U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

78–664 2013

NO-COST IMPROVEMENTS TO CHILD SUPPORT 

ENFORCEMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 20, 2012 

Serial No. 112–HR10 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan, Chairman 

WALLY HERGER, California 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

RICK BERG, North Dakota 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

TOM REED, New York 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

JENNIFER M. SAFAVIAN, Staff Director and General Counsel 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky, Chairman 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

RICK BERG, North Dakota 

TOM REED, New York 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of March 20, 2012 announcing the hearing ........................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

S. Kay Farley, Executive Director, National Center for State Courts ................ 6 

Marilyn Stephen, Director, Office of Child Support, Michigan Department 

of Human Services ............................................................................................... 18 

Craig Burlingame, Chief Information Officer, Trial Court Information Services, Massachusetts Court System ...................................................................... 23 

Gordon Berlin, President, MDRC ........................................................................... 34 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association ....................................... 47 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING

joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

NO-COST IMPROVEMENTS TO CHILD 

SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:01 p.m., in Room 

1100, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Geoff Davis 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

[The advisory of the hearing follows:] 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
2 

HEARING ADVISORY 

Chairman Davis Announces Hearing on No-Cost 

Improvements to Child Support Enforcement 

Washington, Mar, 2012 

Congressman Geoff Davis (R–KY), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, announced today that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on no-cost improvements to the child support enforcement (CSE) program. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, March 20, 2012 

in 1100 Longworth House Office Building, beginning at 2:00 P.M. 

In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this 

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. Witnesses will include state child support enforcement officials and other experts. However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

The CSE program was created in 1975 in order to reduce public expenditures on 

welfare by obtaining support from noncustodial parents on an ongoing basis and to 

help non-welfare families get support so they could stay off public assistance. Today, 

this State-administered program has grown to serve all families that request services and is estimated to handle 50 to 60 percent of all child support cases. States 

and Territories receive over $4 billion annually in Federal administrative funds, 

which covers approximately two-thirds of the total cost of operating the CSE program. In FY 2010, the CSE program collected $26.6 billion in child support payments and served nearly 15.9 million child support cases. However, the program collects only 62 percent of current child support obligations for which it has responsibility. 

In 2007, the United States was party to the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance. The 

Hague Convention aims to increase cooperation among nations for the international 

recovery of child support and other forms of family assistance. In order for the 

United States to fully ratify the Convention, Congress must approve and the President must sign implementing legislation that would amend Title IV–D of the Social 

Security Act and require States to update their child support laws by adopting 

amendments to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). This implementing legislation, which is designed to improve child support recovered in international cases, is expected to result in no additional State or Federal program costs. 

Beyond the Hague Convention, other no-cost improvements to the CSE program 

expected to be reviewed in the hearing include improving data and information exchange among state courts and human services organizations, as well as expanding 

researcher access to the National Directory of New Hires (a database under the authority of the CSE program) in order to improve the evaluation of employment programs. 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Geoff Davis (R–KY) stated, ‘‘Ratification of 

the Hague Convention will mean that more children living in the United States will 

receive the financial support they deserve, even when one parent lives in another 

country. In addition, given the number of agencies involved in this issue, it is critical for technology to keep pace so families receive the support they need. This hearing will review several simple, no-cost ways of improving child support programs to 

achieve those goals, which I am hopeful Congress will pass in the near future.’’ 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
3 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will focus on the implementing legislation for the Hague Convention 

on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance and related CSE improvements. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the Committee 

website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, 

http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Hearings.’’ Select the hearing for which you 

would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Click here to provide a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, submit all requested information. Attach your submission as a Word document, in compliance 

with the formatting requirements listed below, by the close of business on Tuesday, April 3, 2012. Finally, please note that due to the change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office 

Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, please call (202) 

225–1721 or (202) 225–3625. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing 

record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, 

but we reserve the right to format it according to our guidelines. Any submission 

provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for 

the printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for written 

comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will 

be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word format and MUST 

NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised 

that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. 

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material 

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use 

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons, and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World 

Wide Web at http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov

f 

/. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you for joining us today. Today we are 

going to review several no-cost ways to improve the Nation’s child 

support enforcement program so more children can benefit from 

child support. These changes should have broad bipartisan support 

and hopefully can proceed to the House floor in the coming weeks. 

The child support enforcement program was created in 1975 in 

order to reduce public expenditures on welfare. By obtaining support from non-custodial parents on an ongoing basis and helping 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
4 

non-welfare families get support, more families could stay off public 

assistance. 

Today this State-administered program has grown to serve all 

families that request services, and is estimated to handle 60 percent of all child support cases. It results in $26.6 billion in child 

support collections involving 15.9 million unique cases. To carry out this work, States and Territories receive over $4 billion annually in Federal administrative funds, which covers approximately two-thirds of the total cost of the operating system. 

With the help of the experts who will testify today, we will review 

several no-cost ways to improve the child support enforcement program, increase child support collections, and better serve both families and taxpayers. 

One way to increase collections and ensure that more children 

living in the United States receive the financial support they deserve is through ratification of the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family 

Maintenance. That is a mouthful, but it really boils down to 

stepped-up efforts to collect support when one parent lives outside 

of the United States. 

Before our subcommittee is the implementing legislation for the 

Hague Convention, which has bipartisan support, would have no 

cost for taxpayers, and is expected to increase collections in such 

cases. That will both help more children and reduce the need for 

taxpayer support in the form of welfare checks. 

Another way to increase collections is to increase the subcommittee’s bipartisan efforts to standardize data and improve the exchange of data within and across programs. The child support system already heavily relies on data exchanges, but it is important 

for those efforts to be consistent with our data standardization 

progress involving child welfare, TANF, and unemployment programs so we can improve the overall efficiency of government programs. 

Continuing on the data exchange theme, we will also consider an 

Administration proposal to allow researchers access to data in the 

National Directory of New Hires, a database maintained by the 

child support enforcement program. This will help in evaluating 

whether employment programs are working as intended. 

This is a classic example of what we hope will happen as we increase the exchange of data; we can use the data we already have 

in smarter ways to help evaluate and improve government programs so they work better for intended recipients and taxpayers 

alike. 

We look forward to all of the testimony today. And we also look 

forward to working with our colleagues to improve how this program serves the children and families who depend on it, as well as 

ensuring it efficiently and effectively uses taxpayer dollars. 

Before we move on to our testimony, I want to remind our witnesses to limit their oral arguments to five minutes. However, 

without objection, all of the written testimony will be made part of 

the permanent record. 

On our panel this afternoon, we will be hearing from Kay Farley, 

Executive Director of the National Center for State Courts; and to 

introduce Marilyn Stephen, the director of the Office of Child SupVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:48 Nov 06, 2013 Jkt 078664 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\78664.XXX 78664

joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
5 

port in the Michigan Department of Human Services, I would like 

to recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Camp, who 

shares a home state with Ms. Stephen. 

And now I would like to recognize our full committee ranking 

member—Mr. Levin is not here. 

I would like to recognize Chairman Camp to say a few words. 

Chairman CAMP. Alright. Well, thank you, Chairman Davis. 

And again, I would like to welcome Marilyn Stephen, director of 

the Michigan Office of Child Support, to the hearing today. 

Marilyn has served as director of the Office of Child Support 

since 2002 after having been an assistant prosecuting attorney in 

the child support division of the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney 

in Jackson, Michigan for several years. And as a proud resident of 

Michigan myself, I want to thank Marilyn for her many years of 

service to our great state. 

I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the efforts 

of the Michigan Department of Human Services, which includes the 

Office of Child Support, under the leadership of Maura Corrigan 

and Brian Rooney. As a former State Supreme Court Justice and 

the current director of the Michigan Department of Human Services, Maura Corrigan has worked tirelessly to ensure the well-being 

of children in Michigan. 

I want to specifically highlight her work in child support enforcement, particularly to increase collections. Through her efforts, 

Maura has focused on the broad strategies of prevention, collaboration, and enforcement as a way to address the challenges and consequences of an underground economy. 

And finally, I would like to mention Brian Rooney, who is the 

brother of Florida Congressman Tom Rooney and deputy director 

of the Michigan Department of Human Services. I want to thank 

him both for his past service in the Iraq War and present service 

to our State as deputy director, where he is not afraid to ask the 

hard questions and make sure that kids are first. 

We are certainly lucky to have three such outstanding individuals working for the residents of the State of Michigan, and we are 

honored to have Ms. Stephen before the committee today to testify 

about improving child support enforcement programs and drawing 

on her extensive experience in Michigan. 

So thank you, Chairman Davis, and I yield back. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Also, we have with us Craig Burlingame, the chief information 

officer with Trial Court Information Services in the Massachusetts 

Court System; and Gordon Berlin, president of MDRC. 

I would now like to recognize my good friend, Mr. Lewis from 

Georgia, representing Ranking Member Doggett today. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Chairman Davis. Thank you 

for calling this bipartisan hearing. As you know, unfortunately 

Ranking Member Doggett is not able to attend today’s hearing because his flight into D.C. was canceled due to storms. I would like 

to applaud you both for coming together yet again to address pressing issues before the subcommittee. 

We all know that a parent’s responsibility to his or her children 

does not end at our borders. That is why States seek an agreement 

with other countries to collect child support from non-custodial parVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:48 Nov 06, 2013 Jkt 078664 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\78664.XXX 78664

joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
6 

ents. Unfortunately, this State-by-State approach leaves out many 

States, and the different legal procedures and standards can be 

costly and create loopholes and confusion. 

A better approach would be for the United States as a whole to 

enter into a broader convention or treaty to ensure the international collection of child support. This way, we can move away 

from the piecemeal process and get everyone on the same page. I 

hope today’s discussion will guide us in the right direction. 

Hopefully, we can craft bipartisan legislation that would ensure 

our child support system can fully comply with such a treaty. This 

will lead to more children getting the financial support they need 

and deserve. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Doggett and I look forward to 

continuing to work with you and other subcommittee members as 

we move forward with this important piece of legislation. Thank 

you very much again, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. 

And with that, one vote has been called. We are going to temporarily recess the hearing for about 15 minutes, and then we will 

be back to pick up with the testimony of the witnesses and questions. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman DAVIS. We will go ahead and reconvene the hearing 

now. Thank you again for your flexibility and patience. 

We are going to go ahead and begin with witness testimony. Ms. 

Farley, you may proceed with your testimony. And again, I would 

just remind the witnesses that we would ask you to keep it to five 

minutes, and that will allow more time for questioning by the 

members afterwards. 

Proceed. 

STATEMENT OF S. KAY FARLEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS 

Ms. FARLEY. Chairman Davis and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding 

implementation of the Hague Convention on International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance. I 

am speaking today on behalf of the National Child Support Enforcement Association, and NCSEA thanks you for holding this 

hearing. 

International child support enforcement is increasingly more 

common and important in our global society. By way of background, the U.S. has not joined the two prior child support treaties 

because of fundamental differences in how jurisdiction is obtained 

over parties in child support matters. 

Unlike the U.S., other countries do not require due process protection sufficient to meet the U.S. constitutional standards. The 

U.S. has dealt with international cases by negotiating bilateral 

agreements with individual countries. While these bilateral agreements have been beneficial, procedures and forms vary from country to country. 

The Hague Conference on Private International Law established 

a special commission in 2003 to develop a new child support treaty, 

which would modernize the existing system and encourage global 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
7 

adoption. This effort offered the opportunity to craft a new treaty 

to which the U.S. could participate. 

The objective of the Convention is to ensure effective international recovery of child support. The Convention creates four 

main measures to achieve that objective: establishing a comprehensive system of cooperation between the participating countries; 

making applications available for the establishment of parentage 

and child support matters; providing for recognition and enforcement of foreign support orders; and requiring effective measures 

for prompt enforcement of foreign support orders. 

The Convention should result in more children receiving the financial support they need from their parents, regardless of where 

their parents live. While the U.S. courts and child support agencies 

already recognize and enforce most foreign child support orders, 

other countries have not recognized and enforced our orders. They 

will have to do so once they and the U.S. ratify the Convention. 

The Convention’s procedures are similar to those procedures already in place for processing interstate cases in the United States. 

Many of the provisions of the Convention are drawn from the U.S. 

experience with the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, or 

UIFSA. The Convention will not affect the handling of our domestic 

child support cases; it will only apply to cases where the custodial 

parent and child live in one country, and the non-custodial parent 

lives in another. 

International child support cases will be processed under existing 

U.S. Federal and State law and practice. Compliance with the obligations under the Convention will require minimal changes to the 

U.S. law. My written testimony provides information on key provisions to the Convention. You will note that for all of these provisions, they are consistent with current policy and practice in the 

U.S. 

Let me briefly talk about how the Convention would be implemented in the U.S. The Uniform Law Commission developed and 

approved the 2008 UIFSA amendments to comply with the terms 

of the Convention. The intent is for Congress to require States to 

adopt these amendments verbatim or lose Federal funding. 

The 2008 amendments were limited only to those changes required to comply with the Convention. Existing Articles 1 through 

6 were modified to include foreign support orders, where procedures handling Convention cases would be the same as for handling domestic cases. The amendments do include a new Article 7, 

which will apply only to international cases and address those requirements unique to the Convention. 

Let me turn now to why the U.S. should implement the Convention. In a world where an increasing number of U.S. children have 

a parent living abroad, this Convention is needed so that all children will receive the child support that is so vital to their financial 

well-being. 

The Convention resolves the jurisdictional barriers that prevented the U.S. from joining the prior child support treaties. The 

Convention offers the U.S. the opportunity to join a multilateral 

treaty, saving the time and expense that would be otherwise required to negotiate individual bilateral agreements with countries. 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
8 

The Convention provides a structure and uniform procedures to 

increase the efficiency and effectiveness in processing international 

cases. And, lastly, the Convention provides for access to cost-free 

or low-cost services for legal assistance to U.S. custodial parents. 

NCSEA expressed its strong support for the Convention in a resolution which was adopted in August 2008. I also want to advise 

you that the Convention has widespread support from State organizations such as the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of 

State Court Administrators, the Uniform Law Commission, and the 

American Bar Association. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony and for 

your consideration of our recommendations. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Farley follows:] 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
9 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.001

NCSEA 

1160 Old Meadow Road, Suite 500. Mc lean, VA 22102 

Phone 703·506·2880 • Fax 703-506·3266' www.ncsea.org 

TESTIMONY 

by 

Kay Farley, Past President (200 1-2002) 

on 

No-Co!# Improvements 10 Child Support Enforcement 

Submitted to the 

HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITT EE 

HUMAN RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE 

Subcommittee Hearing 

Tuesday, March 20, 20 12 

2:00 P.M. 

1100 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 
10 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.002

Chaimlan Davis, Ranking Member lloggelt and members orlhe Subcommiuee, 

Thank you for the opportunity to te~tify today regarding implementation of Ihe Hague 

Convention on the International Recovery of Child Suppon und Other Forms of FlImi ly 

Maimenanee (Convemjon). 

My name is Kay Farley. I am ~pcaking today 011 behalf of the Natiol1al Child Support 

Enforcement Association (NCSEA). NCSEA is u membership organization that ~crves 

the national and international child support eommullity through professional 

del'elopmcnt. comnmnication. public awareness, lind advocacy to enhance the financial. 

medical. and emotional suppon that parents provide for their children. Our membership 

includes child suppon professionals, program administrmors, judges. administrative 

hearing officers. atlomeys, court personnel. pri e s.cctor s.crviee providers, and 

advocates for children and ftlmili cs. NCSEA applied for and was grantcd nongovcrnmental organil;llion obS<."'f\Ier status for negotiations ofthc Con\'eillion. NCSEA's 

delegation activcly part icipated thf()ugltout the negotiations (2003-2007) and continues to 

p~rticipate 10 assist wilh implementation orlhe Cun\'~·nlion. 

International child suppon cnforccment is ine~usingl y more common and important in 

our glohlll society. NCSEA thanks you for scheduling this henrmg for your consideTlltion 

uf implementation orthe CunvcntiQII. 

There arc twu prior inlCnlational child support treatks. ' The_ United Stat(S (US) haS riOt 

joincd these treaties in large part b.!cause of fund~mental difTcrcnccs in how jurisdiction 

is obtained over thc panics. In mOSI counlries aruund the world, except Ihe United States. 

jurisdiction 10 order child support is based on the habitual residence of the custodial 

p;!rem. This is IhejuriscJietional basis for both the New York and JJ aguc Maintenance 

Conventions. By contrast. in the US, jurisdictiofl fOf child support Iltat\Crs is bascd on the 

ability or the cour! to obtain personal jurisdiction over the noncustodial parent. requiring 

3 showing of suflicient millimum con wets of the noncustodial parent with Ihe forum state 

to meet constitutional standards of due process, as set fortb by the U.S. Supreme Court in 

the casc of Kulka I'. SUlffirior COllrl.l 

Because the US has b...'Cn unable join one of thl: international tre:lties, the US has deah 

with internmiOllal cases by negotiatillg bi-Iateral agreements with individual eoumrlcs_ 

The US currently has bi-Iateral agfC'Cnlents with 14 couiliries) and 10 Canadian provinces 

, COO'cnllOn 00 th~ R:CMCI)' i\bf\'!;IJ of Muiotco~nce. June 20. 19%. t268 U.N.T.S. 34'1. u,nit~btc al 

!!!!r':llumr~ll.\I!1."rl!&!L ... I®)1 n(II9I!!..I(JJ.§.~Ll!!!f. Il ag...: Cunvenlio" or 1958 on Ihe iU'<:O!;nW<lI1 

and Enfl>rc"ml'nl ofo.:cision~ Rd~hnll Ii) "lninleuanc.: ObliJllOli<ms in Rc,pect ofChildrco nnd Hague 

Con,'enl;"n or 197) on Ihe Recognition and "nf"",en,cm of IkcisiullS Rtlali,,¥ II> Maimcnancc. ObligalloM. ail~ble ~I ",,,b,ht for The Hague Conference "n Pri~ale l~matlon31 L~wal "",,_,hcch.'lC:t. 

' Kulk"v S"l'c,{",C ~'1.416U.S_8 (1'n81. 

J AlISlnllia, Ihe Cle<:h Republic. EI SlIh':ld()r. Finl~nd. Hungary. t relund. brad. The Netherlands. So"'a~. 

Poland. P"nug:,I. Ihe 1;lo,ak Republic. SwiU;crland. and IIIC Uniled Kingdom, 

2 
11 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.003

and tcrritorics~ . US states also have alLthority to negolime bi-hlti. .... al agreements with 

other countries. While these agreelllel1l!i have bo..'t'n beneficial. procedures and fOrolS vary 

frQm Country to country. 

The Hague Confacncc on Privatc International (I-laguc Conference) Clltablislu:'d a Special 

Commission in 2003 to develop a new imcnmtional ~'hild support and family 

maintcnanc~ obligations treaty, which would mOOerni1.e the existing system and 

encourage global adoption. This Special Commission offered the opportunity to craft lL 

new treaty in which the US couhJ participate. 

The objective of the C011v.:ntlon is to ensure the ct1ective mtcmatLOLla( recovery of child 

support. The COLlwntioll cn"'ates four main mcasures to enable the 3ehievement of thai 

objcctive: (I) t'Stablishing a eomprehi.'!lSiVl.' system of eo-op.!rJtion between the 

authoritie$ of the particip3ling countries; (2) making applicutions available for the 

establishment of parentage aod child support orders; (3) providing for the recognition and 

enforcemtnt of support ordcrs; and (4) requiring effective m.::a urcs for the prompt 

enforcement of toreign support orders. 

The Conl'emion should resull in more children residing in the US receiving the finnncial 

support they nl'Cd from th.:ir parentS, regardless of wht:re lhe parellts live. While courtS 

and child support agellcics in th ... US aln"'~dy rccognize and enforce most foreign child 

support obligations. many foreign countries hu\'e not been processing forcign child 

suppa" requests from the US. They will have to r<'Cognize (lnd enforce US ~lLPPO" 

orders once they and the US ratify the ConH:ntion. In addition, the Convention is 

expected to improvc administr:ttive coopemtion dramatically, making it easier fOf US and 

foreign child support workers to successfully handle international C3SCS emcicnlly and 

effectively. 

The Convention's procedurcs are similar 10 those procedures already in place for the 

proccssing of interstate child support cascs in the US. Many of the provisions of the 

Convention were drown from the US experience with the Unifonn Interstate Family 

Suppon Act \U1FSA). 

The CUnl'cntioll will nut alTeet intrastate Of interstate child support cases in the US. h 

will only apply to cases where the custodial purcnt and child live in one CULl11try and the 

non-cllstodial parent lives in anO!her country. 

Il)\emational child support cases within the scope of the onv~nli01\ will continue \0 be 

processed under existing fedi.'f'JI and state law and pr~cticc. Compliance with US 

obligations undt:r the Convention will require minimal changes to exist ing US law . 

• Albert:l. !lr;L;,h C<~tumbja. M.nimba. New Oru"_,,,jcl<. Ne,,(ouncitand and labradur. Noohwe>;L 

T .. ".ilOries, Noyp Scolla. Nunawl. Outario. Sask.Whew.n. an<! Yukon T~".ilury. 

3 
12 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.004

Scope 

The Convention appli(os to support orders arising from a pa~nt-thild relfllionship towards 

:I child under till: age or21. The US SHue child support enrorcement agencies etllTl'ntly 

provide the required services for children Ul1dl'r the age of 21, 'n le Couvelltion also 

applies 10 the r~'Cognition and enforcement of spousul support when the application is 

made in conjunction with a elaim for child support. also con~iste t with current policy in 

Ihe US. A foreign applic3111 seeking assiSlall('e 10 only enforce a spousal support order 

will bave to Iile au action directly with a US state court. 

Central Authority 

Each pal1ieip~ling country must designme a "Cculral AUlhnrity" responsible for (I) 

cooperating with other Central Authorities ~nd promoting cooperation among their stute. 

competcnt authorities and (2) secking solUliQns to dimcuhies ariSing ill the appliClition of 

Ihe COlw('ntion. The US intends to design3te U!e Secrctary of the Dep<lrtmem of Health 

and Human Services as Ihe Central Authority lor this Convention. 

The US also illtends tn delegate 10 individual state child support enrorcemenl agencies its 

responsibilities undn the Conl'enlion for tr~n ll1ittlng and receiVing applications and 

initi~ling or facilihlting procC\.">()ings relative to Ihese applicmions. Th~'SC responsibilities. 

delailed in the Convention. UN: viewed ~s those functi ons essential 10 ensure th~1 children 

receive suppon. The responsibilities are similar 10 those cll/TCntly pcrfonned by stale 

child support agencies undcr UIFSA. 

Apillications rHlldc Through the Ccntrllt AulilOrity 

An applicullt see-king services under Ihe Convention must make the applicntion through 

the Cenlrnl Authority of the country in which the applicant l"Losides. In the US, 

applications will be made IhrougJl the stale child support enforcement agencies. The 

Convt!ntion includl'S eight prOVisions Ih~t must. at a minimum, be included In each 

3ppli~ation, illl"1uding Infonn3tlon to identi/)' Ihe applicant and respOndent and th..: 

grounds tor the application. The application llIust also indud..: known financial and 

cmploym..:nt infonnation of the applie-Jnl and respondent. The application mUSI be 

accompanied by any supporting infomilltion and docllmC11tation concl'l11ing the 

entitlement orthe applicam to free legal assistance. 

In November 2009. the Special Commission m.::t and approved recommended roms ror 

applications alld otl1<'r supporting documents which countries may usc. [t is expected that 

the rccommclldcd ronns wHI bc used widely and sbnuld result in raster, iliOn- eniciem, 

and mon- accuralc processing of applic~tion s. 

Transmiltlll, Receipt :tnd Prllcessing of AI1llliealions 

The Centro! AUlhority in the requesting country is responsible for assisting Ihe applicant 

to prepare a complete applic~t;on ;lnd transmitting the ~pplication 10 the requested 

eOllutry. To reduce. till' CO'>l and timc of prQCes~i g most cases, c.lOl·umenls need not ~ 

certified unless specifically n:que~tcd by the responding country's Celllmi Authority. 

, 
13 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.005

The Com'erllion establishes scver.ll tirllefrnmes in order to ensure lhul !!pplicutions are 

processed in a timely mallner, Both the requesting and requested Central Authorities :tre 

requin::d to provide timely re~ponses to communication and keep each other inJ0n11ed uf 

the pmgrt'Ss of the case ~nd who's responsible fur the processing nfthe casco 

In November 2009, the Special Commission also 3pproved ~ uniform Country ProiiJe 

fonna!. Usiog this fomlat, each C(lUOtry that is a party to the Convention will document 

their relcvant fedeml and stute laws and proc..--dures. This infoml<1tion will be posted un 

the Hague Coofcrence's website lind will be valuable infomJalion for caseworkers in 

detcrmining the type of <lpplication to submit and II nticipating the enlorcement mea~ures 

Ihm will be uscd. 

I.eglll AS$istante 

TIle Convention requirl's the provision of free leglll assistance. Countries muSI proviuc 

the assistanco ocrcssary to enable applkants to know aod assert their rights and to cllsure 

that upplic!!tions are fuHy and efTectively dealt with in the requested COlul\ry. The meum 

of providil\g sueh ~ssis!nnec may include. itll nC(:cssary. !egol od\'iee, assistant.,; in 

bringin!; a case beforc an authority. h:gal rcprcscnmtioo, or exemption from co~t uf 

procccdiogs. 

Cost of Sen 'iccs, Ind uding Lt'g!tl Assistance 

The Coovcrttiun recognizes that most child support applicants who use goveOllnem child 

support programs arc peoplc of mIldest means who would 0.: unable to pursue ~ovcry 

of child snpport if they hud (0 p:ly high fe<!S. induding tees for legal services. As a 

genl'raJ standard for ITpp lieatioos moue through :J Central Authority. eouotnes must 

provide ilpplicanlS with effective acct:ss to procedures, including cnrorcement and lIppcut 

proccdun:.'S and, where neccssury, access to free lcgal assisl3occ. While (I country has the 

option of declaring lhal it wil! condition the provision of free legal aSSiStance on the 

result ufa )l1e~ns test of the child. it is cxpt.'t:ted that the US aod most cutlntries will not 

makt: such a dL'Clamlion. 

Restriction on Rringing Proceedings 

To reduce tile p()\Cnti91 tor connictiog sUPPOrl orders, obligors seeking to 1IIIldify an 

e.~isting support order estublished in a cOlenlry where the obligee continues to reside must 

ioitiote any action to modify an existing order or establish u IICW order io Ihe country of 

the obligl't:'s reSidence. This proviSion is similar to eUTreot st!!tc law lilider UIFSA. 

Reeogniliull and Enforcement of Child Support O rden 

To Climlml\e lengthy dclays in Ihe enforcement of forcigH child suppo" on.lcrs, thc 

Convention sets rorth a streamlioed system, similur It) the process used io the US uodcr 

UIFSA. The Con\"el1lion also lists the only documents lhat can be rrquired to arcoll1pany 

an application, eliminating the OOCT(}IIS and costly document requirements now rCiluircd 

by some fOfl'ign countries; these documcl1ts do not need be certified unless challcl1gcd or 

requested by a competcllI authority in the requcstcd l·ounlry. 

, 
14 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.006

While the Conllention establishes six factors thai would require :I country to recognize 

~nd enforce II support order, the US intends to take a re~crv3tion with respect to th(' 

following th!\.'\! factors: 

Jurisdiction baSL-d on the residence of the custodial parent (in tMI there is no nexus bctWe..'I11IH: noncustodial parent and the forum); 

Jurisdi('\ion oo~cd solely on tlu." partics' agrccmem 10 the fOl'\un taking 

jurisdiction, when the forum has no nc.~us to either party; and 

Jurisdiction basl-d solely on jurisdiction over the marriage. even though the fOrolll 

does not have personal jurisdiction over the parties. 

Enrorffmenl 

Enlorc.:mentlakes place in accordance with the law of the requested counlry. and in the 

US. in accordance with the substantille law of tbc state. Enforcement nlust be pmmpL. 

As in tbe US, r..::cognition and actual enforcement must be a single proci.'cding, 

diminming the need rQr lIppl icrlllts to tile a separate action tQ get actual enrorcement, 

Any limitation on thc period fo" whicb arrear.; may be enforced is detcmlil)cd by 

whichever COuntry has the 10ngeT p<::riod, identical to thi: limitation under UIFSA. 

Countric.s must prollide at least th..: samc runge of enforcement methods for cases under 

the Convention as are available in their own dOIlK'Stic C;lSCS. Countries arc I"\.'quired to 

have effective measures for prompt enforcement of support orders under thl' Convention. 

While no specific measures arc required. tbe Convention lists e:'\omplcs of elleetil'e 

measures for edtlcational purposes. All of the mcaslJres listed in the Convention are 

cUrTClIlJy employed ill the US. In addition, coumrics arc eneour,lgcd 10 promote the most 

cos\-elTl'ctille and efficient ml'thods for Inlllsferring child support payml'nlS. 

A country may refus .... to recogni".;: or enfllrcc a support order if: 

Reeogn ition or enforcement is manifest!y ineompaliblt" with the public policy of 

the rL'questcd country; 

The respondent bas neither appeared nor was represented in the proceedings when 

either the law uf the country (J) provides ft}r notice of pro.::eedings, the 

respondent did nOI have proper noticc of the proceedings and an opponunity to be 

h~ard or (2) docs not proviile for nOlice of the pron-edings. the respondcnt did nol 

have proper notice of the order and an opporiunity to eh ~!l enge or 3ppcal it on 

fact ond law; 

"The order was obtained by fraud in C011Jl~tj0I1 wid1 a matter ofprocedurc; 

Proceedings between the same partiel; and h31·ing the same purpose are pending 

before an authority of the country addresscd and thos(' proce<."-di)lgs were th .... first 

10 be instituted; or 

The order is incompatible with an ordcr rendered betwc('n the samc panics and 

h~ ing the salnc purpose. 

General Pro\'isiotts 

Other provisions of the Com'cntion include the following: 

LimilOtion on the USl' or personal data to the purpose for which it W3S gatherctl 

and Shtlrcd: 

6 
15 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.007

Re-tnforcemtnt of tht responsibility to ensure that infonnation is ktpl 

confuJcntinl in compliance with the laws of the country; 

Provision that information gathcn::d or transmitted in an application shalt not be 

disclosed if to do $0 could jeopardize the health. safcty or liberty of a J>I.>Thon; 

Requirement that thc Cell1ral Authoritie~ take into account dctemlinations made 

by otber Central Authorities in eascs offamily vlole11cc; and 

Authorizntion lor the rc:covery of costs from 1111 unsuccessful party, ~s long ns the 

reeovcry of C051S docs 1'01 t3kc precedence over thc recovery of the child suppon. 

These genentl provisions are also consistent with US policy. 

ow IheCOn\'elllion Would be ImQlemcnt!l!! 

The Uniform Law Commission de~elopcd and approved the 2008 UIFSA Amendments 

to comply with the tenus of the Conventi011. The intent is for Congrc~s to require states 

to adopt lhe 2008 UIFSA Amendments verbatim or lose fcdeml funding IOf the stotc 

child support enforcement program. 

The 2008 amendlllenlS were lilllittd 10 only those changts required to comply wilh the 

requiremenlS of the Convention. E!l:isting Anieles 1·6 were modified 10 include ·'foreign 

suppon orders" when procedures for handliug Convention eases would be the sume as in 

current UI FSA procedllfes for domcstic cases. The 200~ UIFSA AmendmenlS include a 

new Article 7: .fuil?p'!!n Proceedins_U.ndcr Convention. which will apply only to 

il1lcm~tiOllal cases and address Ihc requirements unique to Ihe Convention. If there is:\ 

connict between the pnlVisions of Anicle 7 ~nd the other pans of UIFSA. Aniele 7 

governs. 

Under the new UIF'SA Article 7. if Ihe US cannot rccognize a lorcigll supflOn order 

be<:aus<: it was based on th.:: residenCe of the cllstQtlial parent (rather than personal 

jurisdiction ovcr the noncustodial parent), thc US Slate court is difC1:t<-'d to recognize Ihe. 

lorcigl1 order If, under the facts of tlw case, there was any basis under which Ihe court 

issuing the order would have had jurisdiclion under US law. If thc US stilte court still 

cannot rccogni?.c the foreign support ordtr. the US state COUrt is instrucltd to enler a new 

child support ordtr. 

Under Article 70bligees may seek the eSlablishmem of suppon orders, including.. if 

necessary. the dctemlin~tion of p.arentage of a child. Obligees may also rtXjU\!5t the 

modification or enloreement of a state or forelgl1 support order. Obligofli may sc:ck 

modification ofa stale or fOl'l:'ign support order, or requcst an order limiting enforccmenl 

of an cxisling coun mder. 

The revisions to UlFSA would pennit panies 10 register foreign SUfll10rt orders. II also 

creates a proc..--dUfC to cnable parties \0 contest the registration of a foreign Su pport ordcr. 

A US state COlirt may refuse recognition und enforcement of a regi$ICred order on 

spccilkd grounds. including: 

7 
16 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.008

Doing so would be manifestly incompatible with public pQlicy, including the 

failure of the issuil\g IriblJnal to observe minimum standards of due process, 

which include notiCe and all opportunity to be heard: 

The issuing tribunal lacked jurisdiction: 

The ord.::r is not enforCCBbl,! in the issuing country: 

Thl' order was obtained by fraud: 

Thc tr.Jnsmincd record hicks authenticity or intcgrity; 

A prQC~-eding between the SOIllC parties and having the smne plJlPOSC is pending 

before thaI state's court and that proceeding was the tirstlo be tiled; or 

The order is incompatible with a Illore recent support order entitled to recognition. 

Similarl y. parties may register "foreign support agreements:' which may be enforced 

unless tbe US sial(' court, on its own motion, finds Ihm recogni tion and t'n fnrce"w,"t 

would be m~nifestly incompatible with publiC pol icy, or, ifconte~led. On grounds similar 

to those outlined 3bove for contest;; of Ibreign support ordcTl\. 

[n a ..... orld where an increasing numbt."fS of US ehildreo b:we a parcnlliving abruad. this 

Convention is needed so that all children can receive the child support that is so vital to 

their fin ancial well·bcing. 

Rt ciprocity through a Multi-lateral Treaty 

The Coovt ntion offers the US th,! opportunity to join a multi-lat~T31 tre~ty, s3ving the 

time and e.~pense thm would otherwise be required to negotiate and implement bi-Iateral 

3gr~ement S with individual countries Hround thi: world. 

Resolutioll of Juri di~tiona l Barriers 

The Convention resolves the jurisd ictional barriers thnt h3ve prevented the US Crom 

joining the prior imernational child support treaties. The Convention provides for 

residence or the custodial p~rent in the forum as a basis for jurisdiction, but it also 

pcrmit$ participating countries, such as the United S13les, to t3ke ;I reservation on this 

provision so that we can adhere to our requirement of pcrson~1 jurisdiction over tht' 

oont'ustodial parent. 

Administrath'c Coup\'rlltiun 

The Convention provides a str\lct'.Ire and unifoml procedures 10 inCl\'3Se the etlieiency 

31ld cll(xl, veness of processing in t.~matiollal C;lSCS. 

Access to Clm·rree Services 

The Convcntion providLos for IlCCi:!;5 10 cost·frcc services and legal assistance 10 cuslodinl 

parents needing child support enforcement scrvices in a participating country. This is 0 

pnrticularly important reciprocal proVision for US children. since Title rV-D child 

suppQrt 3geneies providc cost·frt:c services I"11l.'ll' residentS of fort'ign eountrit's arc 

Sl'l'king enforcement ag.ainst 3 non ~USlodi31 pnrcllI Hving in the US. 

8 
17 

f 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you, Ms. Farley. 

Ms. Stephen, please proceed. 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.009

Conclusion 

NCSEA e."pressed its ~Irong ~uppOrt for Ihe ConvenliOn in a reSO!UliOll. SlIflpvrling 

Rafijicalion uftlre Hague Connmticm ulllhl'/nICrl/miollul Rt'Cul'cry of Child SIIPIJ()I'/cmd 

Otltel' Form.\' uf Fall/ily N/(li1llcl1(lIIce (ll/d SIIPl'arlillg COl/fiJi'll/jug CIt(lllgC$ at thE' 

UllijOl'lllllllcr,I'/(I/E' Family SuPPOrt lief. which was adopted 011 August !', 2008. I want to 

31i;O ndvise you Ihal the CQllvtnlion hru; widespread support frqm t3 e org3ni~1lIions , 

such as the Confcrence of Chief Justices. Conference of State Coun Administrators. the 

Unifonn Law Commission. and the AIIlerican Ihr Assol'ialion. 

Thank YOII for [he opportunity to submit lhis h:slimony and for your considcration of our 

recomnlcndation. 

, 
18 

STATEMENT OF MARILYN STEPHEN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

CHILD SUPPORT, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 

Ms. STEPHEN. Thank you very much, Chairman Davis and 

Members of the Subcommittee, for this opportunity. As you know, 

I am the director of the Michigan Office of Child Support, but I am 

speaking to you today on behalf of the many child support professionals across the country who are members of National Child Support Enforcement Association. 

Michigan passed the first child support law in 1919 to permit 

local governments to assure support for the children in their communities. The drafters of that law would never have dreamt that 

in 2012, there would be 750,000 court-ordered child support cases 

in Michigan, and that one in three children would be spending a 

part of their childhood living with only one parent. 

Those same drafters would not have recognized a world where 

something oddly named a tweet can circle the globe in seconds, and 

American citizens can travel thousands of miles from home in just 

a few hours. 

In the last 60 years, it has become commonplace for parents and 

families to move from state to state. In many ways, the child support programs kept pace with these changes in society. First, Congress required States to enact the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement 

of Support Act in the 1950s that set some ground rules for assuring 

financial support for children no matter where in the country the 

parent lived. 

As the migration of families across the country continued and 

child support programs in the State swelled, problems arose with 

the processing of interstate cases that finally precipitated a complete redesign in the 1990s, resulting in the Uniform Interstate 

Family Support Act. This law has been a great success in helping 

States to provide coordinated services consistently and efficiently to 

ensure that children receive the support that they need. 

Now we are on the verge of the next big step forward with the 

Hague Convention and implementing legislation that we are discussing today. To help you understand how important this step is 

to the States, I would like to tell you a little about the problems 

we face in trying to assure support for the children of Americans 

around the world. 

There are basic issues related to the translation of documents 

and currency exchange rates. But there are also fundamental differences in processes, jurisdictional understandings, the services 

provided in different countries, and even the basic definitions of 

who will be served. 

My front-line staff in Michigan report constant issues with trying 

to locate parents in other countries that owe child support; concerns about how notice to that parent, or what we in this country 

would call due process or even service of process, is accomplished; 

and the amount of time it takes to start support payments flowing 

to the parent who is raising the child. 

It is commonplace to hear that families have had to wait five 

years or more for a support obligation to be established, and this 

is with countries that we have agreed to work with through bilateral agreements. To me, the bilateral agreements are analogous to 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
19 

the old interstate laws of the 1950s. They are certainly better than 

nothing, but they do not establish any rules or mutual understandings about the work that needs to be done or the goals that 

should be accomplished. 

When our workers attempt to coordinate with officials in countries where we lack bilateral agreements, we generally receive no 

response whatsoever, or we are instructed to hire a lawyer in that 

country. Because most parents cannot afford to go down that path, 

the child support case ends up being closed until the support obligor leaves the safe haven of that country. The Hague Convention 

would fix this problem by requiring free services in most instances. 

In Michigan, we estimate that we have between 4- and 5,000 

cases where a parent lives in another country. That includes more 

than a thousand cases with Canada, with whom we share a 700- 

mile border. International cases can be challenging and very timeconsuming for workers because there are no agreed-upon standard 

proofs, forms, or methods of communication. For this reason, I believe adoption of the Hague Convention and the enabling legislation would actually result in a cost savings to the States. 

Earlier I called this a big step. But all the States understand 

that we will not see instant benefits from these improvements. We 

also know with certainty that not moving down this road to international cooperation will likely mean that more American children 

will lack the basic support that every parent should provide, and 

that more obligors will seek out those safe havens. Simply put, 

children need the support of both parents no matter where in the 

world their lives take them. 

Thank you very much for your consideration of this important 

children’s issue. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Stephen follows:] 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
20 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.010

National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA) 

Testimony by 

Marilyn Stephen 

Director, Office of Child Support 

Michigan Department of Human Services 

235 South Grand Avenue 

Lansing, Michigan 48909 

517-241-7030 

Stephenm3@mich!Ran.1l0v 

on 

No Cost Improvements to Child Support Enforcement 

Submitted to the 

House Committee on Ways and Means 

Subcommittee on Human Resources 

Subcommittee Hearing 

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 

2:00 P,M. 

1100 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 
21 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.011

Chairman Davis and members of Ihe Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 10 

speak with you today. My name is Marilyn Stephen and I am the director of Ihe 

Michigan Office of Child Support. I am speaking 10 yoLi today on behalf of the child 

support professionals across Iha country who are members of Ihe National Child 

Support Enforcement Association. 

The first child support law in Michigan was passed in 1919 to permit local government to 

assure support for children in their communities. The drafters would never have dreamt 

that in 2012 there would be 750,000 court ordered child support cases in Michigan and 

that one in three chHdren nationwide woutd spend some part of their childhood Iilling 

with only one parent. 

Those same drafters would not recogni;;o:e a world where a something oddly named a 

'tweet' can drcle tile globe in seconds and American cili;;o:ens can travel thousands of 

miles from home in just a few hours. In Ihe last sixty years. it has I:Iecome commonplace 

for parents and families to move from state 10 state. In many ways. the child support 

program has kept pace with Ihese changes in society. First Congress required states to 

enact the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act in Ihe 1950s that set some 

grouM rules for assuring financial support for children no matter where in me country 

the paren\llved. As the migration of fami\fes across coumry continUed and child support 

programs In Ihe states swelled, problems arose with the processing of interstate cases 

• 
22 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.012

thai finally precipitated a complete- redesign in the late 1990s resulting in the Uniform 

Interstate Family Support Act. This law has been a great success in helping states to 

provide coordinated services cons·istenUy and efficiently to ensure that children receive 

the support they need. 

Now we are on the verge of the n€lxl big slep fOlWard with the Hague Convention and 

implementing the legislation we are discussing today. To help you understand how 

important this step Is 10 the slates. I'd like 10 teli you a liUle about the problems we face 

in trying to assure support for Ihe children of Americans around the world. There are 

basic Issues related to translation of documents and currency e)(change rates. bUllhere 

are also fundamental differences In processes. jurisdictional understandings. the 

services provIded in different countries and even the basic definitions of who will be 

served. My front line staff report constant issues with trying to locate parents In other 

countries Who owe child support. !;oncemS about how notice to that parent or What we 

in the US cali service of process is accomplished and the amount of time it takes 10 start 

the support payments flowing to !tle parent who is raising the child_ 1I is commonplace to 

hear Ihat families have had 10 waitt five years or more for a support obligation to be 

established, and this is in countries that we've agreed to \York with through bi-Ia\eral 

agreements. 

To me. the bi-Iateral agreements are analogous to the old interstate law from the 50s. 

They are better than nothing . bul they do not eslablish any rules or mutual 

understandings about the work Ihat needs to be done or Ihe goals Ihal should be 

3 
23 

f 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much, Ms. Stephen. 

Mr. Burlingame, you can give your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF CRAIG D. BURLINGAME, CHIEF INFORMATION 

OFFICER, TRIAL COURT INFORMATION SERVICES, MASSACHUSETTS COURT SYSTEM 

Mr. BURLINGAME. Thank you, Chairman Davis, Members of 

the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the 

important issue of technology standards in child support enforcement. My name is Craig Burlingame, and I am the chief information officer for the Massachusetts Trial Court. I testify today with 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.013
24 

over 30 years of information technology experience in State and 

local government. 

In addition to my day job, I have the privilege of serving as the 

chairman of the Court Information Technology Officers Consortium, or CITOC. CITOC is a national organization of technology 

professionals in courts, with active members in over 40 States. 

CITOC provides our members with a forum through which we can 

exchange information, ideas, and share our collective experiences. 

Throughout my career, I have had the chance to observe the benefits that can be realized from the implementation of technology 

standards like those I believe are contemplated by your legislation. 

Good standards establish a technological vocabulary that allow various parties with different perspectives to speak in the same language when discussing electronic information and data exchange. 

Further, the existence of quality standards provide a level playing field for the vendors that provide software and services to government entities that choose to use them. If a vendor is asked to 

implement a system in adherence to referenced standards, some of 

the uncertainty that exists in government procurements can be 

eliminated or at least reduced. 

As importantly, once a vendor has implemented a system in compliance with standards, the effort needed for subsequent implementations is reduced, preventing agency after agency from having to 

pay for customized systems, at least in those areas that are covered 

by the standards. 

One need look no further than public safety for longstanding examples of where standards have established a vocabulary to the 

benefit of taxpayers. Both with the FBI’s NCIC system and the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, or NLETS, 

States and municipalities have been able to exchange information 

using standards for decades with these systems. In both of these 

cases, a vibrant and robust vendor community sells software and 

hardware solutions to criminal justice agencies nationwide that 

interoperate with NCIC and NLETS. 

When an agency purchases a system, they need only indicate to 

a prospective vendor the nature of the business they wish to transact and reference the applicable standards. In the case of the court 

community, the OASIS Electronic Court Filing standard has been 

evolving since it was first developed in 2001. 

In its most recent version, the ECF standard covers not only 

court filings but the electronic service of parties, and encompasses 

a variety of case types. This standard, which is now being used by 

courts and vendors in jurisdictions throughout the country, has 

been updated in its most recent version for compliance with NIEM, 

the National Information Exchange Model, which is contemplated 

by your legislation as well. When the Commonwealth recently 

issued an RFI for electronic filing, in our conversation with prospective vendors we were able to talk to them about how we expected the software to use ECF standards to transact business with 

our established case management system. Most vendors selling 

electronic filing products today understand exactly what that 

means and what is necessary for their software to use these standards. 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
25 

And, as importantly, many of the vendors in the e-filing space 

have already built the software needed to interface with existing 

systems using ECF standards. As a result of this, the cost to implement such interfaces is minimal compared to the cost of developing 

customized solutions from scratch. 

Although I am not testifying today on behalf of NIEM, I certainly 

am testifying in support of NIEM. The NIEM model is now being 

used in many aspects of government around the country, and not 

just within the justice community. As you may know, NIEM currently has 12 different domains, including children, youth, and 

family services. 

Because we in the courts deal with matters that come before us 

from a wide range of other governmental agencies and areas, we 

would hope that any standards developed in the child support enforcement area would be developed using the NIEM framework. I 

have included in my written testimony a few examples of where 

NIEM is being used successfully in the court community today, as 

well as information on what we are doing in Massachusetts. 

In conclusion, I believe the legislation that you are contemplating 

today is helpful and important, and I would encourage the committee to continue to advocate for the use of technology standards 

in the future. Such standards can reduce the cost of systems and 

increase the likelihood of interoperability among systems. The use 

of technology standards can indeed establish a common vocabulary 

for all to use in facilitating good and efficient government. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burlingame follows:] 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
26 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.014

HOTWrabie Robort A. Mullig.n 

'Ilie Commonwea{tli of 

9t1.assacliusetts 

)!di",'t/Istrat;ve Office of tfte '{nor COllrt 

'l'rial Court. lrifomtatioll Services 

Two Cellier Pla.a, 9- Floor 

Bost!><l. II~$ach"'!ielt 5 0210e 

C ... lg D. 8urliTlfl'ms c"'"'.!I<tto<o"" ___ ..... ~ C ..... I_OIIa< 

Data Standards and Electronic Information Exchange 

Child Support Enforcement 

Craig D. Burlingame 

Chief Information Officer 

March 20, 2012 

t would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to present 

this written testimony regarding data standards and electronic 

information exchange in Child Support Enforcement cases. 

I am the Chief Information Officer for the Massachusetts Trial Court 

and have had the privilege of serving in this capacity for the past 

eight years. I offer this testimony based on over thirty years of 

Information Technology experience in State and local Government in 

the Commonwealth's Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch, and 

in mUnicipalities. During my career I have been fortunate to serve as 

the cia for the City of Boston and Mayor Thomas M. Menino, as the 

cia for the Executive Office of Public Safety under several public 

safety cabinet secretaries, and as an Assistant Commissioner at our 

Department of Social Services (now Department of Children and 

Families) during our State-Wide Child Welfare Information System 

(SACWIS) implementation. I also served for several years as the 

Executive Director of our State Criminal History Systems Board which 

operates the state-wide Criminal Justice Information System for the 

Commonwealth. 
27 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.015

In addition to my "day job" I have the honor of serving as the current 

Chair of the Court Information Technology Officers Consortium or 

CITOe. CITOC is a national organization of technology professionals, 

such as myself, who serve as CIO's or CTO's in State, County and 

Municipal Courts around the country. cnoc currently has active 

members in over 40 states and provides a forum through which our 

members can exchange information, ideas, and experiences in 

information management and the automation of court business 

throughout the United States. 

Lastly, I serve as the Chair of the Standards Committee of the Joint 

Technology Committee (JTC) of COSCA and NACM. COSCA is the 

Conference of State Court Administrators (http;//cosca.ncsc.dni.us) 

and NACM is the National Association of Court Management 

(http;/ /www.nacmnet.org). 

Throughout my career I have had a number of opportunities to 

observe the benefits that can be realized from the implementation of 

technology standards similar to those, I believe, that are 

contemplated by your legislation. 

Sound standards establish a technological vocabulary that allows 

parties with various perspectives to speak the same language when 

discussing electronic information and data exchanges. Further, the 

existence of quality standards provides a level playing field for the 

vendors that provide software and services to the governmental 

entities using them. If a vendor is asked to build or implement 

systems in adherence to referenced standards, some of the 

uncertainty that exists in government purchasing can be removed . 

As importantly, once a vendor has implemented a system in 

compliance with a standard, the effort needed for subsequent 

implementations is reduced, thus preventing agency after agency 

from having to pay for customized systems in those areas covered by 

the standards, 

, 
28 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.016

One need look no further than Public Safety for long-standing 

examples of instances where standards have played a key role in 

establishing a technology vocabulary to the benefit of tax payers. 

Both with the FBI's NCIC System and the National Law Enforcement 

Telecommunications System (NLETS), states and municipalities have 

been exchanging informaHon using standards for decades. In both of 

these cases a vibrant and rc)bust vendor community sells software 

and hardware solutions to criminal justice agencies nationwide that 

are compliant with and intl roperate with NCIC and NLETS. When an 

agency purchases a system, they need only indicate to a prospective 

vendor the nature of the business they wish to transact and 

reference the applicable NCiC/NlETS standard. 

In the case of the court community, the OASIS Electronic Court Filing 

standard has been evolving since its first version was developed in 

2001. In its most recent version, the ECF 4.0 standard covers not only 

court filings but the electronic service of parties and encompasses a 

variety of specific case types. This standard, which is now being used 

by courts and vendors in various jurisdictions around the country, has 

been updated for compliance with NIEM, the National Information 

Exchange Model. 

When the Commonwealth of Massachusetts recently issued a 

Request for Information (RFI) for Electronic Filing, our conversation 

with prospective vendors included a discussion of how we expected 

the software to utilize ECF 4.0 transactions to communicate with our 

established case management system. Most vendors selling 

electronic filing products today understand exactly what this means 

and what is necessary for their software to use these standards. And, 

as importantly, many of the vendors in the e-filing space have already 

built the software needed 1:0 interface to existing systems using ECF 

4.0, so that the cost to implement such interfaces is minimal 

compared to the cost of developing a customized solution. 
29 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.017

Although I am not testifying on behalf of NIEM today, I am testifying 

in support of NIEM as it relates to any standards contemplated by 

this legislation. The NIEM model is now being used in many aspects 

of government around the country and not just within the Justice 

domain. In fact, NIEM currently has twelve different domains 

targeting various disciplines including one of the newer additions 

"Children, Youth and Family Services." This domain already includes 

a number of Information Exchange Package Definitions (IEPD) worthy 

of review before new/different standards are developed. For 

example there are child support exchanges for "request remedy" and 

"support order" and several other child welfare exchanges. A list of 

defined standard exchanges can be found at 

www.ncsconline.org/d_tech/ru.xdmjIEPD.asp. Because we in the 

courts deal with matters that come before us from a range of other 

governmental disciplines, we would hope that any standards 

developed in the chil d support enforcement area would be 

developed using the NIEM framework and dictionaries. Finally I 

would hope any new work builds upon that which has been done 

already and does not make obsolete the good work already 

completed in this area. 

Electronic information exchanges are occurring today in several 

exemplar states. I have selected a few I believe to be worthy of 

specifi c mention. 

In Colorado, I would highlight the Data Information Sharing (DISH) 

system. DISH allows the Colorado Department of Human Services 

Division of Child Support Enforcement (CSE) to collaborate with the 

Colorado Judicial Department. This system facilitates real-time data 

exchange in child support cases with the court. DISH builds on work 

conducted by the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) 

to encourage collaboration between courts and child support 

agencies, and specifically on work to create an adaptable means of 

electronic case filing and information exchange. 

4 
30 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.018

DISH was created using modern technology standards including 

NIEM. Unlike the historical paper dependent systems in Colorado, 

this solution is intended to expedite child support orders, reduce 

redundant data entry, and improve data accuracy. 

In Missouri, the Missouri Juvenile Justice Information System 

(MOJJlS) also has been developed using the NIEM standards. This 

centralized system allows participating agencies to easily identify 

children and families receiving state services by searching a single 

centralized index. The MOJJlS index includes data from the Missouri 

Courts as well as the Department of Social Services (Children's 

Division, Division of Youth Services and Family Support Division), the 

Department of Health and Senior Services, and the Department of 

Mental Health. 

In my own State of Massachusetts, the Commonwealth's new court 

case management system, Mass[ourts, is using a NIEM compliant 

exchange to send copies of judicial orders in Child Welfare cases from 

our Probate and Family Court divisions to our Department of Children 

and Families (DCF). This exchange was developed with our Executive 

Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS) and uses a common 

Executive Branch document management system to securely store 

these electronic documents. We intend to reuse this standard-based 

exchange to send copies of other key court documents to other 

human service agencies under the EOHHS umbrella in the future. In 

addition to our orders information exchange now in use, we are 

working to implement two additional NIEM-based exchanges with 

our DCF. The first additional exchange involves the courts sending 

information to DCF about scheduled case events in child welfare 

cases. The second exchange will allow DCF to file specific petitions 

with the court in child welfare cases. Because these exchanges have 

been built using NIEM and web services, they can be eaSily 

repurposed in the future to send similar information on CSE cases to 

our I-V 0 agency (Department of Revenue Child Support Enforcement 

Division) as they work to bring the Commonwealth's new CSE system 

online. 

, 
31 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.019

As previously mentioned, in many states the OASIS ECF standard is 

being used by various courts to facilitate Electronic Filing systems. 

Although not designed specifically for CSE case filings, the standard is 

flexible enough and extensible such that it can used to support key 

filing activities between state I-V D agencies and court systems. 

Although each court's business practices and requirements vary from 

jurisdiction to jurisdiction, NIEM and the ECF standards provide a 

robust and flexible architecture that should be included in any 

conversations regarding the development of further standards for 

data exchange between Courts and I-V D programs across the 

country. Also it is important to remember that facilitating interfaces 

between courts and state I-V D agencies around the country may be 

easier in those judicial branches, like my own, where a single 

technology infrastructure supports the entire state court system. 

This model does not exist in many states and technology and system 

infrastructures can vary significantly from county to county, 

jurisdiction to jurisdiction. 

Standards like ECF and NIEM are not a silver bullet, nor should they 

be seen as a panacea that should be expected to solve data 

management or information exchange problems quickly or "out of 

the box." In fact a standards-based approach may not be the 

preferred, or most cost effective, approach for some organizations. 

Instead it provides tools and a framework to assist technology and 

business practitioners, along with our vendors, to discuss business 

processes and data requirements using an established vocabulary. 

How t)"lat vocablliary and the standards are imptementl;!d wiU vary 

from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from I-V D agency to I-V D 

agency. That said, the development of further standards and 

information exchange specifications in support of CSE activities 

would build a further technological foundation upon which systems 

can be created or existing systems enhanced in the future. 
32 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.020

In conclusion, I believe the legislation you are contemplating is 

helpful and important, and I encourage this Committee to continue 

to advocate for the use of technology standards in future legislation. 

Such standards can reduce the cost of systems and increase the 

likelihood of interoperability among systems. As the quantity and 

complexity of the systems we operate increases, standards can help 

to insure that a common vocabulary exists for all of us to use in 

facilitating good and efficient government. 

Thank You. 

7 
33 

f 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Burlingame. 

Mr. Berlin. 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.021

• .......,e" ..... ' .. _~_~"'~_ .. . _ -"".,_ _._-_ .. _ ... .. _ _.,-,_ ... _"._-........ _ ••• _ .. ___ ~_uc 

_. __ ... __ ... _ .. _ c ... 

-_ ....... _-<> .. --_ .. ""' • ..-_ .... 00) . _ _~'_,..90_ ... C _ _ •• ... _ 

", .... ...... _,.,_ 

___ .. .--01_ ... _. .. '_ -"._-"_.---' -. .... __ ... ,-

,~"' W •• "-' 

...... ". ..... "...· ___ ..... ""'_C_ .. ...,""_IfI'D 

... _ <---, __ ..... ~----

.... ' __ ... _ ........ __ ..... ,_._,_ .. __ ""_ TboIlPO_"_, __ 

• '"-*<! .. e .... · .... H€ .. _"'HI .. _' ..... "", __ .. -.......... .. -._._- _ .. _""'WO ....... -_ ......... ""-"'-' 

Existing child support and Child Welfare IEPO overview from National Center 

for State Courts www.ncsconllne.org/d te~h/gjxdm/IEI'.Q.aspl 

, 
34 

STATEMENT OF GORDON L. BERLIN, PRESIDENT, MDRC 

Mr. BERLIN. Chairman Davis and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify today. My remarks focus on the research uses of the National Directory of New 

Hires database. 

Every year, often at the direction of Congress, Federal agencies 

contract with independent research organizations to conduct evaluations of the effectiveness of government programs. In nearly 

every case, a key measure of effectiveness is the program’s longterm effects on participants’ employment and earnings. 

One of the most reliable sources of earnings and employment 

data is collected by States from employers as part of the administration of the unemployment insurance system. Currently, an evaluator acting as an agent of the Federal Government must obtain 

these data from each State agency. Because evaluations of governmental programs take place in multiple jurisdictions, the evaluator 

must spend considerable resources to ascertain the State’s requirements for data acquisition and then apply separately to each State 

for the data. 

The significant costs of data acquisition efforts are passed on to 

the Federal agency and, ultimately, to taxpayers. It is an unnecessary expense. 

The same data that Federal contract evaluators must painstakingly acquire from each state already resides in a Federal database, the National Directory of New Hires, which Congress created 

to aid in the support of the administration of the Child Support Enforcement System. 

However, due to restrictions currently placed on access to this 

database, many federally supported researchers and evaluators are 

unable to access employment and earnings data from this database. 

Instead, they are forced to get the very same data directly from 

the states at great cost to the Federal Government, and at considerable burden in duplicative reporting for the states. 

If the New Hire’s database were made available to evaluators 

with appropriate privacy safeguards, it would enable Congress and 

the agencies to assess the impact that social programs have on jobs 

and earnings at much lower cost and less burden to the Federal 

Government and the states. 

The proposed amendment to Part D of Title 4 of the Social Security Act would advance the objective of making this database available for a broader range of research purposes. 

But, there are three areas where the amendment could be 

strengthened. First, there may still be some ambiguity about 

whether a Federal agency can provide individual level data with 

personal identifiers to a contract or grant funded evaluator, and 

thus, the procedures put in place could result in Federal agents 

creating data sharing systems that are more complex and more 

costly than necessary. 

However, I want to hasten to add that these systems would still 

be superior to the current situation which has contractors going to 

individual states to recreate over and over again a dataset that already exists at the Federal level. 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
35 

My suggestion is that the bill clearly authorize the release of personally identifiable employment and earnings data directly to entities conducting Federal program evaluations, providing that all of 

the necessary procedures are in place to protect an individual’s privacy and the confidentiality of the data. 

Second, the proposed amendment appears to require that a separate agreement be concluded between OCSE and the Federal agency requesting the data for each and every study. 

Here, the amendment might allow for more inclusive blanket 

data agreements between agencies, avoiding the need to negotiate 

separate interagency agreements for every study. 

Third, the bill should be careful to enumerate all the relevant 

Federal agencies. For example, the Department of Defense and the 

Corporation for National Service, both of which fund research and 

evaluation studies, are missing from the current draft. 

Lastly, I want to briefly mention three potential concerns regarding the amendment. 

First, protecting the data’s confidentiality. I want to stress that 

research contractors acting as the Federal Government’s agent obtain the same earnings and employment information now from 

states. In doing so, they assume responsibility for protecting the 

privacy of the data, and the confidentiality of the individuals involved, using secure servers, encryption, and other best practices as 

required by each individual state, and the standards of each state 

vary greatly. 

The proposed amendment would standardize and thus strengthen those requirements and protections, and it would add felony 

level penalties for a willful breach of privacy laws. You would essentially be strengthening the privacy protections. 

Cost is another major issue. Federal contracts and grants include 

funding to obtain the data from states now. These same contracts 

should instead include funding to cover the marginal cost of obtaining the data from the federal agency that administers the NDNH 

database. 

Those costs would certainly be less expensive than the costs currently incurred. 

Finally, it is not precedent setting. The Federal Government provides a range of confidential sensitive data to research contractors 

and grantees acting as Federal agents now. 

In conclusion, this relatively simple fix to existing law governing 

the New Hire’s database, giving researchers evaluating Federal 

programs access to personally identifiable employment and earnings’ information would eliminate unnecessary duplicative data collection efforts, and reduce reporting burdens on state governments. 

It would also save Federal and state taxpayers money, and improve the quality and the efficiency of federally supported evaluation research, all while strengthening the protections governing the 

confidentiality of the data, and further protecting the privacy of individuals. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared information of Mr. Berlin follows:] 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
36 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.022

" .... ,.., ...... -", , ... -.,. .. , ,~.", 

............... 

_ ... ... -, , 

.,,-,,,,,",,, 

".' 00 ........ --"" ""_"._ lI:i' .... 1ft ,'" .......... - TKlinllm)' lIf Gordon L. "~rJi n. P.-..sidtnl, MIlKC, R~forf Ih~ Il u"'~n R~ rces 

ubeommiu~e oflh. Huuse WJ}'~ Bnd Mea ns Commit!..., 

Moreh JO, 2012 

Good afttl1lO()n. My name is (jlllxIoollcrlin. and I am lh~ President ofMDRC. II nonprofit. 

nOnpal1iSlln ed"cali()<l and ,ocial policy rt"!;Carch <lfg"4ni7.llliOflthat is dedicutoo to learning what 

wurk, 10 impruve pUlicie.; und programs Ihat alTetl the pI)(»". Foundoo in 1974, MI)RC ~, alual~ 

cKi;ling prQgrams and tries OUt new ""Imi,,", '0 sume Oflh" nation's muSI preSliin~ '(I<:ial protlI~"fTlS. 

using rigurous randum assignm,·01 rescarch dl"S;gns or nl"~r e<juivalt"111S tu :15SC~S Iheir impocl. Many 

uf uur ":seareh projl'CIS arc fund.-d 1hruuKlo cuntracts with fool .... 1 agcncil.'S. 

I a,n pleased 10 be- here today 10 ~pcak w;lh you 8bout making J simple change '0 ,he law ~ovcn,i"g 

the NJlional Directory ofN~" Ii i..,., (NONII) datal;lasc, mainUlined by the fe,k.",1 Officc of Child 

Suppun Enforeement (OCSE), tha! will r"IlIO\"C 8 b.arrier Iu 3CCtml,e. eosl-efk'Cli,'" a.,;cssmem of 

the cmploym~m elTecu offei\crally sUppUr1ed l pi,liq prUgnlms _; lY.,ni~r th~1 re>"t,lls '" 

unnecessary duplicatll<e cos!> for Ihe Federal government nnd in C);ccss rcportin!, bur<ic:ns lor Ihe 

Sllltcs, This is ~n iS~lIe of wme UrgcrlCY in a timc of:IC"Cf\' b~'dg.C1 cOllslraims and fiscal ~~'stcri(y. 

Congress must ha~e cr.."dible. no"p~r1isan infonnaliml10 unde~tnnd "helher federally supPOr1W 

progroms a~t ally hdp people find wolio; and increase their eaminp. The infomrali{)O i.li critiC'llI for 

Congre:ssiOllal det~ nin31 un, regarding wh<'1her di.o;creliontuy social programs n1~'r;llhe col1tinu~ 

;nve,lmenl Orta~payer mQlley. 

Rc,-;:arch firms that an: funded by fl-dcral g~ncies t" evaluate progl1lms often rely on d~1a collec1ed 

by Stales frolll empluyers "n empluymclll and cumings. data thatlhc Stal~"S already ",pon to the 

f .. -.JC11II gU"cn!!"" Il! for ccrwin child suppUn cnf"rccment aud other purpqscs, These data are hOU5L-.J 

;n accessible fom' al 'he fcdcr1Il level lI'ithin the Natiol1ai DireclOry of New Hi"-",, (NDNII) 

dalabast:. Il owe"~"T. rcscllIch contraCtors arc !>~"Ocr1llly unabl" 10 acce~S this cSSt:nl ial d:Jtabasc li)r 

bs<:ssing ",helher fedcr~lIy ,upport~'" progr.ms aclually work. ns!~~d. thcy are forced It) gel th~ 

.. "ry S()II!<'<klI" di=1ly from the 3te, . at Ilrem COSlto the f~d=lll(Werr'lmc:nt and al considerable 

bunko in dupllculive reponing ror tbe ,laiC'!;. Iflhc NDNH dnl,1b.ase \\cre made avail~blc 10 

e,,,luuton; (w'th appropriale privacy >arcguard~). il ,,"Quid enableCongrtu und th<! fed~rnl ugencies 

tu a~~ Ihe impaCt lhal SQCi~1 pmgrams h;I, ~ on joh.llInd <'3ming.~ Ut much 1e$S cuSt lind burden 10 

thl: fcdernl guwmmenl and the ~tat~s. 

Ouring this tt'Sliml'DY, I wH I dcscri"" the pmblem f~c<'d by evaluators and will ~ugg""1 a eml· 

elTet:tivc and saf~ solutiun for making the dala Ihal i$ hOUSl:d within the NDNIl a,'ailable to 

[1:scarc~ers wurld"!> on ICdcndlr funded pm~m cvalual;l,ns, 

BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT 01' TI lE PROI.lLEM 

Each yciIr, @,o'·Cmmcnl<llagencies.ol1<:nat thedin::c:tionofCongre,.<.enter inl<) ~ntS and eonlr1ltts 

"'lh 1\::.c:Dn:h tims. in order to dCI~-nnin" Ihe ctrC:Cl'v.:nc5s ofg{)\"emmcnt·fundcd programs. By 

doing ro. gm ~mmcnl $i8n31.111& imere,;1 in dctcnnininll whether il~ inve,;lI11enls in social pUlky 

prugfllms 81\" nehic"'ng the n:lum~ Ihat Congress anlieipalt"S ""hl" it appropnalel; fund, (0 crealeN 

supr>On Ihe progmnl. 
37 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.023

Typically, a govemmental agency enters Into 3 eontroct with an independenl. oonpartisan finn, ~uch 

a~ MI)H.C, to conduct the evaluation. Comrdctlng cvalu3\ions 1$ one "ay an ag~~lcy "l!surc:s that 

studies arc conducted in all indcpendem and nonpartisan m3nncr. 

GOl"cmn1(lnal cornmCIS for this work lypically require the n:scal\":h organi7..lllion to goiher c.,isting 

d31a to mcosutl.' the outcomes of those who art' rcc~ivin~ the s~rvices of the program and those who 

ha,·c similar characteristics bill an: rmt participating in the prog",m. III mo~l cl"al uJtion~. the 

reseJrch linn obtains data after ~euring th<'lcWllly cili.'CLive infomled c'OI1s~nt orthe progrJIO 

par1icipanl'i. The pro~pcctive subjc'Cts are informed regording Ihe dcgn:.oeof c\lll id~ntiulity that will 

be applied to nil the datu thai is collected from and nboutthem. 

For all f'xieml studies, research flnns assume the m!pon~ibllity lOr h'Cping the data eonlidcntial an<! 

!iCcure - inciuding hou.ing individually idl~ltifiabl~ data on S~CIlI1:' servers with password-prtMcled 

accc'S. conlrol,. o:<ing encryption. ond stripping dIltu ofidemiflers am:r iniliAI processing, 

Once th~ evaluating o11!an;7-'1tion has collected data on th,· outC·Oln~. fOl" particip'JIlt$ and rmnpanicipan!5. the evaluator ~n3lyzes the data. ,."tim~t'." the impact of the prol!r~rn. and repurlS the 

finding!!. Impon~ntly. the data is always rcponl't.! in a ··groupi.-.I·· format: nO ;ndividuul-!o:-wl daw is 

relO!llscd. This int"onnMion is Vitu l fN dedsions nboul continued gnvc,,"ncnt il1\'estmem in 

diliCl1:'lionary pruyams. 

One of the b\.'St >'!)urcc'S\lr data lor ddcrminiug pn)gr"Jm dli'Ctivl"11cSS is l"llmiug..~ records, 

par1icularly ,,"h~-n cmploym~'m "nd earning> are outcomes ofinLeresl. taming.~ n:.'1:ords dcrive from 

thc Infonnation that employers rcpon each quoner 10 stMe unemplo)"ntent insurance 3.gcmies. 

including earning" paid to cv~ry cmployee during the <iuarter, data regarding new bires, and 

infonnmion about unemployment eompensmion. 

In many evaluations. Ihc camings dota is motched wilh mher dnt3 >'!)IIr~es. including ,,"cliare. food 

st!Lmps,!\nd childeoresubsidy' I1:'ceipt; subsidi.lcd hOllslng; records; txiueational and criminal records; 

bir1h. IJIJ(Tiage. ~nd divol\":e records; and survey dats on family incolnc. f.1mily formation. and "bild 

,\ell-bcing. Thi~ matching ae!"t)S~ data soure~'S enable'S a reSI.'"Jrt:h linn, sUl'h as MORe, to analyze 

Ihe eIT".:ti\"cne5~ fpmb'ram~ and policies intended 10 incl"C1lsc employmenl ~nd eami"g~. ~s wcll ~ 

to d~'\cnnj"e the e!Teets that 3 program has on a n\rlgc of other impor1ontsocial outeomcs. su~h DS 

the relationship b!:twL'Cn employment Hod " 'elfare receipt or crimi",,1 bChpv;o~or the ",laliOl]sh;p 

amon£ camin!!s. lamily income, and ehildren'.s educalion and behavior. MallY ofthi.""SC analyses 

l'()ver estendl't.! P"ri()<.l~ of lime, ther<:by <'113bling the m~aSU""lIlCIU of the long·'mn efTL""i..'S Qf 

progmms und polic;1!5 nn a mnge of social outcomes. 

Inlonnmion n:gard ing individual "orkcrs' quarterly earnings is m~inmi"c<.l in state labor or 

emplo)"m~1I1 st'Curity ag~ncies for Ihe unemployment ;nsunmce progmm. Currently, an e\"alumor 

mus' obll1in this <1.110 fmm each stme agen~y where it is hl)Us~d. llttause cVllhlations of 

govcmmcn!~\ program~ take place in multiple jurisdictions. Ihe evaluator must spend considerable 

rnollrCCl; 10 IIscenaio each ~talc's require"''-~lls f,,,. dalJ acquisition and thcn apply fortbe dala. 

St31e statutl'S and administralive pruccdures govem ac'·CS$. and these procl'dun.-,; difTer 3mong thl."" 

SllItes. The s;guifl,,;mt COSIJi ofthcw data ~cqlli~ition efTOrls-are passed on to the federn! ~g~l1Cy nnd 

ultimalely 10 taspayers. And not all e"aluators eun successfully nvercnmc Ihe hurtll es imposed by 

Slat.e ~I!"nc;e:; for 3CC"SS tu Ihe data - Ihcr~by limiting wh~! policyn13kcrs know aboul pmgrnlll 

perfommnl'C. 

The COSt~ for the stat c~ In m~ke lhe dalll available are also significant. Whil~ Slalt, typicully chorge 

for trrulsmi!lin~ the duta to Ihe cvsluation linn. COSts associated with the negotiation for the dDt3 in 

the first place 3r" likely not covCR'd and thus arc also p;lS!I~d on to ~tate Ia.~""ycrs. 

, 
38 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.024

Imagine nn evaluation of a federal progm.m being conducted in 10 stmcs. The costs associated with 

obtaining ~TllpIOYfll~'llt :Uld ~anlinss data '~ould include rC.';Car<;h~r swfftimc to det<.."TU1ine, 

negotiaw, and comply with administrative proc~dures (and pay ~dl!1inistrJ il·c f~es) relat<'d LO 

acquiring the dUI3 from 10 5epilr.lte stnte agtncies nnd then to do the tct:hnicnlw!>O; ofchccking. 

processing, and standnrdi1.ing Mia from different slate systems. And that docsn't take into account 

the costs of the additional burdens placed 011 the stales. In additioo, for some studies. stales can on ly 

tr:lnsmit data to the federJI depanment funding the cvalu3lilln. Md thl' department must then 

arr~nsc for cvaluators 10 ohtnin lh c. da ~ ,mothcr sourc~ of COSK 

'[be e.\tra effon and costs assoc iated wilh seeking eamings da ta frotlE Ihe Slates !or program 

evaluations an.· nOi rn.~ssary. Th", s:lme data that is maintained by Ihe stat<',;;$ held in the NatioEll'1 

Oirc.:lory of New !!ires (NON! I) d91abase, which is lodged within the OflieeofChild Suppon 

Enfort;~ment (OCSE) "flhe S.lkpar1m~nl ofH~allh and Human Services (DHHS) lnd~cd. th~ 

state .lata lh t is sent \0 OCSE is t:ombincd wilh cmployment data frum other Sl~lcs, as II"cll as from 

fedl'flll employment sources, thereby cre;'lting ~ riCh t"we of dalll rt'g:m.iing individuul emplElynlent 

BEld e!lf"rlings. 

This dut,tJ;ct, IIhile available for the cnlort;ement of child suppon, is only accessible for use by 

~archcrs wilhout persQnally idenlifying information. CUn"Cluly. 5<'\:lioo 45J ,,(the Social 

Security Act. IIhich gOl'CnlS Ihe NONI I dataoos.:, permits the II S Sec~tary to provide access to 

til" data for ",scarch pu'1l"Scli, in the words Qrthc ~tatulc. "found by the SccrNary to be likely to 

comributc \0 achi~ving the purposes of the (statutc)"'- this reslriction requires thai access be 

alloww only for r .. -search thaI ~e): pu'lJO!iC"S IIfthe child suppon and Tcmporory Assistuncc fllr 

Needy Families tTANF) programs. While the fool'ral omcc of Child Suppon Enforcement (OCSfi) 

will conduct matchcs belwcen the NDNH and O1hc d.1Ia:!iO:!s on bch~lf ofrcse~r~he .. with studies 

rclall:d III the T ANF IIr child suppan J)rogrJms, by law, it may not rcl~'3SC idcntifiers 10 thc 

TCstart'hers. Without personal identifief!;. rcseurchers cannot match c",ploym~m nnd eanlings 

records elliciently with other information Ih~y have already collected from sludy par1icipan1.'l. 

ThuS, the Sllme dam lhn! f~dmll contraCt e\ dIUalor~ l11ustllcquire from Ihe ~llIte employment 

agencies, at great e,ron and c}'pcnsc. nlrendy re..idc in II fcdi:"l":ll database that is currently accessible 

only to federal and Slat\." agencics. 

The information in thl' daiab~sc t:"dll bt> made aVlliiable tu evaluators irCong~ makes II 5mall 

chan!,:e in thc legislation gMemlng Nn NH. ~mllttln!J; research ,lml5 conductiull sludi'-'S on behalf 

of federal agencies to receive idelltiflable data subject 10 $Ceurity protcelionJi. Such a change. which 

I des.cribi: ne I, would impro~e the emden"y and valu~ or program l..,-dluat;lIn, thl"feb)' enabling 

government (0 make '11Ore informed decision, ah!lut its inl'cstments in social programs. 

A SOLUTION 

A simJ)le am~ndmcnt to S(.'\:tion 45J th~ Social S«uril)' Act could authori1.c the rcleas.e of 

individually identifiable cmJ)IOYfllcm lind c~mings daw for evaluauons undertaken to DSsesS Ihe 

effect;veness offedcml prol;;mnlS. Such an am(:n.lme!1t would cnhance the clrl'Ct;YCnc5~ of!iOCial 

policy cvalu~(ion bceause il would ensure th" availability of data needed for outcome measurement. 

II lVould dccrease costs now incurred by both r~""{jcrnl and state gOI·cmmcntal agmeies. and it would 

sustain the confidentiality and seCUrily ~ft:guards already applicable to indil' iduplly idenliflable 

duta hou!;Cd within Ih<' d:Habasc. 

Data housed in Ihe NDNH dalnbase arc currently made available to state and federul agenCies lor 

outhorilcd pUrposl'S, iocluding adminiSI<:ring progmms and ,·erifying c'ltp "Y1H~nl and illct.t!)C. 

These purpuscs arc in addition to the principal purpose for whith Ihe NONH was created, namely to 
39 

f 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Berlin. We are 

going to move to questions now. 

I have a more general question for all of the witnesses. Each of 

you has had an opportunity to review a draft of the proposed legisVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:48 Nov 06, 2013 Jkt 078664 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\78664.XXX 78664

joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.025
40 

lation, of the proposals we have been discussing so far today, and 

many of you have alluded to it in your testimony. 

I was wondering if you have any additional comments about the 

draft legislation, specifically anything that you believe should be 

changed or improved upon as we move forward. 

I would open it up for any of the witnesses to share. 

Mr. Burlingame. 

Mr. BURLINGAME. Mr. Chairman, the one thing I would point 

out, in talking to some of my colleagues in states around the country, I was surprised to learn that in many instances today, judges 

and individuals supervising criminal defendants, probation officers, 

parole officers, do not have access today to child support order information or arrearage information on the population of people 

they supervise. 

The privacy considerations in the current regulations and law 

prevent those individuals from having access to information about 

support orders and an individual’s compliance. 

It seems to me that might be something that could be added that 

would allow individuals supervising the criminal population in the 

country to be able to check and make sure their charges are staying compliant with the important issue of child support enforcement. 

Chairman DAVIS. Before we move on, in fact, I will share personally that is one of our goals. Mr. Lewis and I among a few others introduced legislation called the ‘‘Standard Data Act,’’ and we 

got that enacted into law, in the Child Welfare, Promoting Safe and 

Healthy Families Act re-authorization last year. It was also in the 

Conference Report on payroll tax affecting unemployment and 

TANF. 

In my mind, particularly from a front line provision standpoint, 

having access to that information is very important. A lot of the 

populations that we deal with, where a front line social worker or 

a caregiver at a non-government organization could encounter 

someone, it would be nice to know if there was a deadbeat dad 

across the river in another jurisdiction, to be able to find that. 

I have heard exactly the same sentiment almost universally from 

folks: the more integrated we can be. 

I do not believe that would be a breach of privacy since that parole officer can see a lot of other things. It might be less comfortable in public discussion than the child support payment issue. 

Ms. Stephen. 

Ms. STEPHEN. Yes. I would like to add to that thought. When 

I heard this concept earlier today from Mr. Burlingame, I was intrigued because we are in the midst of discussions with our courts 

in Michigan, and specifically with the establishment of a judicial 

data warehouse, and are interested in access to certain information 

that is not part of the public record. 

Our child support program is a court based system, but arrearage amounts do not go in the public record. 

That type of information, making that available to judges when 

they are sentencing, so the judge actually has a full picture of this 

individual’s life and responsibilities, probably would be very useful. 

It is unlikely to be possible under today’s rules and regulations. 

I appreciate the fact this is being given consideration. 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
41 

Chairman DAVIS. Hopefully, we will be able to do something 

along those lines that would ease the process where it could simply 

be garnishment of pay. It may take a while to get to that point. 

It took us seven years to get to the first provision that Mr. Lewis 

and I saw go into law, and Mr. Doggett and our other colleagues. 

Did you want to say something, Mr. Berlin? 

Mr. BERLIN. I just would restate what I said earlier: getting researchers access to individual level data with personal identifiers 

and with the appropriate protections; and secondly, encouraging 

blanket agreements between agencies so we do not spend all this 

time negotiating over the same issue every single time there is another study funded. 

Chairman DAVIS. Just to share a personal viewpoint, we often 

get into these discussions in the Congress when in fact many of our 

colleagues who argue about this issue go out and use their credit 

card or one of those loyalty fobs at a store, where there are reams 

and reams of data being used to forecast management to collection 

activities, and all the privacy is encrypted and quite reliable. 

I think we could easily achieve a high standard because we are 

dealing with so much smaller of a population and much more limited data fields in the long run. 

Just another general question. What would we lose, and more 

specifically, families in need of child support lose if we do not introduce and pass legislation dealing with this issue? 

Why do you feel it should be done now? 

Ms. Farley. 

Ms. FARLEY. We currently work in a patchwork situation working with individual bilateral treaties. Requirements vary from 

country to country. 

I think what families will lose and continue to lose is the support. Either they will not get the support at all, as Ms. Stephen 

mentioned, or there is going to be a delay in receiving the support. 

We do have the uniform law Commission’s recommendation for 

the 2008 amendments. A lot of uniform laws are presented to the 

states, and what sometimes happens when states are considering 

that uniform language is that states will put their own personal 

touches on it, so it does not end up being uniform in the long run. 

I think it is important for Congress to require that every state 

adopt the uniform law verbatim. 

That way, we will be able to comply with the terms of the Convention. 

I would also say the need for Congress to act now is that other 

countries, including the European community, are considering and 

moving toward ratification, and some of those countries are countries where we do not currently have access to their systems. 

By ratifying the Convention, becoming a party to the Convention, 

our citizens would have access to services in countries where they 

currently do not have access. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much. With that, I would like 

to recognize Mr. Lewis from Georgia for five minutes. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to join 

you in thanking the witnesses for taking their time to be here 

today in support of this legislation. 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
42 

I just want to ask a question, and anyone can respond. I have 

a letter from a mother from Georgia who wrote to the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement that said ‘‘I recently went 

through a divorce, and soon after, my ex-husband fled the country 

to avoid child support payments.’’ 

She went on to say ‘‘I heard he is in Argentina. I currently live 

in Georgia with my two children. Is there anything I can do?’’ 

I want to ask you, how would the United States’ participation in 

the Hague Treaty help this mother and the other parents like her, 

to assist with enforcing an order to non-custodian parents who flee 

the country to avoid his or her child support? 

Would you care to respond? 

Ms. STEPHEN. I think you have described exactly the kinds of 

situations that we face with unfortunately some frequency in 

Michigan. 

At this point in time, we can contact the authorities in Argentina. We can try to make some inroads, but establishing child support is a multi-step process. 

First, you have to know where that parent is. Then you have to 

give adequate notice to the parent, establish the obligation, and set 

up a process to collect it. 

All of that takes structure that we do not have access to today, 

even if it is a bilateral agreement country, and I am not sure. I do 

not have that right in my notes. 

The Hague Convention and the enabling legislation would actually put in place some standardization of processes that would 

allow us to accomplish all of those steps, if both Argentina and the 

United States were members of the Treaty Convention. 

That is really exactly what we are talking about. That is the 

kind of problem we need to solve for families. 

Mr. LEWIS. Anyone else care to respond? 

[No response.] 

Mr. LEWIS. In your opinion, how important is it that Congress 

quickly pass this piece of legislation? 

Ms. STEPHEN. I have been in this program for most of my career, and I think this is a very significant step forward for families 

whose cases have been closed, flat out closed, nobody is trying to 

do anything any more because we have run into a dead end, because they have an international component. 

Those children deserve the support services that we could provide if we can start this ball rolling. 

The phrase that comes to mind is ‘‘If we build it, they will come.’’ 

I am convinced there are many cases out there that are outside the 

system now because we have been unable to be helpful, and we will 

be able to move some of those ahead. 

I have a case with a seven year old. The father lives in Australia. 

We have been unable to get any locate, and that child has gone 

without child support for seven years. 

Those are the kind of cases that we need to be moving, and we 

have to start somewhere, and this is really the place to start. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. Yes, sir? 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
43 

Mr. BURLINGAME. Mr. Lewis, the only thing I would add is on 

the data standards’ front, systems continue to be built and purchased, both in the 4–D area and in the court area. 

They are not waiting for these standards to be adopted or developed, so every system that gets built or purchased without standards as a guidance, has the potential to have to be retrofitted or 

rebuilt or refitted at some point in the future, once these standards 

are established. 

The sooner there could be a mandate for the establishment of 

standards in this area along with any other area in the child welfare area, I think the better. 

Mr. LEWIS. Ms. Farley. 

Ms. FARLEY. I might also add that in moving toward ratification, Congress approving and the implementing of legislation is a 

step in that process. 

Once you have passed the legislation, states will have two years 

in which to implement or to pass legislation. 

Once you act, we are still at least two years away from ratification. The sooner you act, the sooner we can move towards ratification and actually begin to benefit from the Convention. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman DAVIS. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Paulsen, for five minutes. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

being here today. 

In today’s world, when we talk about moving information between systems and making it more available out there, we have the 

issue of identity theft, of course, and the protection of personal 

identity information, which is sometimes called ‘‘PII.’’ 

That is a primary concern whenever anyone talks about expanding access to data. 

I am just wondering, Mr. Berlin, you touched on this a little bit 

right at the end of your testimony, I think. Can you please walk 

us through exactly how the privacy protections provided by the 

draft legislation language would work if researchers were given access to data in the National Directory of New Hire’s? 

What other types of Federal data do researchers already have access to, what privacy protections surround that data? Have they 

been effective? How do those protections compare to those, as an 

example? 

Is there any reason to believe overall that these private protections would be any less effective than those that are in place right 

now involving other areas of Federal law? 

Mr. BERLIN. I can describe briefly the steps that we take. We 

work with a lot of other firms that also do this kind of work and 

have typically found that they follow very similar procedures. 

We have a chief data security officer and a data exchange manager. We begin by meeting with and working with the agency and 

identifying the most reliable, safest way to actually transfer the 

data. 

That data transmission method usually follows the National Institute for Standards and Technology’s strict standards for data exchange. It is called ‘‘For Data in Transit.’’ 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
44 

It is a standard protocol, and NIST has established a set of very 

strict rules around these transfers. I think you want to make sure 

that those kinds of rules are what the agencies are relying on and 

using. 

Those data teams then work with and store that personally identifiable data on a secure, centrally located server. It can only be 

accessed by a limited number of people, with the need to know. 

Once we have the data, the very first thing it does is strip the 

data of all personal identifiers, and create essentially a random 

number for every individual in the dataset. 

That is the dataset we work with. The dataset that has personally identifiable information on it is set aside on this secure server 

that is controlled by a data security officer. 

There is almost no reason for us to be using the dataset with personal identifiers on a regular basis. 

At the end of the study, we then use the National Institute for 

Standards and Technology’s standards for ensuring that the data 

is destroyed in an effective way, and that it cannot be recaptured 

elsewhere. 

As I said, most firms use those same kinds of procedures. At our 

organization, and to the extent I know of other organizations, there 

has never been a breach of any of that data. 

We and some other organizations we work with actually get sensitive Social Security Administration data, which if you think about 

it comparatively, in the NDNH case, we are only talking here about 

knowing quarterly earnings, essentially. 

The Social Security data on disability and other things are much 

more sensitive, and we do get that data now, and we meet a very 

high standard for that data. 

Federal agencies generally have compliance officers who visit 

your organization unannounced and confirm that you are in fact 

following all these procedures. 

Mr. PAULSEN. The data you would use as a researcher under 

the draft legislation would be just as protective of privacy concerns 

as it is for what other Federal agencies use right now? 

Mr. BERLIN. Exactly. The truth is the thing that everyone 

seems to have forgotten here is we already have this data. We are 

just getting it from the states. We follow these procedures now. 

For 30 years, we have been doing this. Again, at unnecessary 

cost because the same data is already sitting at the Federal level. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Ms. Farley, can I just follow up and ask, I think 

you may have mentioned privacy protections within the Hague 

Convention, but can you please tell us a little bit more about those? 

Ms. FARLEY. Yes. The drafters of the Convention were very 

aware of the personal information that would be gathered and 

transmitted. 

There are several provisions within the Convention that deal 

with this issue. One, protection of personal data, any personal data 

that is gathered and transmitted can only be used—it is restricted 

to be used only for the purpose for which it is being gathered and 

transmitted. 

Someone getting information for collection of child support could 

not hand that off to some other entity to use it for another purpose. 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
45 

There is also a provision related to confidentiality, in that the 

participating countries must protect the information they gather in 

accordance with their national law. 

The third one has to do with non-disclosure. It is a sensitivity to 

domestic violence. Authorities are prohibited from disclosing or confirming information that would jeopardize the health, safety, and 

liberty of the persons. 

The other thing I would mention is as the Treaty was developed, 

tools were also developed to help implement it, including a set of 

forms, recommended forms, and all of the recommended forms 

clearly identify what information is personal and should not be 

transmitted, and that these countries should be very careful in 

handling. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much. The gentleman’s time 

has expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North 

Dakota, Mr. Berg, for five minutes. 

Mr. BERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just have a couple of questions. First of all, North Dakota is one 

of the ten states that have enacted legislation with the Hague Convention. 

I really have two questions. One is what are the consequences of 

us not moving forward at this point? 

Ms. Farley, if you could address that, and Ms. Stephen also. If 

we do nothing, what are the negative consequences for doing nothing right now? 

Ms. FARLEY. The consequences are we continue the path that 

we have, in this patchwork of a system where we have to do bilateral agreements with individual countries, the requirements of 

those agreements may vary as far as what kind of documents are 

required and services that can be performed, and for those countries where we do not have a bilateral agreement, we will continue 

to have difficulties. 

It is just a continuation of the difficulties we are experiencing 

right now. 

Mr. BERG. Ms. Stephen. 

Ms. STEPHEN. Yes, I would certainly second what Kay Farley 

has said. As I said earlier, the many cases that have just been out 

and out closed because we lack the ability to process the child support for that family. 

Those cases are all across the globe. Our nearest neighbor probably would be cases from Mexico, where we have a number of 

Mexican individuals who work and live in Michigan, and we are 

unable to accomplish anything in terms of child support with the 

country of Mexico. 

Those families will grow up—those children will grow up with 

the support of only one parent, and that is a tremendous struggle 

in a time when both parents should be supporting their kids. 

Mr. BERG. Michigan is a problem? I am just kidding. 

My second question, last question, relates to there are 40 states 

who have not signed this or enacted this. What is the problem? 

What is the barrier for them acting on this? 

Ms. FARLEY. I think the barrier is they are waiting for Congress to act. They want to take clues from you as to whether you 

are going to require verbatim implementation. 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
46 

I think they are waiting for you. It is not that they are not supportive. They just want to take direction from you all before they 

move forward with their state legislation. 

Mr. BERG. Okay. 

Ms. STEPHEN. I am not aware of any opposition to this. I am 

not aware of any concern among the child support directors across 

the country, and we are a fairly tight group. 

I do not believe that anybody is waiting because they do not believe this is the right thing to do. I think they are waiting to know 

that this is the direction that Congress wants us to go. 

Mr. BERG. We are all going to move in this direction. Thank 

you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much. I want to thank each 

of the witnesses who have come here today. I also thank you again 

for your flexibility at the beginning of the hearing where we had 

to take that brief intermission. 

We would like your continued input as we move forward on the 

draft legislation to introduce and hopefully pass that in this Congress. I would value that very much. 

If members have additional questions, they will submit them to 

you directly in writing, and what we would ask you to do is share 

those answers not only with the members but also with the Committee so we can get them in the record for all to see. 

With that, I thank you again for coming, I thank the members 

for participating, and the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:02 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions For The Record follow:] 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARING
47 

Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association, statement 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.026

Written Testimony 

by 

Robert Velcoff, President 

Eastern Regional Imerstate Child Support Association 

on 

No-Cost Improvemel1ls to Child Support Enforcement 

Submitted to the 

HOUSE WA YS AND MEANS COMMITTEE 

HUMAN RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE 

Subcommittee Hearing 

Tuesday, March 20, 201 2 

2:00 P.M. 

1100 Longworth House Oflice Bui lding 

Washington, DC 
48 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.027

Dc~f Chalman D~\'is, Ranking ~cmber DQggl1I, alld members subronnnil1t-e", 

J am writins 011 1~ .. hJlf of the' l2.-;tem Ikgional Intcn;tJtc Child Support As:sociation 

(ERICSA). ER ICSA is a leading 3d"')<,:Ht~ for dfcctil'e interstate child support ~a~ proccssing 

and aClively participates in c-trOrtS to improve the laws. poliCies. and practices tilal govern 

illicrsiaic child support. 

ERICSA is a non-profit org3ni7Altinn dedicated for 'lver 49 years to promoting the wellbeillS ofchildr.:n anti families. f()CUSinll particularly QII intergol'ernmental eHilCS. WI: r.:prl'$cm 

judges and othcr dccision-makcrs. public and private a\tome),s, and ehil,J support prof.:ssionals 

from thrtlughuut the cOOlllry. ER leS,\ hi tori~"dll)' has drawn its membership from pcrs<Jns 

working for or doing bu~in .. '$s wi).b rrilJ<.<t alld states and tlleir loca ljurisdictioJls that b<;trdcr on, 

or nre enst o[ the is~issippi River. i!RICSA holds 011 annual tmining eonfcn::n.::e ond provides 

polil'y positions on key issues aflcetillgchil,J support. Throughout this last ha"~ccntury. we ha,·c 

eng~gcd with f~der:. l and tat~ legislators in the creation, evolution and expansion of a program 

that provides critical financia! support to n\'t:f 16 million families, man)' of whom h~ve mnved 

frolll wei fa!'\." 10 sclf-suffieiency duc in signilic'Hlt part tl) the child and ml-dical s upport 

estllblishcd lind enforeed through the IV-D progrnm. And we hove done so cfficiently. 

The " Intcrnational Child Support Recollcry ImprOl'cmcnl ACI 01'2012" introdUCed un 

March 28, 2012 (1l .1t 4282) highlights Ihe cQlltinucd bi-partisan support ill C(lngr~ss Ilnd the 

nmiol! for the child SUppllrt prognnn. E"ctl in thesc difficult economic tilllcs. the child sUppllrt 

program has elicilcd Slrong upport ~ecausc of its eust cflO!cuvcness and its poSItive influence on 

societal df~ \pcct~ti<1ns that ('Vcry child dc.seIYCS support and ocknowledgement from parents, 

ERICSA has a long-standing commitment w the U.S, Milication and implt-mcrnalion or the 

IIngue' Convention on the nternati n:~1 Recover)' of Child Support and other ti;lnns of Family 

MaintcJlonce. We ure therdore vcry s upportive of the Act's "Amendml'Ots to Ensure Access to 

Child Support Services for lntematiOl1~1 Child Support Caf;Cs" (sl'Ction 2)_ 

The Unifonn Interstate Family Support Act fU IFSA) is the appropnulc mccl13nism for 

implementing the Ilogue Convention in the Unitcd States. The positive chlmgc to iinerstale Itnd 

international child .~ upport enlhrcenH.'nt rt'su!ting (I\)m U[FSA cann(11 be oV.'f1;taled. UIFSA ha.~ 

instillcd fairness and harmoni ed legul pro.:ccdings in intcr!;O\'emmcntal child support cases. to 

Ihe bem::rn o fal! pllrties, ~nd most ilOjXJrtlmtly to the children for whom child !iuppon was so 

difficult to establish alld cnforce und(:r pl'\!decessor state laws. 

ERICSA has bem ,til activ;: p:lrtner with the Uniform Law Commi!;)lion (ULC) DrJfting 

Committee. One or more ERICSA n;:prt.'$emnlivcs scr'licd as o fficial observers, participaung 

fully in the crcatioll IIfUIFSA in 1992, suhscqucnt anK'Odmenls in 1996 and 2001,:lOti most 

recenlly in thc dcvelopment of the international provisions in 2008. Built on Ihe impro\'emcnl>l 

made ill 200 1, the 2008 amendments implemelllthc ague Maintenuncc Convention in the 

United ~tes. Wc believe there is un; versal agreement among child support prolcssionals (hat 

UIFSA 200S hould be the required law in el'ery tm . ERICSA has eo i~~ntl )' urged Congress 

to update section 4fi6(1) nfthe Social S~'{:urity Act to require lhat stoles enact the most reel'f1t 

version ofU IFSA. Currentl), lher;: is no unifomlity among the states. So",cst<ltcs ho,'e Ihe 

mandat~'tI 1996 vcrsion: others enact.:d Ihe 200 1 amendments using u request for u stme pl9n 

waiver. Appended is a list OI'CUTTCnt litatc adoptions. 
49 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.028

We strongly slippon conforming nmendmci1Is 10 ~~"Clion 1738B of title 28. United SlateS 

Code. Ihe Federal Full Faith and Crctlit for Child SUPIN" Ortlcrs Ad {FFCCSOi\l. In addilion 10 

Ihe amendmenls noted in II.R. 4282, we encourng~ COr>gress 10 h~rmOllile funher UtFSA and 

FF<':CSOA ami clarify Ihal Ihe IWO 8CIS are consistenl 

Thank you for Iheopponunity 10 oller these wrinen cumm~n\s. I:::RICSA stands ready 10 

['rOvidc funher ~s'islnnce. us needed. 

Sine",..,ly. 

'" 

Ruben Vekoff 

ERICSA resid~111 

14 Sky Vil"W Drive 

Cohoes. N.Y. 11047 

(518)783-0455 

rob. vclculf@;df:l.sllIle.ny.us 
50 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.029

I'OLlC V STATEMF.NT 

The Eastem Reg;onallnt.r~t"te Child SUptlo)" A!i~,,.,iDlion (ERICSA) OOi ft MI-f"f·profit organllll!iOllthat 

rcCO!Pl;l"~ thalt!!e family i~ the blIsic unit .,follr ~ifl1Y. A primary rurpo~ of I1 RICSA. as 5)'«if,cd in 

Anicle 11. &ct;o" I. "f ilS b)'laws. i~ to ",commend ul'l"'n for or chanses 10 l"i!;~lation a.1<I resu)ations 

cotll:cl'l1"d with the ""lfDrt of children . nd familie.;. espcciati) 10 Ihe arta ofplllcl'I1ity And child suppo!1. 

This documont ~tS fonh th. rrinciple. th.l guide ERICSA in itS rnluation of such legislation and 

rejlulations, 

The H~ llmer~. o!lI. t Child. Logi!Ointhe and rcgu lntClry pr"fH'S'Ils ShClUld be infomled by an 

~s$Css",enl .,flbe besl ;nl~""sl$ of children. lI.ecol!ni~in~ thaI this impt.'rlItive must sometime~ bet:lalaf\Ced again,11he r<:,trictlonS of fund iog. both [lUI/lie and private, Ihis ".iudple is paramoutll ~s 

ERICSA "nlual"s Icgi~l~tion and r<:gul.)tiClns concemed wilh Ih" health nd welfare of childun and 

fsmiliL-S. 

Hu/i",r;nC /h~ "'ud!", Uni/om,i/), ~'i'h Rtf'"!>:"il;',,, "!II ~ ijf~'tncn urn""c S""~5. 1"trriloriu ,md 

Tr;~. .cgi~lati\ e nnd regulatory prup':rsal~ should he assessed With regurd r<lr tll<l diwrsc legal 

tradilions and gO~ emmcntal inf"'~ITUclUre; amQng Slates, I~rrilori.,,; and tribes. Th ~ diversity muSt b<: 

bal~tlced a!!ain~t the necessity for a dcglu ofunifomlity in lawlatllJ procedures Ihat constitute Ihe 

r" .. ndarion of the child su ppmt progr~.n. "'''ing .11 ""ild",n and families lIS they "'(}V~ <It relocate acm'~ 

S\a t~ lines, 

P"mll,. is Pu nd"fI.e",,,I. Family rcmain~ S<)CiC1Y', printary Inslllulion for upport.in~ children's gr~,,\tll 

."d dr\'elopment. Legisl,ti .. and reButaLo,)' pr<lpOSIIls should"" consid"",d in light oflh;, principle, 

tRkinl\ intI) coo,idcr:u;Cln facton; dctriffi(mlalto the be.1I inlcrcstsoflhc child. ineluding the Ia.:); " r 

financial ,uppon and health care, and Ihe 5i:ourg~ offan,ily ,jolenee and child Mbuse. 

Pure,,/a/ I'(", ;"ililJ " Parents I>c.-3, primary re. ponsihility for meeling Ihe phy'lical, emminnal and 

intdlcclUAlnct<J~ of their ~hi!dll:n. L~g i,latlve ~nd "'gulalo,)' prol"'~ls shQuld I>c " •• Iualcd with thi~ 

princ;pl~ in mind. ",cognizin!; Ihat pa .... l\l!Imay lac); Ih~ f\'$()urctS - whclher malerial. monel~f)' or 

1"'f'SL)flal - 10 fulfill !hi~ r~5f'Onsibilit~ , 

I'rr,.."'ti,," .~ Kty. Preventing problems i>cr"rc they become ri ~ is tht "'''SI df~c ivc - and COSt· 

ctTeclive - \\a)' 10 add .... ss the ~.-W& Of lTOOhlcd " .. milie$ ~"d voh,fCTtIOle children, Prevcnlion -- ~nd e~ ly 

inlervention ·, shClu ld he. pmmincm principle Ihs\ dr;ve.le~i'lali\'e and regulalory proposals, 

Col/Uiw,Ulioll i5 E:SJemiul. Communil)" institmions ind ding. bm nOl limited Ill, !lChool •. empl,,~ers. 

f.ilh·bll5Cd .nd non_prClfil com"'''";I) _b~sed organi'~lions. co"lr;hulc 10 Ihe creallQ" of "" fnvifl)"'''cnl 

Ih~t is upponi,'~ of children and I"'renl:;. Om-emmen) e"I;lie."t the local. slnu' and nalionallcvcls -

inciudinllthc ,,"~<'C:u ivc, legislative andjudicial branche, - . I!oOse",e a vi,al role. I:RICSt\ will e,'alu;llc 

I~l!i lali\ e ond "'8uI310!), proposals willl:l focus otl Ihe need 10 I)j1 liM1i~ e collaDo,nliun BM10nl!-public a'id 

private cntilies 10 ful Ii II th~ intclllled plll"JlOS" of ~uch pmp"""I •. 
51 

Æ 


joloto on DSK67XMDP1PROD with HEARINGInsert 78664A.030