Child Support Report XXIV, No. 10, 20020901

Commissioner Sherri Z. Heller's address to the 51st Annual National Child Support Enforcement Association Conference, meeting in New Orleans on August 6, 2002, focused on the theme, "the story behind the numbers."

Speaking to an audience of approximately 1200 - made up of child support employees from Federal, state and local offices, social workers, and vendors - Dr. Heller stated: "In child support, we're used to the idea that the numbers tell the story. I think we need to get in the habit of looking more closely for the story behind the numbers."

Dr. Heller captured the attention of the audience with her statement "there's more to the story than the numbers and you see it when you look at the numbers from a different point of view." For example, look at our successes: there has been a 60 percent increase nationwide in collections in five years; the number of cases with collections has doubled; two thirds of the cases have orders, and two-thirds of the cases with orders actually get collections. Commissioner Heller then "did the math": "If two-thirds of the cases have orders, and two-thirds get collected on, that means we're getting money for four ninths of our customers. Fewer than half."

Dr. Heller spoke of the maturing of the child support program. It is no longer just a cost recovery program for states to recoup welfare expenditures. It can mean the difference between making it financially or having to go back on welfare. Research shows, the Commissioner said, that women have a 31 percent chance of returning to welfare in the first six months after leaving the rolls. But, if they receive as little as $100 a month in child support, the chances of returning go down to 10 percent.

Commissioner Heller also raised the issue of undistributed collections. Referring to her years working in a county courthouse followed by the experience of overseeing the development of a statewide Disbursement unit for collection and distribution of child support in Pennsylvania, she believes that the problem of undistributed collections has always existed. However, the Commissioner stated, "automation is helping us to quantify the problem that has always been there. I don't think that automation or state disbursement units created the problem of undistributed collections. I think it's shone a spotlight on it." The Commissioner further noted that in some states undistributed collections have gone down. Which is another part of the story behind the numbers.

The second major point of Dr. Heller's speech was to raise the issue of "the importance of the child support enforcement program maturing to the point at which we don't oversimplify." An example of this, the Commissioner cited, is when we "apply the same rule, no matter what," and we don't "take into account the complexity of the situation."

She then listed areas of the child support program where we need to steer clear of "simple answers" and opt instead for more "mature answers." One area is the management of arrears. The simple answer would be no compromise. A more mature answer might be to try and find a way to "reduce the debt owed to government if the obligor pays regularly on current and some on arrears." Another area is marriage. The simple answer is that this is not our issue since our clients are divorced or not planning to marry. The mature answer, the Commissioner suggested, might be to look at the studies that show that at the time of paternity establishment, most couples are romantically involved. So we ought to try and find a way to bring the subject of marriage up.

Dr. Heller ended her remarks by reminding the audience that Congress and the American people have entrusted us with extraordinarily powerful tools, "but, we will lose that faith and trust if we don't tell the story behind the numbers - acknowledging who is and who isn't getting the help they need." In conclusion, the Commissioner said, "our customers are looking to us for justice. We are not just a collection agency. We are protecting kids from injustice. This work is hard, but it is noble."

OCSE recently asked staff members at HHS' Office of the Inspector General some general questions we thought would be of interest to CSR readers.

A: The Office of Inspector General's statutory mission is to protect the integrity of the department's programs as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those programs. The mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits, investigations, and inspections.

A: Ms. Janet Rehnquist was sworn in as HHS' fourth Inspector General on August 8, 2001. Prior to joining HHS, she served for several years as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, concentrating on health care fraud enforcement.

A: The OIG is organized into five components. Of these, states are most likely to interact with the Office of Audit Services, which provides policy direction for and conducts and oversees comprehensive audits of HHS programs, and the Office of Evaluation and Inspections, which conducts evaluations of HHS programs to identify vulnerabilities, to prevent and detect fraud, waste and abuse, and to promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness in HHS programs.

A: As the agency responsible for the integrity of HHS' more than 300 programs, OIG conducts periodic audits and inspections of those programs, including OCSE programs, to assess their efficiency, effectiveness and economy.

OIG also works closely with OCSE on enforcing child support orders. The two agencies collaborated in 1998 in the development and implementation of "Project Save Our Children" (PSOC), a successful special initiative aimed at the most egregious nonsupport cases.

A: The OIG commits resources to those projects that best identify deficiencies in the department's programs. However, as the work planning process is ongoing, the focus of many of these projects can evolve in response to new information and shifting priorities. At the beginning of each fiscal year, OIG issues a work plan that briefly describes the various projects to be addressed during the year.

Q: How does OIG determine the methodology to be employed in conducting audits and evaluations?

A: OIG auditors first establish the audit's objectives and then define the scope and methodology to achieve those objectives. For example, if the objective of an audit is to determine whether a grantee is providing services to eligible recipients, auditors would first identify the laws and regulations that apply to the subject of the audit, and then test the actual operations of the program against the controlling laws and regulations. Recommendations on how to solve the problem are submitted to the appropriate agency. The Office of Evaluation and Inspections also uses various methodologies, including mailing surveys to locations or individuals, conducting field visits to interview individuals, reviewing case files, and examining various data bases.

A: Follow-up studies are routinely performed, especially to update audits and inspections that identified serious vulnerabilities or deficiencies in department programs or operations. Such work is performed primarily to assess whether the problems identified in the earlier study persist, and to determine whether proposed corrective action was taken, and, if so, to what effect.

A: The OIG receives study proposals from various sources. Suggestions that are timely, practical, and pertinent to the OIG mission are given consideration. Because of limited resources, OIG must be critically selective in deciding which studies to undertake, giving priority to requests from the Congress and the Secretary.

A: Yes. They are posted to the OIG Web site for easy public access. The Internet address is www.oig.hhs.gov. Paper copies of those documents may be obtained by contacting the OIG's Office of Public Affairs at 202-619-1343.

A: Yes. Some states and the District of Columbia have centralized offices with the same or a similar range of responsibilities as those of a federal Office of Inspector General. Other states have attorneys general, auditors, fraud investigators, and other oversight and enforcement entities to protect the integrity of their respective programs.

A: The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, and OIG, the investigative arm of HHS, have a collaborative and cooperative relationship that is structured to fulfill their respective missions while minimizing duplicative efforts. While OIG's focus is on HHS programs and operations, GAO has broad authority to evaluate all federal programs and activities, and provides analyses, options, recommendations, and other assistance to help the Congress make effective oversight, policy, and funding decisions.

Jan Rothstein was the OIG-GAO Liaison for the Technical Assistance Branch of the Division of State, Tribal, and Local Assistance.

During National Payroll Week, September 3 through 7, 2002, the American Payroll Association chose to highlight the nation's child support program as its partner in government. Child support programs across the county benefit immensely from the information employers provide through new hire reporting and from the child support collected through income withholding.

To celebrate Payroll Week, Virginia's Department of Social Services hosted a kickoff showcasing the partnership between child support and employers in the collection of child support. Connie White and Phyllis Sisk, of the Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement, developed the program for the event, which included a tour of the State Disbursement Unit where members of the press could see first hand how automation works.

The commitment of Virginia's more than 175,000 employers helps improve the lives of our children, according to the Virginia Department of Social Services Acting Commissioner, Ray C. Goodwin. He stated further, "Employers play a significant role; employers and their payroll staff are tremendous partners in collecting child support for children in Virginia. Virginia's employers, in partnership with the child support program, are critical in the collection of child support for more than one quarter of Virginia's children." Mr. Goodwin went on to add that in the past year, 75% of collections totaling $474 million came from income withholding by employers.

Virginia's Secretary of Health and Human Resources, Jane H. Woods, OCSE Commissioner Sherri Z. Heller, American Payroll Association Executive Director, Dan Maddux, and a representative from Canon, a large Virginia employer, joined Mr. Goodwin and the staff of the Virginia child support office in paying tribute to the nation's wage earners and employers.

Dr. Heller expressed appreciation to employers for the tremendous job that they do in helping "the child support enforcement community do its job". She encouraged employers to take advantage of the more efficient electronic transmissions to reduce the likelihood of human error in payment processing. Virginia's State Disbursement Unit processes $2 million in collections each day, with over 16.5% of those collections coming through electronic funds transfer, and over 99% of collections disbursed to the family within 48 hours.

The comments of Mr. Maddux and the representative from Canon reflected the employers' commitment to the child support cause. Employers recognize that their role is key in getting support to families and they are willing to do all they can to facilitate its collection. They also appreciate all the work that child support workers do to provide assistance to them, whenever needed. The Virginia child support program, Dr Heller, and Carol Callahan, the manager of OCSE's Employer Services Division, received plaques from the American Payroll Association, commemorating the partnership between the child support enforcement community and employers.

A pilot program in two Minnesota Counties - Ramsey and Stearns - has been successful in reconciling parents' differences regarding visitation, according to state evaluation.

The Cooperation for the Children program provides a means to help parents experiencing problems with parenting time and custody, or seeking to change existing arrangements, through low-cost mediation services.

The Supreme Court of Minnesota State Court Administrator's Office released its evaluation in April 2002. About 75 percent of all the mediation contacts in both counties resulted in some form of agreement - a satisfactory rate compared to similar programs nationwide.

"We do everything we can to help parents resolve their differences," said Cynthia Waters, director of Ramsey County's program. "Sometimes that means agreements that don't necessarily go in a court file." Waters said the county staff encourages voluntary participation before automatically getting court orders. She hopes to streamline their process even more for parents who wish to stay out of the court system. "These two pilot projects are funded through a combination of Federal Child Access and Visitation Grant and state funds."

Reprinted from the Minnesota "Child Support Quarterly." These two pilots are funded through a combination of Federal Child Access and Visitation Grant and state funds.

13-17 - Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council (WICSEC)

19th Annual Training Conference, Portland, OR, Cheri Breitenstein, (503) 945-6158.

16-18 - Michigan Family Support Council, 20th Annual Training Conference,

Harbor Springs, MI, Ellen Durnan, (517) 241-8051.

20-22 - Illinois Family Support Enforcement Association (IFSEA)

14th Annual Conference & Members' Meeting, Naperville, IL, Yvette Perez-Trevino, (630) 844-8935.

20-23 - Ohio Family Support Association Conference, Columbus, OH, Ashton Allen, (513) 946-7197.

20-24 - ACF/State Information Systems Meeting, Honolulu, HI, Robin Rushton, (202) 690-1244, Note: State and Federal Staff Only - No Vendors.

27-31 - Domestic Relations Association of Pennsylvania Annual Conference, Farmington, PA, Jeannette Bowers, (717) 299-8145 or 299-8138.

18-19 - National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA)

Rocky Mountain Interstate Conference, Denver, CO, Jacqueline Williams, (202) 624-8180.

20-22 - Nevada Child Support Enforcement Training Conference, Mesquite, NV,

Tanya Osborne, (775) 684-0704.

11-13 - 21ST Annual New Jersey Child Support Conference, Atlantic City, NJ,

Eileen Coughlin, (609) 588-3399.

12 - National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA) Child Support Tele-Talk Broadcast, The New Uniform Parentage Act, Jacqueline Williams, (202) 624-8180.

A reciprocal child support agreement between the United States and the Kingdom of Norway was signed on June 10, 2002. Pictured here is the signing which took place in the historic Treaty Room of the Department of State. From left to right: Jens Eikaas, Deputy Chief of Mission, Norwegian Embassy; Knut Vollebaek, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Norway; Dr. Sherri Z. Heller, Commissioner, Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement; William Howard Taft, IV, Legal Advisor to the Secretary of State; Mary Helen Carlson, Attorney for Private International Law; Department of State.

Under the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is required to submit a report to the Congress regarding the accuracy of the data maintained by the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) and the effectiveness of the procedures designed to provide for the security of such data. The report, which was signed by Secretary Thompson on August 28, is available at: /programs/cse/pubs/2002/reports/ndnh_data_accuracy.html

It is in two parts. The first part describes a series of studies that have been performed to verify the accuracy of the data in the NDNH. The report concludes that the accuracy of the data on the NDNH is, in general, high. The second part provides an overview of the extensive security requirements and procedures for the NDNH. These requirements and procedures are integral to NDNH operations and remain a high priority for the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement.

Dr. Sherri Z. Heller, Commissioner of the Office of Child Support Enforcement, was one of the featured speakers at the American Public Human Services Association's Information Systems Management meeting in Phoenix, Arizona on August 19, 2002.

The Commissioner emphasized the challenges facing information technology staff and government officials in striking the correct balance between competing interests. For example, she suggested ways to encourage strategic collaboration among different levels of government, how to maintain a balance between the need for Federal oversight and monitoring and a state's desire for flexibility in the approval process for systems expenditures, and how to maintain a balance between security/privacy and the desire for service integration and better communication between these "stovepipe" systems. Dr. Heller also discussed her recent testimony before the House Subcommittee on Government Reform and Procurement Policy.