What is FIDM? > Overview > State Implementation
Establish Freeze and Seize Policy and Procedures
- Enact legislation to authorize the data match.
- If process is judicial, enact legislation to move to administrative procedures.
- Identify policy and procedures based on State laws governing
freeze and seize of financial institution accounts (e.g., freeze period,
dollar thresholds).
Develop Instructions for Financial Institutions
- Develop an agreement discussing responsibilities, processing
timelines and fees, and an election form for the institution to choose
a matching method, data transmission methods, and week within each quarter
the institution would like to send or receive data.
- Publish instructions providing background information,
reporting requirements, and data specifications.
Identify Financial Institutions and Conduct Outreach
- Identify financial institutions doing business within the State.
- Meet with representatives of financial institutions and
related associations, provide outreach materials and keep them updated
regarding implementation of the data match.
Automate Data Exchange
- Automate data specifications, generation of forms and
letters, financial institution database, compliance tracking, and program
and management reporting to track matches and collections.
- Maintain a database that includes the name and address
of financial institutions, name and phone number of the contact person
(usually the Compliance Officer), and States in which they operate for
the purpose of tracking forms and transmissions sent and received.
- Develop and monitor security procedures.
Provide for Customer Service and Public Relations
- Establish a hotline, e-mail address and website to answer
financial institution questions.
- Operate a direct phone line to answer questions from custodial
and non-custodial parents.
- Build a working relationship with the State trade associations
and operations staff of the financial institutions.
States have three
options for implementing various aspects of the data match. These options
include program development by: a) the State child support enforcement
agency or other State agency (e.g., revenue) through an interagency
agreement, b) a private vendor through an individual competitive procurement
by the State, and c) a private vendor through a competitive procurement
involving a multistate consortium. Half of the States have elected
to join a consortium (option c). Of the remaining States, a majority
have chosen implementation by the child support enforcement or other
State agency (option a).