Giving Hope and Support to America's Children

Project to Avoid Increasing Delinquencies (PAID) In Full Practices Guide

This Guide is intended for use by States, Tribes, and Territories as a tool to foster discussions of policies and practices, along with implementation criteria, that may be employed to increase the collection of current support and prevent and reduce arrears. The questions under each topic are intended to assist readers in looking for methods to optimize their processes.

Topics 1-4 were disseminated under Dear Colleague Letter 07-34. Future topics will be distributed as separate documents and numbered accordingly.

The Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) hopes you will find this material useful in thinking about new approaches you might take in your jurisdiction to improve your program results.. If you would like more information about PAID, please contact your Regional Program Specialist or email PAID@acf.hhs.govto join the PAID Workplace to learn more and share your ideas.

In Full #5 - Licensing

PAID In Full is a compilation of early intervention, order establishment, locate, enforcement, and arrears management practices that support PAID along with implementation criteria that facilitate successful outcomes.  The questions under each practice are intended to assist States in looking for methods to optimize their processes.

License Suspension

Organizational Considerations

• Is this process administrative or judicial in your State?

• Have you considered limiting the judicial review unless court review of an administrative decision or modification of the underlying support?

Process Considerations

• Have you considered a pro-active approach, requiring all drivers’ license applicants to sign a statement that the applicant is not under a child support obligation or in good standing with a plan to pay child support? (VT)

• If your State initially limited license revocation, have you reconsidered expanding the program?

• Do you match against State Drivers Licenses?

• Commercial driver’s license

• Business, occupation, professional licenses.

• Have you assessed your State’s unique characteristics to determine potential areas for pursuing license revocation? (i.e. Maine’s Moose lottery, Alaska’s Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission)

• Have you reassessed matching for Hunting and Recreational licenses? Professional licenses

• Have you re-reviewed your criteria for matching to see if it should be revised?

• Have you considered the pros and cons (cost vs. challenges to due process) for sending your notices through certified mail?

• Have you considered a timeframe (i.e. six months) where the State permits a temporary driving permit to allow delinquent obligors to allow for time for administrative reviews and judicial challenges?

• How many opportunities does your State give the NCP to come into compliance before a notice of non-compliance is issued?

• Does your caseworker conduct a manual review of each target case prior to commencing revocation action for non-compliance?

• Have you met with the licensing boards and agencies to explain the law and procedures?

• Have you developed press packets to educate licensing agencies on this law? (Texas)

• Have you considering setting up a phone bank with specially trained child support enforcement employees? (Texas – 50 telephone lines for temporary phone bank when first 75,000 warning letters were sent).

• Does your State have provisions for NCP’s showing undue hardship? (i.e. place on probation as long as they abide by agreement to make payments.)

• Does your State permit restrictions on driving privileges for hardship cases, such as driving to and from work, medical emergency, or education, If so, does the NCP have to pay a modification fee?

Automation Considerations

• What is the frequency of your matching for cases that meet the criteria for license suspension? Is it based on the other agency’s ability to match, Have you checked recently to see if the licensing agencies could match more frequently?

• How does your State search for cases that meet the State’s revocation criteria?

  • Does the system automatically review your database (monthly batch runs) for cases that meet certain license revocation criteria?

  • If your license revocation process is not automated, and your caseworker determines through case review, interviews and other manual procedures that the case meets the State’s license revocation criteria:

    • Can the caseworker generate the notice to the NCP into the system?
    • Does the system provide?
    • Does the caseworker need to enter information about the review and interview to the system? One screen or multiple?

• How does your State generate and mail a notice of intent to suspend or revocate the license?

  • Does the system automatically generate and mail the notice of intent to suspend the license?

  • Does the caseworker have to enter data to generate the suspension notice?

• Does the system track the time from the issuance of the general notice to either issue or prompt caseworker to issue the 2^nd notice

• Can the caseworker suspend the 2^nd notice if the NCP requests a hearing or makes arrangements to enter into a payment plan?

• Does the system put the process on hold if the obligor asks for a hearing, or takes other action per the State’s criteria (i.e. enter into a payment plan, files a motion to modify support)

• Does the system automatically generate a letter to the appropriate board(s) that the obligor is not in compliance

• Many States require the NCP to enter into an agreement/arrangement to pay to avoid license suspension. Does your system support the tracking of the NCP’s compliance with the agreement/arrangement?

• Does your State system automatically create a narrative entry of all actions (taken at either the State office or by the local office) regarding license suspension actions?

• Does your Statewide automated and/or manual system identify and give priority attention to those noncustodial parents who must obtain or renew their licenses immediately or within a specified timeframe, or to those who already have received issuance of a time-limited temporary license?

• If an Income Withholding Order or other payment arrangement is in place, does your automated system and/or license restriction process review the monthly amount to determine if the amount continues to be appropriate, and if not, enter into another stipulation/stipulated agreement, as well as having another conforming order issued?

• Has the State issued criteria to be considered when exercising good judgment in determining which cases are appropriate for driver's license revocation?

• Does the system generate written confirmation of compliance for those NCP’s that come into compliance that can be submitted by the State (or obligor) to avoid revocation or obtain re-issuance of the license?

• Have you considered utilizing new technology such as point of sale devices? Illinois is installing point of sale devices at establishments that issue hunting and fishing licenses so they can be quickly cross checked with individuals who owe more than $1,000 in arrears.

Benefits

Between1993-2000, Maine has sent out 23,500 notice of intent to revoke licenses. Over $116 million has been collected from once non-compliant obligors. this procedure has contributed to Maine’s overall child support performance including a doubling of collection sine 1993 and a payment rate on current support for intrastate cases of 60%. Of the 1,070 individuals whose driver’s or professional licenses were suspended more than 600 subsequently came into compliance.

Texas – between August 24, 1995 when the first warning letters went out and October 13, $2.4 million was collected from more than 9,000 NCP’s who received the warning letters. In the week before the law went into effect, more than $97,000 was collected.

Illinois – Child Support matched records of delinquent parents with 2006 applicants for hunting and fishing licenses and found nearly 6,000 matches with outstanding arrears of more than $60 million.

For a more detailed automation discussion guide, please see Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement: A Guide for Automating Case Closure. Additional resources include an OIG report and PowerPoint presentation at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/stsys/dsts_auto_closure.html

In Full #6 - SSA Benefits & Prisoner Data

PAID In Full is a compilation of early intervention, order establishment, locate, enforcement, and arrears management practices, along with implementation criteria, that facilitate successful outcomes.  The questions under each practice are intended to assist readers in looking for methods to optimize their processes. The questions are organized into two categories for consideration: Process and Automation.

In 2002, the external locate process with the Social Security Administration (SSA) was enhanced to begin allowing States to request data from SSA’s State Verification and Exchange System (SVES). The data available from SVES includes the following:

• Title II disability insurance, retirement and survivor benefits for non-custodial parents (NCPs), custodial parties (CPs), and children,

• Title XVI supplemental Security income benefits for NCPs and CPs, and

• prisoner information for NCPs and CPs.

Use of SVES data may expedite the State’s ability to identify obligors who are receiving SSA benefits, which should in turn increase collections, order establishments, paternity establishments and locates. SVES data also identifies the child’s benefit amount which may be used in the guideline computation.

Process Considerations

When your State learns that the NCP is entitled to SSA Title II benefits, does your State refer the CP to SSA to apply for children’s benefits? This will help ensure that the children are receiving regular benefits available to them.

Does your State submit an Income Withholding Order (IWO) to a local SSA office even after receiving notice that a claim has been denied? SSA reports that nearly 60% of people who apply for SSA benefits are denied, but more than half of those are eventually awarded benefits.

Does your State system begin the review and adjustment process when notified that a case participant is receiving Title II or Title XVI benefits, or is in prison?

Does your State use the prisoner data to pursue possible garnishment of wages earned in prison?

Does your State take Title XVI income into consideration when setting or modifying child support orders? Although Title XVI income is not garnishable, Title XVI data provides unearned income amounts and indicators for earned income that reduced SSI benefits.

Automation Considerations

Has your State submitted a Data Election Form to receive SVES data (Title II, Title XVI and Prisoner) proactively upon submitting an Add or Change transaction to the FCR? When States notify OCSE that they want to receive proactive SVES matches, they will receive SVES data whenever a person is added or changed on the FCR. This includes NCPs, CPs and children. This data will assist with the establishment of appropriate orders.

Does your system allow for caseworkers to submit an on-demand external locate request to SVES?

Does your State system have the capability to submit a Title II SVES request on the child (ren) when you find out that the NCP or CP is receiving Title II benefits? Some States reported that if they find a child is receiving SSA benefits on behalf of the NCP or CP, they will consider that benefit when calculating child support orders.

Does your State system automatically send an IWO to SSA, without worker intervention, when you receive information that the NCP is receiving Title II benefits?

Once benefit or address verifications are completed, do you store SVES information in the case record on your State system so that the information may be used for future case actions (e.g. future enforcement or establishment actions)?

Are caseworkers notified of the address received from SVES data? Does your State system take the following actions?

• Send the caseworker an alert if the address provided by SVES differs from the address in the case record

• Store the address provided by SVES on your system?

• Submit a postal verification form or otherwise attempt to verify the address?

States have reported that the address information provided for SSA beneficiaries by the SVES locate response is generally current information.

When prisoner data is received in the SVES response file, is your State system programmed to automatically generate an inquiry to a prison, without worker intervention, to verify the inmate’s expected date of release, work status and/or parole information? If not automatically, does it generate a caseworker alert?

When verified date of death information is received from SSA thru SVES:

• Does your State flag the case for possible case closure?

• Does your State review the death information and check for potential death or life insurance benefits for children?

Benefits:

Arizona wanted to take full advantage of the SVES Title II data. Since SSA does not have a centralized office in Arizona to receive the IWO notices, the State Systems and Automation Administration decided to associate each county’s child support office(s) to the county’s SSA district office. Arizona automated the issuance of the IWO to each district office on January 17, 2007. In the initial interface, Arizona successfully matched the Title II data to 2,837 cases across all functions. Of the matches, 85 percent were in the enforcement function. Even though the NCP was not receiving current benefits in all cases, there was still value in securing locate information for those individuals. Between January and June 2007, 1,337 IWOs sent to SSA intercepted Title II benefits, resulting in 2,113 payments totaling $553,745.

Colorado uses the SVES prisoner information to increase monthly child support collections. Colorado child support entered into an agree­ment with the Colorado Department of Correc­tions to accept an administrative lien against an inmate’s account for any funds the inmate earns or receives while incarcerated. The Colorado child support agency has matched over 5,000 inmates and is successfully collecting over $25,000 a month from inmate accounts. For 2006, Colorado child support collected nearly $306,000 from garnishment of prisoner accounts. The State staff has also begun working with other States and has been successful in sending administrative liens to prisons in Utah and Florida. Colorado child support case workers say the county jails that report to SVES are a great location source for inmates, even though the prisoner may already have been released. Knowing the State where a person was in­carcerated often leads the caseworker to that person’s location.

Iowa worked with SSA to create a single SSA field office in Iowa that will accept all income withholding notices for payers whose Title II benefits are processed by an Iowa SSA office. SVES data is considered verified and is used for calculating child support obligations and modifying orders. SVES data has also been helpful for identifying disabled payers who may qualify for a reduced amount for arrears through income withholding, referred to as “hardship.” This process is specific to Iowa. Payers who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) may request that their arrears be collected at a reduced amount.

Massachusetts used SVES data for a special arrears management project to identify the “collect­ible” arrears from the statewide system and the SVES, the State was able to identify cases accruing arrears correctly. Massachusetts staff also used SVES to identify incarcerated and deceased NCPs, and persons receiving SSI or SSDI. They first identified all 147,000 of their arrears cases and then requested a SVES locate for the NCPs. Once the SVES information was returned, it was bundled and sent to their regional offices so the cases could be worked. One region alone was able to remove $3.5 million of arrears on cases identified with deceased NCPs. Not only was the State able to reduce arrears, it was able to close a number of cases.

Minnesota automates income withholding orders to SSA for Title II. All SSA office locations are loaded on an employer table that stores addresses and other information about each employer. Once the SSA (employer) is chosen, the income withholding notice process becomes automated. Receipt of Title XVI information is used as an indicator to consider the case for modification, ensuring that the support order is appropriate and any arrears are correctly calculated.

Additional resources:

Child Support Report, September 2007
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2007/csr/csr0709.pdf (1M Adobe PDF)

SVES Conference Call Notes, April 10 and April 12, 2007
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/newhire/library/fcr/conf_call_sves_041207.htm

Technical Assistance Guide, Section 7
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/newhire/library/fcr/tag/tag_s7.pdf (1M Adobe PDF)

---

Download FREE Adobe Acrobat® Reader™ to view PDF files located on this site.

OCSE Home | Press Room | Events Calendar | Publications | State CSE Homepages | OCSE Search
Site Map | FAQs | Feedback
Systems: FPLS | FIDM | State and Tribal | State Profiles
Resources: Grants Information | Información en Español | International | NECSRS | Tribal | Virtual Trainer's Library