to Appendix A, Case Closure Reference List, for links to these sources. 

 Page 5 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

Title 45--Public Welfare

Chapter III--Office of Child Support Enforcement 

Part 303--Standards for Program Operations

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 

 Page 6 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

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; 

(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’ 

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. 

[54 FR 32311, Aug. 4, 1989, as amended at 56 FR 8004, Feb. 26, 1991; 64 FR 11817, 

11818, Mar. 10, 1999] 

 Page 7 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

A-2. REQUIREMENTS MATRIX 

OCSE has developed a matrix incorporating the regulations at 45 CFR 303.11. The matrix 

breaks down the requirements for the Federal case closure criteria and shows all possible 

scenarios in which a case may be closed. In the matrix, shaded cells marked with an * 

indicate requirements that could be considered for automation. 

States may have laws, regulations and business policies that further restrict case closure. 

The degree of automation achievable in these cases will need to be assessed on a state-bystate basis. 

States can use the Requirements Matrix to aid in defining system requirements and 

preparing general system design documents. States can also make the Requirements Matrix 

available to Focus Groups to help set the context for gathering input about case closure.

Definitions Used in the Requirements Matrix 

OIG% CASES CLOSED - Percent of cases closed using a particular Federal closure reason 

from OIG Report "Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations" OEI 06-00-

00470 

AUTO - State system should be able to process requirement automatically based on 

routinely gathered system data

INTERVIEW - Caseworker must conduct an in-person or telephone interview with principal 

DOCUMENT - System must be able to generate a paper document for mailing or service 

with only minimal data entry and review by worker

IV-D AGENCY DECISION - Authorized IV-D employee must make a judgment or 

document an action 

EXTERNAL CONTACT - IV-D agency must contact another organization with which it is 

not required to have an automated interface

UNKNOWN STATE LAW - State laws may vary – check state law to make a 

determination about automation

 Page 8 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement 

Requirements Matrix - Case Closure Scenarios (Shaded cells marked with an * contain requirements that could be considered for automation) 

# Reg

303.11 

OIG %Cases Closed 

Requirement 1 Requirement 2 Requirement 3 Requirement 4 Require

1. (b)(1) *There is no longer

a current support order (includes temporary orders -AT-99-04) (AUTO) 

*Arrearages are under $500 (AUTO) 

*60-day noticerequired 303.11(c) (DOCUMENT) 

2. (b)(1) 26% *There is no longer

a current support order (includes temporary orders -AT-99-04) (AUTO) 

Arrearages are unenforceable under state law (UNKNOWN -STATE LAW)

*60-day noticerequired 303.11(c) (DOCUMENT) 

3. (b)(2) *NCP is deceased 

(AUTO) 

No further action, including a levyagainst the estate, can be taken (EXTERNAL CONTACT, IV-D AGENCYDECISION) 

*60-day noticerequired 303.11(c) (DOCUMENT) 

4. (b)(2) *Putative father is

deceased (AUTO) 

No further action, including a levyagainst the estate, can be taken (EXTERNAL CONTACT, IV-D AGENCYDECISION) 

*60-day noticerequired 303.11(c) (DOCUMENT) 

 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement 

# Reg

303.11 

OIG %Cases Closed 

Requirement 1 Requirement 2 Requirement 3 Requirement 4 Require

5. (b)(3)(i) *The child is at 

least 18 years old (AUTO) 

Action to establishpaternity is barred by a statute of limitations which meets the requirements of Sec.302.70(a)(5) of this chapter(UNKNOWN -STATE LAW)

*60-day noticerequired 303.11(c) (DOCUMENT) 

6. (b)(3)(ii) *A genetic test or a

court oradministrativeprocess hasexcluded theputative father(AUTO) 

No other putative father can beidentified (INTERVIEW) 

*60-day noticerequired 303.11(c) (DOCUMENT) 

7. (b)(3)(ii) *A court has

excluded theputative father(AUTO) 

No other putative father can beidentified (INTERVIEW) 

*60-day noticerequired 303.11(c) (DOCUMENT) 

8. (b)(3)(ii) *An administrative 

process hasexcluded the putative father(AUTO) 

No other putative father can beidentified (INTERVIEW) 

*60-day noticerequired 303.11(c) (DOCUMENT) 

9. (b)(3)(iii) Case involves

forcible rape (INTERVIEW or EXTERNALCONTACT) 

IV-D agency has determined that it would not be in thebest interests of the child toestablish paternity (IV-D AGENCY DECISION) 

*60-day noticerequired 303.11(c) (DOCUMENT) 

10. (b)(3)(iii) Case involves

incest (INTERVIEW or 

IV-D agency has determined that it would not be in the

*60-day noticerequired 303.11(c) 

 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement 

# Reg

303.11 

OIG %Cases Closed 

Requirement 1 Requirement 2 Requirement 3 Requirement 4 Require

EXTERNALCONTACT) 

best interests of the child toestablish paternity (IV-D AGENCY DECISION) 

(DOCUMENT) 

11. (b)(3)(iii) Legal proceedings

for adoption are pending(INTERVIEW or EXTERNALCONTACT) 

IV-D agency has determined that it would not be in thebest interests of the child toestablish paternity (IV-D AGENCY DECISION) 

*60-day noticerequired 303.11(c) (DOCUMENT) 

12. (b)(3)(iv) 7% The identity of the

biological father is unknown (identity = name of the biological father - AT-99-04) (IV-D AGENCY DECISION) 

The identity of thebiological father cannot beidentified afterdiligent efforts(EXTERNAL CONTACT)

Including at least one interview by the IV-D agencywith the recipient of services (interview face-toface (preferred) orby telephone - AT99-04) (INTERVIEW)

*60-day noticerequired 303.11(c) (DOCUMENT) 

 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement 

# Reg

303.11 

OIG %Cases Closed 

Requirement 1 Requirement 2 Requirement 3 Requirement 4 Require

13. (b)(4)(i) *The noncustodial

parent's location is unknown (NCP location means residence or employment address - AT-99-04) (AUTO) 

The state hasmade diligent efforts usingmultiple sources, inaccordance with Sec. 303.3, all of which have been unsuccessful, tolocate thenoncustodialparent (DOCUMENT, EXTERNALCONTACT) 

*Over a three-yearperiod (AUTO) 

*There is sufficientinformation toinitiate an automated locate effort (Name, SSN, DOB is consideredsufficient info - AT-98-04) (Name, DOB may be sufficient to find SSN - AT-99-04) (AUTO) 

*60-day required 303.11((DOCU

14. (b)(4)(ii)

24% 

*The noncustodialparent's location is unknown (NCP location means residence or employment address AT-99-04) (AUTO) 

The state hasmade diligent efforts usingmultiple sources, inaccordance with Sec. 303.3, all of which have been unsuccessful, tolocate thenoncustodialparent (DOCUMENT, EXTERNALCONTACT)

*Over a one-year period (AUTO) 

*There is not sufficientinformation toinitiate anautomated locateeffort(AUTO) 

*60-day required 303.11((DOCU

15. (b)(5) The noncustodial

parent cannot paysupport for the duration of the child’s minority 

NCP has beeninstitutionalized ina psychiatric facility

(INTERVIEW or EXTERNAL

(INTERVIEW or EXTERNALCONTACT) 

The state hasdetermined that noincome or assetsare available to theNCP which could be levied or attached for

*60-day noticerequired 303.11(c) (DOCUMENT) 

 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement 

# Reg

303.11 

OIG %Cases Closed 

Requirement 1 Requirement 2 Requirement 3 Requirement 4 Require

CONTACT) support

(EXTERNAL CONTACT, IV-D AGENCYDECISION) 

16. (b)(5) The noncustodial

parent cannot paysupport for the duration of the child’s minority 

NCP is incarcerated withno chance forparole

(INTERVIEW or EXTERNALCONTACT) 

(INTERVIEW or EXTERNALCONTACT) 

The state hasdetermined that noincome or assetsare available to theNCP which could be levied or attached forsupport (EXTERNAL CONTACT, IV-D AGENCYDECISION) 

*60-day noticerequired 303.11(c) (DOCUMENT) 

17. (b)(5) The noncustodial

parent cannot paysupport for the duration of the child’s minority 

NCP has a permanent disability with no evidence ofsupport potential 

(INTERVIEW or EXTERNALCONTACT)

(INTERVIEW or EXTERNALCONTACT) 

The state hasdetermined that noincome or assetsare available to theNCP which could be levied or attached forsupport (EXTERNAL CONTACT, IV-D AGENCYDECISION) 

*60-day noticerequired 303.11(c) (DOCUMENT) 

18. (b)(6) The NCP is a

citizen of a foreign country(INTERVIEW OR EXTERNAL

NCP lives in a foreign countrywith which the state has been unable to establish

NCP does not work for the U.S. Federalgovernment (INTERVIEW OR

NCP does not work for a company withheadquarters or offices in the

NCP hareachabdomestior asset(INTER

 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement 

# Reg

303.11 

OIG %Cases Closed 

Requirement 1 Requirement 2 Requirement 3 Requirement 4 Require

CONTACT) reciprocity

(INTERVIEW OR EXTERNALCONTACT) 

EXTERNALCONTACT)

United States(INTERVIEW OR EXTERNALCONTACT)

EXTERCONTA

19. (b)(7) The IV-D agency 

has providedlocation-onlyservices asrequested under Sec. 302.35(c)(3) of this chapter(IV-D AGENCY DECISION) 

20. (b)(8)

18% 

The non-IV-A recipient of services requests closure of a case (EXTERNAL CONTACT)

There is noassignment to the state of medical support under 42CFR 433.146(IV-D AGENCY DECISION) 

There is noassignment to thestate of arrearages which accrued under a support order (IV-D AGENCY DECISION) 

21. (b)(9) There has been a

finding by theresponsible stateagency of goodcause (EXTERNAL CONTACT) 

The state or local IV-A, IV-D, IV-E,Medicaid or food stamp agency hasdetermined that support enforcement may not proceedwithout risk ofharm to the child orcaretaker relative (EXTERNAL CONTACT orIV-D AGENCY DECISION)

22. (b)(9) There has been a The state or local 

 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement 

# Reg

303.11 

OIG %Cases Closed 

Requirement 1 Requirement 2 Requirement 3 Requirement 4 Require

finding by theresponsible stateagency ofother exceptions tocooperation with the IV-D agency(EXTERNAL CONTACT)

IV-A, IV-D, IV-E,Medicaid or food stamp agency hasdetermined that support enforcement may not proceedwithout risk ofharm to the child orcaretaker relative (EXTERNAL CONTACT orIV-D AGENCY DECISION) 

23. (b)(10)

8% 

In a non-IV-A case receiving services under Sec.302.33(a)(1) (i) or(iii)  (EXTERNAL CONTACT orIV-D AGENCY DECISION)

The IV-D agency isunable to contact the recipient of services (EXTERNAL CONTACT)

Despite an attempt of at least oneletter sent by first class mail to the last known address (Includes 60-day notice) (DOCUMENT) 

*Within a 60Calendar day period (AUTO FORNOTICE OF INTENT TOCLOSE) 

24. (b)(11)

12% 

In a non-IV-A case receiving services under Sec.302.33(a)(1) (i) or(iii) (EXTERNAL CONTACT orIV-D AGENCY DECISION)

The IV-D agency documents the circumstances ofthe recipient of services’noncooperation (IV-D AGENCY DECISION) 

An action by the recipient of services is essential for the next step inproviding IV-Dservices.(IV-D AGENCY DECISION) 

*60-day noticerequired 303.11(c) (DOCUMENT) 

25. (b)(12) The IV-D agency

documents failureby the initiating state to take anaction that is

*60-day noticerequired 303.11(c) (DOCUMENT) 

 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement 

# Reg

303.11 

OIG %Cases Closed 

Requirement 1 Requirement 2 Requirement 3 Requirement 4 Require

essential for the next step inproviding services. (Applies to all IV-Dcases - AT-99-04) (IV-D AGENCY DECISION) 

26. PIQ 00-

02 

The initiating staterequests closure. (EXTERNAL CONTACT)

 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

A-3. FLOWCHARTS

The following flowcharts show one possible logical implementation of the 45 CFR 

303.11 case closure requirements. They are intended to show at a detailed level

where there may be opportunities for case closure automation. However, they do 

not account for individual state laws, regulations or business practices and may not

be appropriate for a particular state's data architecture. 

State CSE system technical personnel can use these flowcharts as a starting point

during their system requirements analysis and design activities. 

 Page 17 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

Flowchart Symbols

Automatic

Decision

Human

Decision

Unknown

Decision

Automatic Process

Manual Process

Unknown

Process

Electronic

Storage

Green Symbols indicate an automated action

Yellow symbols indicate a human action is required

Red symbols indicate that the action is dependent on State law and

may or may not be able to be automated

 Page 18 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

START

END

Archive Case

Initiate

Supervisory

Review

Close Case

Delete Case

Generate Notice

Case

Closed?

Closed >

3 Years

Case meets

b(7), b(8) or b(9)

criteria?

Case meets

b(1)-b(6) or b(10)-

b(12)

criteria

Closure

Approved?

Closure

Approved?

CP or initiating

State notified

Notification

sent >

60 days ago

NO

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

YES

Storage

NO

YES

NO

NO

YES

Process for Case Closure

Run weekly or monthly

NO

NO

CP or Initiating

State

Response?

YES YES

NO

Calculate Criteria

b(1) - b(12)

 Page 19 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

START

END

Set Criteria b(1) = True

Open Current

Support Order?

Arrears < $500? Uneforceable

under State Law?

NO

YES

NO

YES

NO

YES

Process for Closure Reason 

303.11(b)(1)

 Page 20 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

START

END

Set Criteria b(2) = True

NCP

Deceased ?

NO

Levy

against

estate

possible?

Further action

Possible?

NO NO

YES

YES

YES

Process for Closure Reason 

303.11(b)(2) 

 Page 21 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

S T A R T

E N D

S e t C rite ria b(3 ) = T ru e

P a te rn ity

E s tablis hed ?

IV -D in te rv ie w

w ith C P ?

N O

C h ild 18

o r older?

S ta tu te of

L im ita tions

E x c eeded?

G enetic T e s t

o r c ourt order or

adm in s tra tiv e order

E x c ludes

P u ta tiv e N C P ?

A n y other

P u ta tiv e N C P ?

B e s t In te re s t?

 -In c e s t

 -F o rc ib le rape

 -A doptio n

B io logical

F a ther

U n know n ?

Y E S

Y E S

Y E S

Y E S

YES

Y E S

Y E S

YES

N O

N O

N O

N O

N O

N O

N O

 

Process for Closure Reason 

303.11(b)(3) 

 Page 22 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

S TA R T

E N D

S et C riteria b(4) = Tru e

NCP L oca tion

V erified ?

N O

NCP S S N

V erified?

R equest for locate

to m anual sources

fo r > 1 year?

Y E S

YES

Y E S

N O

N O

N O

R equ est for locate

 to auto so urce s

for > 3 years?

S ub m it NC P

to a uto locate

sources

S ub m it NC P

to S P LS locate

S ub m it NC P

to FP LS lo cate

S ubm it NC P SS N

to FP LS

S ubm it NC P SS N

to S P LS

S ubm it NC P SS N

to m anu al sources

YES

Y E S

Process for Closure Reason 

303.11(b)(4) 

 Page 23 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

START

END

NCP

Institutionalized?

NCP in prison? Chance of parole?

NO

NO YES

NO

YES

NCP totally &

permanently

disabled?

NO

Verified? Support

Potential?

Assets or income

that could be levied?

YES YES NO

NO

NO

Set Criteria b(5)=

True

YES

YES

YES

Process for Closure Reason 

303.11(b)(5) 

 Page 24 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

START

END

Set Criteria b(6) = True

NCP Citizen of

Foreign Country?

N O

NCP Lives in

Foreign Country?

NCP works

for US

Governm ent?

NCP works for

US Com pany?

Reciprocal

Agreem ent

w/ Foreign

Governm ent?

NCP Dom estic

Incom e or Assets

Reachable?

YES

YES

YES

Y ES

YES

N O

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

Process for Closure Reason 

303.11(b)(6) 

 Page 25 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

START

END

Set Criteria b(7) = True

Locate Only Case?

NO

Locate services

Provided?

YES

YES

NO

Process for Closure Reason 

303.11(b)(7) 

 Page 26 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

START

END

Set Criteria b(8) = True

Non-IV-A

Case?

NO CP Requests

Closure?

YES

YES

NO

Assignment of

Medical Support?

Assignment of

Arrears?

YES

YES

NO

NO

Process for Closure Reason 

303.11(b)(8) 

 Page 27 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

START

END

Set Criteria b(9) = True

Good Cause

Finding?

Other

 exception to

cooperation?

YES

YES

NO

NO

Process for Closure Reason 

303.11(b)(9) 

 Page 28 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

S TART

END

Set C riteria b(10) = True

N on-IV-A

C ase?

R eceiving N O

Services under

Sec. 302.33(a)(i)?

YES

N O

R esponse from C P 60

days after Firs t C las s

Letter sent?

C ontact letter sent

to C P?

YES

YES

N O

N O

R eceiving

Services under

Sec. 302.33(a)(iii)?

YES

YES

N O

 C losure N otice

sent to C P?

R esponse from C P

 60 days after C losure

N otice sent?

YES

N O

N O

YES

Process for Closure Reason 

303.11(b)(10) 

 Page 29 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

START

END

Set Criteria b(11) = True

Non-IV-A

Case?

Receiving NO

Services under

Sec. 302.33(a)(i)?

YES

NO

CP cooperation

essential ?

YES

NO

Receiving

Services under

Sec. 302.33(a)(iii)?

YES

YES

NO

Docum ent Noncooperation

CP cooperating?

NO

YES

Process for Closure Reason 

303.11(b)(11) 

 Page 30 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

START

END

Set Criteria b(12) = True

Interstate

Case?

NO

YES

NO

Initiating State

Provides info?

NO

YES

YES

NO

State has info to

process case?

Interstate Request to

initiating State for

required Info sent?

Generate

Interstate Request

YES

Document

State's Failure to

take action

Process for Closure Reason 

303.11(b)(12) 

 Page 31 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

B. HELPFUL INFORMATION 

This section contains practical suggestions from various sources. It includes: 

B-1. Tips from OIG reports on case closure 

B-2. Sample Case Closure Intent Notices 

B-3. Excerpts from the Federal Case Registry Technical Assistance Guide,

Release 3.0, “How the FCR Can Help with Case Closure” and “How SSA 

Date of Death Matches Can Help with Case Processing” 

B-4. Perform Routine Monitor/Supervisory Review

B-5. Case Study from the State of Virginia 

 

B-1. TIPS FROM OIG REPORTS

1. Automate as much as possible of the case closure process for the six case closure 

reasons that account for 95 percent of case closures and 96 percent of case closure 

errors2

. 

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 putative 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%

* Percentages reflect weighted values 

2. Train caseworkers about case closure regulations and procedures. Provide guides and 

manuals that instruct workers on how to perform each function of closure.

3. Reduce the number of closure codes to simplify processing. Codes should be traceable 

back to a Federal requirement. 

4. Be aware that the Section 303.11 (b) (10) regulation requires two sixty-day waiting 

periods to close a case in which contact has been lost with a non-TANF client. The OIG 

Report indicates that not waiting 60 days is a major problem in this category3

. The 

closure notice must be sent at least 60 days after the contact letter is sent. There is also a

60-day wait after the notice is sent. So, for this closure criterion, two letters must be

sent, even if the post office returned the first one as address unknown. The entire 

process takes at least 120 days. 

 

2

 “Use of Federal Child Support Case Closure Regulations,” OEI 06-00-00470, p. 7. 

3 Ibid., p. 8. 

 Page 32 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

5. Be sure that case closure intent notices contain the minimum necessary information to

be effective. The six pieces of information needed in advance notices are: 

• Statement that the agency intends to close the case

• Specific closure reason 

• Date of intended closure 

• Procedures for requesting a case not be closed 

• Contact name 

• Contact telephone number 

See Section B-2 for a generic template for case closure intent notices. 

6. Continue to allow for manual review of cases when needed.

7. Perform routine monitoring of case closure activities in order to uncover problems and 

continually improve strategies. 

B-2. GENERIC TEMPLATE FOR CASE CLOSURE INTENT NOTICE 

The generic template shows the minimum necessary information needed for the Custodial 

Parent (CP) to respond appropriately. States can customize this generic template for their 

own use. 

 Page 33 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

GENERIC TEMPLATE 

NOTICE OF INTENT TO CLOSE CASE

(MAILING DATE): 

(CSE MAILING ADDRESS): 

(CSE CASE NUMBER) 

(CP NAME)

(CP ADDRESS) 

Dear (CP NAME) 

The purpose of this notice is to inform you that your child support enforcement case with 

(NCP NAME) will be closed effective (CLOSURE DATE) for the following reason(s): 

(CLOSURE REASON #)

(CLOSURE REASON #)

(CLOSURE REASON #)

If you want your case to remain open and active you must notify your local CSE office 

contact shown below WITHIN 60 DAYS from the mailing date listed above. 

If you agree that your case should be closed, you do not need to respond to this notice. 

Your case will automatically be closed 60 days from the date of this notice. 

Once your case is closed you may later request that your case be reopened if there is a 

change in circumstances which could lead to the establishment of paternity, or the 

establishment or enforcement of a child support order. Unless you are receiving public 

assistance, you will be required to pay an application fee and sign a contract for services 

at that time. 

Thank you for your cooperation, 

(CASEWORKER NAME) 

Child Support Enforcement Office 

(CASEWORKER CONTACT INFORMATION: 

 PHONE NUMBER, EMAIL) 

 Page 34 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

B-3. EXCERPTS FROM THE FEDERAL CASE REGISTRY TECHNICAL 

ASSISTANCE GUIDE, RELEASE 3.0

7.3.4 How the FCR Can Help with Case Closure 

In November 2001 as part of FCR Release 01-01, the FCR-to-FCR proactive match 

process was enhanced to provide information to states when a case is closed or a

person record is deleted. Prior to this enhancement, proactive FCR-to-FCR matches 

were sent only when case and participant records were added or changed. 

This enhancement affords states the opportunity to identify cases and participants 

that have been closed or deleted on the FCR by another state. The delete

information enables states to better manage their interstate caseloads and keep 

interstate cases and participants synchronized with other states. States should notify 

their caseworkers of the receipt of closed case/deleted participant matches for 

interstate responding or initiating cases so that appropriate follow-up action is taken 

(e.g., case closure). Appropriate case closure assists states with performance 

measurement and caseload allocation. 

The delete information states receive is person-based. The proactive match indicates 

whether the person is being deleted on an individual basis or because the entire case

was closed. Matches are sent for both IV-D and non IV-D person deletes, but only 

to states that have IV-D cases. Proactive matches are not sent when a person on the 

FCR has an FVI. Proactive matches also are not sent to a state that previously

deleted the person record. 

The changes to the FCR Query/Proactive Match Response Record (‘FT’) include a 

new field, Person Delete Indicator, which was added in position 800 in an area

previously defined as filler. The valid values are ‘C’ to indicate that the entire case 

was closed and ‘P’ to indicate that the individual person was deleted from a case still 

open. A change also was made to the Case Change Type field (position 867) to 

allow a new value of ‘4’ for case is closed or person is deleted. 

States should focus on cases in other states with which they share common persons 

since those cases have the greatest impact on case processing. Prior to deleting a 

person record or closing a case based on a proactive match, a state should verify the 

information. States could consider generating a CSENet transaction or performing a

worker review. 

7.3.5 How SSA Date of Death Matches Can Help with Case Processing

At the request of states, the FCR began matching in November 2001 against date of 

death information provided by SSA. This enhancement was implemented under 

FCR Release 01-01. 

 Page 35 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

States wanted this match as it provides valuable death information that could change 

the case function or disposition. Depending upon the case, death information might 

lead to a lien being placed upon the estate of the deceased, or the CP may be advised 

to apply to SSA for survivor’s benefits. In some instances, the case may meet case 

closure conditions. Because the implications as to next case step may be 

complicated, states should use discretion in closing cases, or deleting persons, based 

on the receipt of SSA date of death information. States should verify the 

information independently. SSA may have to correct or delete dates of death 

erroneously reported. Because the incidence of error in what is reported to SSA is

significant, states should exercise caution in using the death information. 

 

The SSA Death Master File provides the SSN, name, date of death, zip code of last

residence, and zip code of where any lump sum payment was sent for persons 

reported as deceased. SSA obtains this information from several sources, including 

reports from funeral homes and hospitals, as well as phone calls from relatives. 

Only information for verified SSNs is added to the SSA Death Master File. 

Monthly, the FCR matches against an SSA Date of Death Update File, which 

includes new dates of death, changes to previously reported dates, and deletions of 

erroneously reported dates of death. The monthly updates are relayed to states, as 

was the initial match, through the FCR Query/Proactive Match Response Record

(‘FT’). 

 

To process date of death matches on the ‘FT’ record, states must accept: 

• Code ‘D’ for SSA Date of Death File Update in position 5, Action Type Code; 

• Dates in positions 184-191, Matched Person Date of Death, including ‘99999999’, 

which indicates SSA is removing an erroneous date of death previously reported; 

• Values in position 755, SSA Date of Death Indicator, of ‘A’ for a new date of death, 

‘C’ for a correction to a previously reported date of death, and ‘D’ for the deletion of 

an erroneous date of death previously reported; and 

• Address data in positions 756 through 792 that reflects the city, state and zip code of 

the address where the deceased last resided and where any lump sum payment was 

sent. 

States should be aware of the following important points: 

• The ‘FT’ records that contain date of death information are generated specifically 

from the match with SSA Death Files; these are records independent of proactive 

matches that share information among states. Information as to associated case 

participants is not contained on the ‘FT’ records generated from date of death 

matches since these matches are person-specific. 

• Date of death matches are made regardless of the presence of an FVI. 

• Date of death matches are made for persons in both IV-D and non IV-D cases. 

• Only the FCR Primary SSN is used for the match; date of death matches are not 

made against multiple valid SSNs on the person record. 

• Address information on the returned ‘FT’ record is keyed off the receipt of a valid 

zip code from SSA. SSA only provides the zip code for the address where the

 Page 36 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

deceased last resided or where a lump sum payment was sent. The FCR uses SSA’s 

zip code to locate the associated city and state. If SSA has an invalid zip code in its 

Death Files, the address fields on the ‘FT’ are blank. 

In addition to the monthly updates the FCR sends states, the FCR returns any date of 

death information stored on the FCR whenever a person record is added or changed 

successfully on the FCR, or when a locate request is received. The date of death 

information is returned on the FCR Person/Locate Request Acknowledgement/Error

Record (‘FS’).

An ‘FS’ record is returned for each ‘FT’ person add, change, or locate request 

accepted by the FCR. Only the FCR Primary SSN is used for the return of date of 

death information on the ‘FS’ record. The following is provided as an easy 

reference to where date of death information appears on the ‘FS’ record since the 

relevant data fields do not always follow each other sequentially. This occurred 

since ‘placeholders’ were reserved for fields known to be available from SSA in the

original ‘FS’ record specifications. Fields previously defined as filler were used for 

FCR-determined city and state based on an SSA-provided zip code. 

• SSA-recorded date of death in positions 685-692; 

• SSA-provided zip code for the deceased’s last known residence in positions 693-

697; 

• SSA-provided zip code for the address to which any lump sum payment was sent in

positions 698-702; 

• City of the deceased’s last residence in positions 804-818 as determined by the FCR 

based on SSA-provided zip code; 

• State of the deceased’s last residence in positions 819-820 as determined by the FCR 

based on SSA-provided zip code; 

• City where any lump sum payment was sent in positions 821-835 as determined -by 

the FCR based on SSA-provided zip code; and 

• State where any lump sum payment was sent in positions 836-837 as determined by 

the FCR based on SSA-provided zip code. 

Date of death information also is provided to states with the FCR Person Reconciliation 

File. Use of the Reconciliation File is described in detail in the next subsection of this

guide. 

States need to coordinate date of death information received from the SSA Death 

Files with other date of death information received from external locate sources on 

the FCR Locate Response Record (‘FF’). The date of death information may not be 

consistent among the various sources: 

• FBI external locate response record returns date of death information for 

employees killed in the line of duty. 

• SSA SVES response records provide date of death information for SSA and SSI 

benefit recipients. 

• VA external locate response record returns date of death information that is reported 

to the VA by family members, or information that is known to the VA through

hospital records. 

 Page 37 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

With the exception of certain SVES Title XVI date of death information, none of the 

death information is verified. States should contact the state vital statistics agency to 

verify date of death information. 

B-4. PERFORM ROUTINE MONITOR/SUPERVISORY REVIEW 

The CSE system needs to create and routinely generate reports of case closure for 

use by supervisory personnel doing case review. Such reports should be provided, 

sorted by such criteria as chronology, caseworker, or date range, to local supervisors

not less often than monthly. The state should also implement procedures requiring 

supervisors to review a defined percentage of cases on such reports to ensure that 

proper procedures for case closure are being followed. 

 Page 38 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

B-5. CASE STUDY – STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Case Closure Automation

State of Virginia

Department of Social Services, Division of Child Support Enforcement 

Division of Information Systems 

Summary. In 1999, a study commissioned by the State of Virginia’s General Assembly 

showed a high number of inactive child support cases. In response, the Division of Child 

Support Enforcement, Division of Information Systems, undertook a special project to 

identify cases that could be closed based on the twelve Federal case closure criteria. This 

two-year manual effort reduced the state’s caseload from 420,000 to 359,000. However,

this manual case closure effort was too time-consuming for caseworkers to sustain along 

with their other responsibilities. In 2001 the Division embarked on a collaborative effort 

with its stakeholders to automate case closure procedures where desirable and feasible. The

automation is being deployed in three phases, with pilots in District offices preceding 

statewide implementation. In implementing phases 1 and 2, the Division has closed 28,000 

cases using new automated case closure processing for three of the twelve Federal case 

closure criteria. Phase 3 is pending. Results thus far indicate a significant increase in the 

number of cases closed in compliance with Federal criteria; decreases in worker caseloads 

resulting in improved morale and ability to focus on getting support to children; and data 

reliability audited at 95 percent. Using a combination of manual and automated case 

closure, the Division has closed 300,000 cases from December 1999 through September

2003. 

Background. In 1999, the State of Virginia’s General Assembly commissioned a study of

staffing needs as they related to caseloads in the Department of Social Services, Division of 

Child Support Enforcement. A major finding of this study was the high number of inactive 

cases among the Division’s 420,000 cases. 

In response to the study, the Department’s Division of Information Systems undertook a

special project in 1999-2000 to identify cases that met the Federal case closure criteria. The 

project consisted of: 

A. A manual case-by-case review using Virginia’s Automated Program to 

Enforce Child Support (APECS) 

B. Analysis of Caseload Enforcement Aging Reports for each status: 

Locate, Paternity, Establishment, and Enforcement

This special project reduced the state’s caseload from 420,000 to 359,000. The Division’s 

team realized, however, that the manual review was too time-consuming for caseworkers to 

sustain along with their other responsibilities. Instead, they decided to develop an 

automated case closure process to supplement the manual process. Using a combination of 

 Page 39 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

manual and automated case closure, the Division has closed 300,000 cases from December 

1999 through September 2003. 

 

Automation Process. The Division of Information Systems team used a collaborative

process to determine their requirements. First, they convened Focus Groups of 

approximately 10 members, with stakeholders from Division of Child Support 

Enforcement’s policy, information systems, training, self-assessment team, and field staff, 

including program specialists, auditors, and supervisors. These Focus Groups pooled their 

caseload and business practice knowledge and experience to identify the most desirable and 

feasible case closure criteria for automation. The four criteria they identified were: 

• There is no longer a current support order and arrearages are under $500 or

unenforceable under state law - Section 303.11, (b) (1) 

• The noncustodial parent or putative father is deceased – Section 303.11 (b) (2) 

• The noncustodial parent’s location is unknown – Section 303.11 (b) (4) 

• Paternity cannot be established – Section 303.11 (b) (3) 

Next, the Division of Information Systems team developed detailed specifications from 

these requirements and began implementing case closure automation in phases. 

Phase 1. Automate Section 303.11, (b) (1), No Longer a Current Support Order (CNOA) 

Based on Focus Group input, the team developed an automated process with even stricter

closure criteria than the Federal regulation. The stiffer criteria include $0 arrearage, no 

support payments within the last thirty days, and all children either over age 18 or who have 

reached emancipation. The team piloted the automated process in two District offices in

July 2000. The pilot included a manual review of all cases the system identified for closure. 

Statewide implementation for Section 303.11 (b) (1) began in January 2001 and resulted in

the automated closing of 15,000 cases. 

Phase 2. Using a similar rollout, automation for two more criteria -- noncustodial parent or

putative father is deceased, and noncustodial parent’s location is unknown, has been piloted 

and implemented statewide.

Phase 3. Implementation of this phase is pending. It will include: 

1. Automated Assists. Once a caseworker enters the appropriate case closure code, the

system will generate and mail the recipient of services a Notice of Intent to Close, 

followed by automated case closure 65 days after the Notice is sent. Automated Assists 

will be available for all of the case closure criteria requiring the 60-day Notice of Intent 

to Close. 

2. Paternity cannot be established – Section 303.11 (b) (3). Parts of this criterion will be 

automated. They are: 

a. Child is at least 18 years old and action to establish paternity is barred by a 

statute of limitations –Section 303.11 (b) (3) (i) 

 Page 40 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

b. A genetic test or a court or administrative process has excluded the putative

father and no other putative father can be identified – Section 303.11 (b) (3)

(ii). A Notice of Intent to Close is sent to the custodial parent. 

The Division team estimates that resources for its case closure automation effort took a little 

over two years at a cost of approximately $ 250,000. The automated closure process alone 

has closed approximately 28,000 cases in the two-year period since it started in 2001. 

Challenges and Solutions. The Division team encountered several challenges and devised 

these solutions: 

Challenge 1. Multiple case closure codes had previously been used; in some cases, no one 

knew what they represented anymore. 

Solutions. 

• Standardize on twelve codes that match the Federal case closure criteria. 

• Train staff on using new codes. 

Challenge 2. Caseworkers are reluctant to give up control to the automated system. 

Solutions. 

• Give caseworkers a “veto.” Provide a Case Do Not Close (CDNC) code that

overrides automated closure procedures for one year. After one year, the system

again makes the case available for automated closure. 

• After a case is set to close and the notice has gone out, a worker can also prevent the 

case from being closed automatically before the closure takes place. 

Benefits. The Division team reports these benefits from its case closure automation efforts: 

1. The number of cases closed in compliance with Federal criteria has increased. There 

are fewer case closure errors compared to manual processing. 

2. Case closures are more timely. 

3. Worker caseloads have decreased significantly, from 1,400 to 1,000 per caseworker. 

As a result, caseworkers report that they feel less overwhelmed and have more time

to focus on collections. 

4. The State CSE system has passed its data reliability audit at 95 percent for the past 4 

years, in part from the case closure initiative. As a result, the State has qualified for

more Federal performance incentives. 

Lessons Learned. The Division team documented these Lessons Learned: 

1. Use a structured process that involves key stakeholders to identify needs and to 

establish priorities based on stakeholder experience with state caseloads. 

2. Determine feasibility of automating case closure criteria. Do not assume that all 

criteria can or should be automated. 

3. Pilot new automated procedures before statewide implementation. 

4. Look for opportunities to use data already being collected from other sources, for 

example, death information from SSA via FCR. This death information is helpful to 

 Page 41 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

the states; however, independent verification is required through a carefully worded

Closure Intent Notice sent to the custodial parent. 

5. Give caseworkers an override capability for automated case closure. 

 

Contact Information.

Name: Martha Savage

Organization: Department of Social Services, DIS/DCSE APECS 

Role: Business Analyst 

Phone: (804) 726-7848 

Email: martha.savage@dss.virginia.gov 

 Page 42 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure

This page intentionally left blank.

 Page 43 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 44 

CHAPTER III: CASE CLOSURE AUTOMATION 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

A. INTRODUCTION 

Case Closure Automation Technical Assistance was prompted by recommendations by the 

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Office of Inspector General (OIG) to 

automate processes for identifying and closing child support cases to reduce case closure 

error rates. Refer to Chapter I of this Guide for additional information about the OIG Report 

findings. 

OCSE and state personnel will schedule collaborative technical assistance sessions via 

phone conferences or face-to-face meetings. As a starting point, the team will use tools 

found in this Guide For Automating Case Closure as a starting point. The purpose of these 

sessions is to: 

• Identify and document the state CSE system’s current level of automation 

• Discover further opportunities for automation 

• Locate shared resources such as system documentation and work products (for 

example, Closure Intent Notice) to be shared with other states 

• Develop Case Studies to include in the Guide For Automating Case Closure 

As part of the joint technical assistance activity, OCSE staff may conduct site visits to 

observe the state system and interview state personnel. OCSE and state personnel will 

record their findings and recommendations for further state system automation. As a result 

of these technical assistance sessions, state personnel may also develop a case closure 

automation plan for incorporation into their system enhancement plan. 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 45 

B. CASE CLOSURE AUTOMATION DISCUSSION GUIDE 

State child support enforcement (CSE) stakeholders, state policy, program operations, 

technical personnel and their contractors, and Federal OCSE technical assistance staff can 

benefit from using this Discussion Guide during their joint Technical Assistance sessions. 

They can use the Discussion Guide to consolidate and document their knowledge of their 

CSE system’s current level of automation and to identify further opportunities for 

automation. 

The Discussion Guide is based on Federal case closure criteria from Title 45 CFR Section 

303.11. In the Guide, the following key terms are used: 

 

• Fully Automated 

• Partially Automated 

• Not Automated 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 46 

CSE System Case Closure Automation Discussion Guide 

Based on 45 CFR 303.11, Case Closure Criteria 

Name State 

Organization 

Phone Email 

Date CSE System Name 

 

DIRECTIONS 

1. For each Sec. 303.11 criterion, double-click on the appropriate check box. 

2. In the Check Box Form Field Options, change Default value to Checked to indicate 

fully automated, partially automated, or not automated. 

Fully automated means the CSE system automatically searches for cases that meet 

Federal case closure criteria and closes eligible cases without caseworker 

intervention. For example, for closure criterion 303.11 (b) (1), the CSE system can 

run a monthly batch search for cases with no current support order and arrearages 

under $500 or unenforceable by state law. For cases meeting this 303.11 (b) (1) 

criterion, the CSE system can generate and mail a Notice of Intent to Close Case, 

track the required 60 day (or longer) timeframe, recheck cases for meeting the 

criterion, and then close the case. 

Partially automated means caseworker determination with automated assistance. 

The caseworker determines readiness for case closure through case review, 

interviews, and other manual procedures. The caseworker then provides input to the 

CSE system (for example, enters a case closure reason code or updates case 

information). This input triggers automated assistance such as: automated notice 

generation and mailing, automated time tracking of required timeframes, and 

automated case closure, where appropriate. 

Not automated means the caseworker performs all case closure actions manually 

(case review, interviews, notice generation and mailing, case closure). 

3. If fully automated, or partially automated, briefly describe how by placing your 

cursor in the textbox and entering text. 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 47

EXAMPLE – Completed Discussion Guide 

Sec. 303.11 (b) (1) only 

Sec. 303.11 (b) (1) 

There is no longer a current support order (includes temporary orders per AT-99-04)

and arrearages are under $500 or unenforceable under state law. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 

1. Automated search for cases with no current support order and arrearages under

$500 

2. Automated search for additional criteria ($0 balance, all children over 18 or 

emancipated) 

If applicable, a 60-day notice of intent to close is sent to the recipient of services. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 

1. Automated search for valid custodial parent mailing address 

2. Automated verification that no other Notice of Intent to Close has been sent

3. Automated tracking of required 60 days (or longer) timeframe 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 48

CASE CLOSURE AUTOMATION DISCUSSION GUIDE 

Sec. 303.11 (b) (1) 

1. There is no longer a current support order (includes temporary orders per 

AT-99-04) and arrearages are under $500 or unenforceable under state law.

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 

2. If automated, briefly describe how. 

2. If applicable, a 60-day notice of intent to close is sent to the recipient of 

services. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 49

Sec. 303.11 (b) (2) 

1. The noncustodial parent or putative father is deceased and no further action, 

including a levy against the estate, can be taken. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 

2. If applicable, a 60-day notice of intent to close is sent to the recipient of 

services. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 50

Sec. 303.11 (b) (3) (i) 

Paternity cannot be established because:

1. 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. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 

2. If applicable, a 60-day notice of intent to close is sent to the recipient of 

services. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 51

 Sec. 303.11 (b) (3) (ii) 

Paternity cannot be established because: 

1. A genetic test or a court or administrative process has excluded the putative

father and no other putative father can be identified. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 

2. If applicable, a 60-day notice of intent to close is sent to the recipient of 

services. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 52

Sec. 303.11 (b) (3) (iii) 

Paternity cannot be established because: 

1. 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 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 

2. Or, 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 any case where legal proceedings for adoption are pending 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 

 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 53

Sec. 303.11 (b) (3) (iii) - continued 

3. If applicable, a 60-day notice of intent to close is sent to the recipient of 

services. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 54

Sec. 303.11 (b) (3) (iv) 

Paternity cannot be established because: 

1. 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. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 

2. If applicable, a 60-day notice of intent to close is sent to the recipient of 

services. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 55

Sec. 303.11 (b) (4) 

1. 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, over a 

three-year period when there is sufficient information to initiate an 

automated locate effort. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 

 

2. Or, 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, over a oneyear period when there is not sufficient information to initiate an automated 

locate effort 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 56

Sec. 303.11 (b) (4) - continued 

3. If applicable, a 60-day notice of intent to close is sent to the recipient of 

services. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 57

Sec. 303.11 (b) (5) 

The noncustodial parent cannot pay support for the duration of the child’s minority 

because: 

1. The parent has been institutionalized in a psychiatric facility, or the parent is 

incarcerated with no chance for parole, or the parent has a medically verified 

total and permanent disability with no evidence of support potential. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 

 

2. The state must also determine that no income or assets are available to the 

noncustodial parent which could be levied or attached for support. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 58

Sec. 303.11 (b) (5) - continued

3. If applicable, a 60-day notice of intent to close is sent to the recipient of 

services. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 59

Sec. 303.11 (b) (6) 

1. The noncustodial parent is a citizen of, and lives in, a foreign country, and 

the noncustodial parent does not work for the Federal government or for a 

company with headquarters or offices in the United States, and the 

noncustodial parent has no reachable domestic income or assets. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 

2. And the state has been unable to establish reciprocity with the country. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 60

Sec. 303.11 (b) (6) – continued 

3. If applicable, a 60-day notice of intent to close is sent to the recipient of 

services. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 61

Sec. 303.11 (b) (7) 

1. The IV-D agency has provided location-only services as requested under

Sec. 302.35(c)(3) of this chapter. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 62

Sec. 303.11 (b) (8) 

1. 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. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 

2. Or, the non-IV-A recipient of services requests closure of a case and there is 

no assignment to the state of arrearages which accrued under a support order. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 63

Sec. 303.11 (b) (9) 

 

1. 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. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 64

Sec. 303.11 (b) (10) 

1. This is a non-IV-A case receiving services under Sec. 302.33(a)(1) (i) or 

(iii), and 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. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 

2. If applicable, a 60-day notice of intent to close is sent to the recipient of 

services. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 65

303.11 (b) (11) 

1. This is a non-IV-A case receiving services under Sec. 302.33(a)(1) (i) or 

(iii), and the IV-D agency documents the circumstances of the recipient of 

service's noncooperation and an action by the recipient of services is

essential for the next step in providing IV-D services. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 

2. If applicable, a 60-day notice of intent to close is sent to the recipient of 

services. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 66

Sec. 303.11 (b) (12) 

 

1. The IV-D agency documents failure by the initiating state to take an action 

which is essential for the next step in providing services. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 

2. If applicable, a 60-day notice of intent to close is sent to the recipient of 

services. 

 Fully automated 

 Partially automated 

 Not automated 

If fully or partially automated, briefly describe how. 
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 67 

This page intentionally left blank.
Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement A Guide for Automating Case Closure 

 Page 68 

APPENDIX A – CASE CLOSURE REFERENCE LIST

Reference Description Location 

45 CFR 303.11 

Case Closure 

Criteria 

Title 45, Public Welfare, Chapter III, 

Office of Child Support Enforcement, 

Part 303, Standards for Program 

Operations, Sec. 303.11, Case closure 

criteria 

http://www.acf.hh

s.gov/programs/cs

e/pubs/2003/cfr/co

mpilation_federal

_cse_regs_9-9-

03.doc 

Automated Systems 

for Child Support 

Enforcement: A 

Guide for States 

PRWORA Certification Guide for 

State Systems, Revised for PRWORA, 

April 1999 - updated December 1999 - 

updated August 2000 

http://www.acf.dh

hs.gov/programs/c

se/stsys/tab3a.htm

Barriers in Closing 

Child Support 

Enforcement Cases 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Office of Inspector General 

Report, September 2002, OEI-06-00-

00471 

http://oig.hhs.gov/

oei/reports/oei-06-

00-00471.pdf

OCSE-AT-93-03 Action Transmittal, Clarification of 

Case Closure Criteria 

http://www.acf.hh

s.gov/programs/cs

e/pol/AT/at9303.htm

FPLS Technical 

Assistance Guide 

Federal Parent Locator Service 

(FPLS) Technical Assistance Guide 

(TAG), Release 3.0, Chapter 7.3.4, 

How the FCR Can Help with Case 

Closure 

http://www.acf.hh

s.gov/programs/cs

e/newhire/library/

fcr/fcr.htm

OCSE-AT-99-04 Action Transmittal, Case Closure 

Criteria Final Rule, 45 CFR Part 303 

http://www.acf.hh

s.gov/programs/cs

e/pol/AT/at9904.htm

OCSE-PIQ-00-02 Policy Interpretation Question, 

Interstate Case Closure When 

Custodial Parent Location is Unknown 

http://www.acf.hh

s.gov/programs/cs

e/pol/PIQ/piq-00-

02.htm

OCSE-PIQ-03-09 Policy Interpretation Question, Case 

Closure of Child-Only Medicaid 

Cases 

http://www.acf.dh

hs.gov/programs/c

se/pol/PIQ/piq-03-

09.htm

Use of Federal 

Child Support Case 

Closure 

Regulations 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Office of Inspector General 

Report, February 2002, OEI-06-00-

00470 

http://oig.hhs.gov/

oei/reports/oei-06-

00-00470.pdf