Instructions for Allocation of Incentive Payments Among Jurisdictions
December 21, 1976
TO:STATE AGENCIES ADMINISTERING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PLANS APPROVED UNDER TITLE IV-D OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS
SUBJECT:Instructions for allocation of incentive payments among jurisdictions pursuant to section 458(b) the Act.
BACKGROUND:In OCSE-AT-76-12, dated July 22,1976, we distributed proposed instructions for allocation of incentive payments pursuant to section 458(b) of the Social Security Act. As a result we received 14 comments from State agencies and 2 from county district attorneys. Only 2 of the comments argued on behalf of including initiating jurisdictions in the allocation. The other comments either supported the proposed instructions or partially misunderstood them. Most questions concerned the concept of an assisting jurisdiction and the difficulty of agreeing on whether or not there should be an allocation. We believe there will be relativity few cases in which more than two jurisdictions will be involved in an interstate case. However, since section 458(b) of the Act assumes that there may be such situations, our allocation procedures must also recognize the possibility of assisting jurisdictions.
CONTENT:Section 458(b) of the Social Security Act requires the Secretary to prescribe a manner of allocating the incentive payment provided for by section 458(a) of the Act whenever more than one jurisdiction is involved in the enforcement or collection of child support. 45 CFR 302.52(e) provides that the Office of Child Support enforcement will issue instructions prescribing the manner of allocating incentive payments.
Section 1 - Definitions
1. Initiating jurisdiction
The IV-D agency (or representative of the IV-D agency pursuant to a cooperative agreement) that represents made to the State in intrastate cases according to the requirements of section 458(a) of the Act and 45 CFR 302.52(a)
Section 2- Allocation of incentives cases
In interstate cases in which there is no assisting jurisdiction, all of the incentive shall be paid to the responding jurisdiction.
The activity of the initiating jurisdiction is considered to be de minimis in comparison to the activity of the responding jurisdiction.
In interstate cases in which there is one or more assisting jurisdictions, the State IV-D agencies of the responding jurisdiction(s) must agree on the allocation of the incentive payments. (The State IV-D agency of the initiating jurisdiction is excluded from this determination since its activity is considered to be de minimis.) If the State IV-D agencies agree that the activity of the assisting jurisdiction(s) is de minimis in comparison to the activity of the responding jurisdiction, all of the incentive shall be paid to the responding jurisdiction.If the State IV-D agencies do not agree that the activity of the assisting jurisdiction(s) is de minimis, the incentive payment must be divided equally among the responding jurisdiction and the initiating jurisdiction(s). The responding jurisdiction shall be responsible for making payment to the assisting jurisdiction(s) after receiving the entire incentive from the initiating jurisdiction.
SUPERSEDED MATERIAL: OCSE-AT-76-12, dated July 22, 1976
INQUIRES: OCSE Regional Representatives