USVI Public Records

Document text

ED 305 159 TITLE INSTITUTION REPORT NO PUB DATE NOTE AVAILABLE FROM PUB TYPE EDRS PRICE DESCRIPTORS IDENTIFIERS ABSTRACT DOCUMENT RESUME PS 017 875 Child Support: State Progress in Developing Automated Enforcement Systems. Fact Sheet for Congressional Requesters. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. Div. of Human Resources. GAO/HRD-89-10FS Feb 89 29p. U.S. General Accounting Office, Post Office Box 6015, Gaithersburg, MD 20877 (first 5 copies free, additional copies $2.00 each, 25% discount on orders for 100 or more copies). Reports - General (140) MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. *Administrator Attitudes; *Automation; Financial Support; *Law Enforcement; National Surveys; *Program Development; *State Programs *Child Support Enforcement Program; District of Columbia; Guam; Puerto Rico; Virgin Islands In a background report and five appendices, this fact sheet reviews the automation status of state child support enforcement programs, giving particular attention to the status of automation efforts, state and federal officials' views, a.id reasons for progress or lack of progress. Information was obtained primarily by telephone interviews of officials in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. As of May 1988, each of the 54 governmental units reported using some automation for its Child Support Enforcement Program. Provided in Appendix I are requirements for enhanced funding; in Appendix II, the status of state automcAed systems as of May 1988; in Appendix III, views of state and Office of Child Support Enforcement officials on state progress in automating systems; and, in Appendix IV, comments from the Department of Health and Human Services. Appendix V lists major contributors to the fact sheet. (RH) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original cocument. *** GAO H I; 4 of (;,1() III? 1)) Int `, tc niled States lieneral .kceolintinwOrlict. Fact Sheet for Congressional 1):,e(Iti(--,tet.,, U DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educahonal Resarch and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION beCENTER (ERIC) This document has en reproduced as received born the person or organicatIon onginoing It r Minor changes have been made to .mprove reproduction Quality Points of new or opinions stated in this docu mint do not necessarily represent official OERI positron or policy CHILD UPPORT State Progress in Developing Automated fafforcement Systems th 4 . 4 c f 4 :About (I41. tiers ('o'er. The new colof of our report covers represents the latest step in GAO's efforts-to) improve the presentation of our reports. GAO Status of State Automation of Child Support Enforcement Programs United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548 Human Resources Division B-231313 February 10, 1989 The Honorable Thomas J. Downey Acting Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources Committe' on Ways and Means House of Representatives The Honorable Hank Brown Subcommittee on Human Resources Committee on Ways and Means House of Representatives In response to your July 19, 1988, request (as Acting Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Public Assistance and Unemployment Compensation) and discussions with your office, we reviewed the automation status of state Child Support Enforcement pro- grams. Expressing concern that states may not be making satisfactory progress in developing automated systems for these programs, you asked that, for each state, we provide information on automation status, state and federal officials' views, and reasons for progress or lack of progress. We obtained information, primarily by telephone interview, from offi- cials in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands (these four are included in our review as states to simplify the presentation of our data) and in the Office of Child Support Enforcement (ocsE), which administers the Child Support Enforcement Program at the federal level. A summary of our results is presented below. Details are presented in the fact sheet. As of May 1988, each of the 54 states we reviewed reported using some automation for its Child Support Enforcement Program. Fifty-two states reported being in one of the follow 1.1g phases for statewide automated systems that are comprehensive, that is, meet all program requirements. preplanning, planning, developing, installing, mostly operating, or fully operating. Lit GA0/ HRD-89-10FS Automating Child Support Systenet 8-231313 Two other states had no plans for statewide, comprehensive systems, but reported using automation I'm some program activities. Of the 52 participating states, 37 were seexing or receiving enhanced funding (that is, 90-percent federal reimbursement for certain witoma- tion costs if prescribed conditions are met, as determined by ocsE). The remaining 15 states were using regular Child Support Enforcement Pro- gram funds (currently 68-percent federal reimbursement) to develop automated systems. Two of the 37 states seeking or receiving enhanced funds were fully operating and had been certified by OCSE as meeting all conditions. Twelve others anticipated being ready for certification as fully operat- ing by the end of 1989. Progress Between 1985 and 1988 OCSE's Transfer Policy Between September 1985 and May 1988, 39 states reported progressing through at least one development phase; 13 remained in the same phase; and 2, having begun automated systems in the past, regressed to the preplanning phase. The number of states in the fully and mostly operat- ing phases increased from 4 to 16 during the period; the number in the developing and installing phases increased from 11 to 15. As of May 1988, however, 23 states had not advanced beyond the planning phase. States generally viewed their progress since 1985 more positively than did OCSE. Forty-three states reported they had made at least moderate progress, but OCSE reported that only 29 had made such progress. State and OCSE officials often agreed on the reasons for state progress or lack of progress. Most frequently cited factors were (1) availability of technical staff; (2) state commitment and leadership; (3) cooperation between state agencies, counties, and courts; and (4) changes in ocsE policies. In 1986, OCSE established a policy generally requiring states seeking enhanced funds to use the existing automated systems of other states (transfer policy) rather than to develop new systems. OCSE expected transfers to (1) save system development time and costs and (2) increase the likelihood of success, especially in states lacking technical staff. This policy caused some states to redirect their automation plans. As of May 1988, 21 states had sought OCSE approval to transfer systems and 4 others were considering transfers. J GAO/HRD-89-10FS Automating Child Support Systems B-231313 Concerning the effects of OCSE'S transfer policy on state automation progress, views of these 25 states varied by state. Five states reported this policy change was a major reason for lack of progress. Five other states reported the change as a major reason for progress; these states and one other anticipated savings in development time and cost. The other 14 states reported that it was too early to preaict savings from transferring systems. The Department of Health and Human Services, in commenting on this fact sheet, said that states were showing continuing progress auto- mating their Child Support Enforcement programs. It noted that several states had progressed beyond their May 1988 status, the time of our assessment; even more progress is anticipated in 1989 (see app. II). As requested by your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this fact sheet until 10 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies to other interested congressional committees and the Secretary of Health and Human Ser- vices; we will make copies available to others on request. The major contributors to this fact sheet are listed in appendix V. aAow-K(Us,3A-rie, Franklin Frazier Associate Director _6 GAO/HRD-89-10FS Automating Child Support Systems Conte/ . `.,s Letter 1 Child Support: State Progress in Developing Automated Enforcement Systems Background Objectives, Scope, and Methodology Status of State Automation Progress Between 1985 and 1988 OCFE's Transfer Policy 6 6 8 9 11 14 Appendix I Requirements for Enhanced Funding 16 Appendix II Status of State Automated Systems (May 1988) 19 Appendix III Views of State and OCSE Officials on State Automation Progress Appendix IV Comments From the Department of Health and Human Services 22 Appendix V Major Contributors to This Fact Sheet 24 25 Tables 'Fable 1: Phase of System Development (1985 and 1988) 12 7 GAO/HRD-89-10PS Automating Child Support Systems Contents Table 2: State Estimates of When Their Systems Will Be 12 Mostly Operating Table 3: Officials' Views on State Progress (Since 1985) 13 Table 4: Major Reasons Reported for State Progress or 14 Lack of Progress (Since 1985) Table II.1: States With Enhanced Funding 19 Table 11.2: States Without Enhanced Funding 21 Figure Figure 1: Implementation Status of Automated Systems 10 for Child Support Enforcement f rograms (May 1988) Abbreviations AFDC Aid to Families With Dependent Children APD advance planning document GAO General Accounting Office HIE Department of Health and Human Services OCSE Office of Child Support Enforcement GAO/HRD-89-10FS Automating Child Support Systems Child Support: State Progress in Developing Automated Enforcement Systems Background In 1975, the Caild Support Enforcement Program, title IV-D of the Social Security Act, was established to strengthen state and local efforts to find absent parents, establish paternity, obtain child support orders, and collect support payments. The program is administered at the federal level by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (ocsE) within the Department of Health and Human Services (FHB). Initially, the program authorized the federal government to reimburse mostprogram costs at a 75-percent rate. Subsequently, the Congress reduced the rate; through fiscal year 1989, it will be 68 percent. The Congress recognized that the use of automation could result in more efficient, cost-effective child support enforcement. In 1980, the Congress authorized enhanced federal funding for planning, developing, and installing comprehensive, statewide automated systems for such enforcement, with costs reimbursed at a 90-percent rate instead of the regular program rate. In the 1984 Child Support Enforcement Amend- ments, the Congress authorized enhanced funding for computer hard- ware and software to operate these automated systems. In May 1986, OCSE established a transfer policy requiring states seeking enhanced funds to transfer existing automated systems from other states rather than to develop new ones, unless there was a compelling reason not to. This policy was in response to the fact that since 1975, OCSE has spent over $100 million to fund over 300 separate state and county automated systems. OCSE predicted that the transfer policy would (1) save development time and expense and (2) ensure greater likelihood of success, especially in states lacking technical staff. In July 1987, ocsE published a revised Automated Systems for Child Sunport Enforcement: A Guide for States Seeking Enhanced Funding. The guide (1) details the qualification requirements for enhanced fed- eral funding and (2) outlines OCSE'S certification process. To qualify for enhanced funding, a state system (proposed or operating) must be state- wideincluding all political jurisdictions and all existing casesand capable of carrying out all the functional (core) requirements that are mandatory. These include case initiation, case management, financial management, enforcement, reporting, and security and privacy (see app. I for additional details). 1In 1987, GAO recommended that OCSE establish automated system standards and certification pro- ced.res to ensure system reliabilit and to facilitate the transfer of existing systems among states (GAO/Information Management r ad Technology Division letter to the Administrator, MIS, Family Support Administration, B-221223, Feb 20, 1987). 9 GAO/HRD-89-10FS Automating Child Support Systems Child Support: State Progress in Developing Automated Enforcement Systems Planning Developing Installing Operating The Child Support Enforcement Program laws and regulations require that states seeking enhanced funding must first submit an advance plan- ning document (APD) to OCSE for review and approval. In addition, according to the guide, an APD for enhanced funding includes such sys- tem information as needs and objectives; alternatives, including transfer plans or an explanation of why a transfer is not feasible; a cost-benefit analysis; and a development timetable. Finally, APDS must be updated at least annually and must be approved by OCSE before enhanced funds are provided for the various development phases of automated systems. The guide identifies four development phases: In the planning phase, a state determines statewide automation n studying alternatives for meeting those needs arid selecting a feasib alternative. Enhanced funding is available for limited hardware, selected travel, salary, fringe benefits, and indirect personnel costs. le In the developing phase, a state produces system specifications and does programming and testing. Enhanced funding is available for computer time used for developing and testing programs, converting existing data to new system files, and preparing system documentation; addition, enhanced funding is available for some training costs and limited time- shared or microcomputer costs for defining or managing the project, making prototypes, and defining and describing performance and tech- nical specifications. In the installing phase, a state puts the system into place. Enhanced funding is available for training, initial data conversion, testing, and hardware (such as computers and data transmission equipment). In the operating phase, a state uses a completely installed, statewide system that has been certified by OCSE as meeting all requirements. Enhanced funding is available for computer hardware and operating system software after OCSE certification, but not for personnel, training, supplies, or other operating costs. In addition to reviewing and approving APDS, OCSE monitors state sys- tems to determine whether projects are proceeding as planned ar 'A) ensure that all requirements are being met. In addition, on request, OCSE 10 GAO/HRD89 -10FS Amomating Child Support Systems Child Support: State Progress in Developing Automated Enforcement System carries out certification reviews to determine whether systems meet all requirements. Enhanced funding may be terminated any time during system development or after certification, if the prescribed conditions and requirements are unmet. States that develop automated systems with regular program funds also must obtain advanced OCSE approval for expenditures that exceed $200,000. These systems, however, are not required to meet core requirements or to use only a single set of software statewide. Moreover, according to the guide, oversight of system acquisition and operation is less stringent than that with enhanced funds. On October 13, 1988, the Family Support Act of 1988 (Pl. 100-485), which includes several provisions affecting the automation of the Child Support Enforcement Program, was enacted. The new law requires that states without comprehensive, statewide automated systems submit APDS to OCSE by October 1, 1991,2 for the future development of such systems. All state systems, however, must be approved as fully operat- ing by October 1, 1995, at which time enhanced funding will be discon- tinued. The new law allows core and general requirements to be waived under certain circumstances; one such circumstance would be the dem- onstration by the states that they have alternative systems enabling them to (1) substantially comply with program requirements and (2) provide assurance that additional steps will be taken to improve their programs. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology The objectives of our review were to (1) determine the automation sta- tus of state Child Support Enforcement programs, (2) ascertain each state's automation progress since 1985, and (3) obtain state and OCSE officials' views on the reasons for progress or lack of progress. The review was done at the request of the Acting Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Public Assistance and Unem- ployment Compensation (now the Subcommittee on Human Resources), House Committee on Ways and Means. In May and June 1988, we did telephone interviews with officials responsible for automating Child Support Enforcement programs :n the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands (these four are included in our review as states to simplify the 2The law requires states to submit their APDs to the MIS Secretary forreview and approval Child Support Enforcement Program administrative responsibility has been delegated to OCSE GAO/HRD-89-10FS Automating Child Support Systems 1. 1 Child Support: State Progress in Developing Automated Enforcement Systems presentation of our data). We obtained information, as of May 1988, on state automation status, asking each state to identify its phase of system development. In addition to using the four major system ;.,hases outlined in the guide (planning, developing, installing, and [fully] operating), we added three pha3es that put state development status in better perspective: No plan: No plans for comprehensive, statewide systems. Preplanning: Planning a comprehensive, statewide system, but no APD submitted to OCSE. Mostly operating: Operating an automated system that covers all politi- cal jurisdictions and meets most core requirerr ents. We also asked states whether (1) they were receiving enhanced funding; (2) they were transferring systems and, if so, if they anticipated time and cost savings; and (3) their existing automated systems met core requirements. In addition, we asked when states anticipated their sys- tems would become mostly operating and ready for certification. To assess state automation progress, we compared each state's develop- ment phase in May 1988 with its phase in September 1985, using infor- mation gathered during an earlier GAO study.3 In addition, we asked states to characterize their automation progress during that period as "great," "much," "moderate," "little," or "none." Further, we asked for state reports on the reasons for progress or lack of progress. Between June and August of 1988, we spoke with OCSE officials respon- sible for oversight of these projects to verify each state's status, obtain views on state progress, and identify reasons for progress or lack of progress. We did not obtain documentation supporting state or OCSE offi- cials' answers, nor did we verify statistical information provided by OCSE. Status of State Automation Of the 54 state systems, as of May 1988, OCSE had certified 2 as fully operating. Fourteen others were mostly operating; 15 were in the devel- oping or installing phase; and 21 were in the preplanning or planning phase. The other 2 states had no plans to establish comprehensive sys- tems. For each state, the automated status in May 1988, by development phase, is shown in figure 1. 3GAO/Information Management and Technology Division letter to the Administrator, HHS, Feb. 20, 1987 I2 GAO/HRD-8910FS Automating Child Support Systems Child Support: State Progress in Developing Automated Enforcement Systems Figure 1: Implementation Status of Autcmated Systems for Child Support Enforcement Programs (May 1988) u. rPIT.........., and& AL4' Ald lea.- -m. N. \\ ar. -.4[1!-- No Plan Planning or Preplanning = Developing or Installing Mostly Operating E= Certified _11.844. ,...awrilk_......... Nt, NW Note Guam has no plan yet and ih District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands ere in planning or preplanning phases Thirty-seven states were seeking or receiving enhanced funding for sys- tem automation as of May 1988. TwoNew York and Delawarewere certified as meeting all 1 t.quirements in May 1988. Nine others were mostly operating, with 3 anticipating being ready for certification in 1988 and 4 in 1989; 2 were unable to say when they would be ready. Of 13 GAO/HRD-89-10FS Automating Child Support Systems Child Support: State Progress In Developing Automated Enforcement Systems the remaining 26 states, 5 anticipated being ready for certification in 1989 (see app. II, table Hi). Of the 37 states with enhanced funding, 17 were using cr planning to transfer a system from another state; 9 had completed or were completing systems that were begun before ocsE's transfer policy took effect; 9 were improving their existing systems, with one considering transfer- ring; and 2 (New Hampshire and Maine) were receiving a federal demonstration grant to develop a new system, which OCSE hopes can ultimately be transferred to other states. Another 15 states (see app. II, table 11.2) were automating without enhanced funding; of these states, 4 were considering seeking such funds and 11 were using regular program funds because obtaining enhanced funding was not worth the time and effort, accord- ing to state or regional OCSE officials (5 states); not all counties and courts were or would be included in a single auto- mated system with uniform software, which disqualified them for enhanced funding (4 states); or enhanced funding had been stopped because OCSE did not believe su"i- cient progress had been made (2 states). Of these 15 states, 5 were mostly operating and reported meeting all or most core requirements, including 1 state that was considering improv- ing its system with a transfer. The other 10 states were in earlier devel- opment phases, with 4 transferring (or planning to transfer) systems from other states and 2 considering this option. The remaining 2 states, Montana and Guam, had no plans to develop comprehensive, statewide systems, but reported using automation for some Child Support Enforcement activities. Montana officials told us they used automation for accounting, and Guam officials said they used a personal computer for quick reference to child support cases. Progress Between 1985 and 1988 Most states have made some progress developing comprehensive, state- wide systems since September 1985, with some making more progress than others. Compared with their status in 1985, 39 states progressed by at least one phase of development-21 by one phase, 13 by two, 3 by three, and 2 by four. Thirteen states remained in the same phase and 14 GAO/HRD439-10FS Automating Child Support Systems Child Support: State Progress In Developing Automated Enforcement Systems two had regressed from their 1985 stati s to the preplanning phase (see app. II). Moreover, between September 1985 and May 1988, the number of states in the fully and mostly operating phases increased from 4 to 16, as shown in table 1. In addition, four of the six states with no plans to develop comprehensive systems in 1985 were in the preplanning or planning phase in 1988. However, as of May 1988, 23 states had not advanced beyond the planning phase. Table 1: Phase of System Development (1985 and 1988) Phase Fully operating (certified) Mostly operating States September 1985 0 4 Installing Developing Planning Preplanning No plan Total 5 6 18 15 6 54 May 1988 2 14 6 9 16 5 2 54 In addition to the 16 states that were fully or mostly operating as of May 1988, 27 others anticipated being mostly or fully operating by the end of 1991, as shown in table 2. Table 2: State Estimates of When Their Systems Will Be Mostly Operating Estimate of when mostly operating As of May 19886 During remainder of 1988 Durirri 1989 During 1990 During 1991 During 1992 During 1994 Did not predict Not applicable' States 16 7 9 7 4 1 1 7 2 °Two of these state systems were certified as fully operating bStates did not plan to develop comprehensive, statewide systems 1 5 _ GAO/HED-89-10FS Automating Child Support Systems Child Support State Progress in Developing Automated Enforcemen c Systems Officials' Views on State Progress Table 3: Officials' Views on State Progress (Since 1985) Officials' Views on Reasons for Progress or Lack of Progress Concerning progress since 1985 in completing comprehensive, statewide automated systems, state views were generally more positive than those of ocsE. Forty-three states reported they had made at least moderate progress, but OCSE reported only 29 states had made such progress, as shown in table 3 (see app. III for additional details). Amount of progress Great State Progress State views OCSE views 15 7 Much Moderate Little None 10 18 8 Not applicable or no comment 2 9 13 19 3 3 State and ocsE officials often agreed on the reasons for state progress or lack of progress, as shown in table 4. Most frequently, states and OCSE attributed progress to these reasonsthe availability of technical staff and strong state commitment and leadership. In the case of reasons for lack of progress, states most often reported lack of technical staff, but OCSE most often reported lack of (1) state commitment and leadership and (2) cooperation between state agencies, counties, and courts. 16 GAO/HRD-89-10FS Automating Child Support Systems Child Support: State Progress in Developing Automated Enforcement Systems Table 4: Major Reasons Reported for State Progress or Lack of Progress (Since 1985) Reason State progress State lack of progress State views OCSE views State views OCSE views Availability of technical staff 10 10 13 9 State commitment and leadership 8 8 6 15 Cooperation between state agencies, counties, and courts 4 0 4 15 OCSE's changing requirements (including transfer policy) 5 2 8 5 User (staff) involvement in system development 5 0 1 0 Delays in preparation and approval of APDs 0 0 4 0 Underestimating complexity of system development 0 0 4 1 Support or pressure from OCSE 3 1 0 0 All other reasons 0 5 5 ,1WAN111.- Note In some cases, state and OCSE officials provided more than one reason Twelve states reported making greater progress between 1987 and 1988 then between 1985 and 1987. This was because they overcame such obstacles as the unavailability of technical staff, a lack of state leader- ship and commitment, poor cooperation from counties, and disagree- ments with OCSE over alternative automation plans (in APDS). OCSE's Transfer Policy In May 1986, OCSE began requiring states seeking enhanced funding to transfer systems from other states rather than develop new ones, unless there was a compelling reason not to. This transfer policy caused some states to redirect their automation plans. As of May 1988, 21 states tiad sought OCSE'S approval to transfer systems, and 4 others were consider- ing transferring (see app. II for additional details). Eleven of the 25 states had submitted plans to OCSE to develop or improve their own sys- tems before OCSE'S transfer policy was announced; these 11 were told, however, that they would have to transfer systems to qualify for enhanced funding. State views varied on the effect of the transfer policy. According to five states, the transfer policy change was a major reason for lack of prog- ress between 1985 and 1988. For example, Texas, which was in the planning phase in 1985, was told to transfer a system instead of devel- oping a new system. As of May 1988, Texas had neither developed a 17 GAO/HRD-89-10FS Automating Child Support Systems Child Support: State Progress in Developing Automated Enforcement Systems new plan nor resubmitted an APD to OCSE. State and oca officials told us Texas was considering transferring a system. Of the 25 states transferring or considering transferring systems, six anticipated time and cost savings; all but one of these states reported the transfer policy as a major reason for their progress. For example, Connecticut advanced from preplanning in September 1985 to mostly operating in May 1988, completing its transfer in 15 months. Connecti- cut reported that transferring assured the quality of its system better than developing 1 million lines of program code (that is, the state's esti- mate of the size of an automated system for its Child Support Enforce- ment Program). According to the remaining 19 states that were transferring systems, it was too early to determine whether there would be savings. As of May 1988, only four of these states had progressed beyond the planning phase. I8 GAO/HRD-88-10FS Automating Child Support Systems Appendix I Requirements for Enhanced Funding Case Initiation Case Management In 1987, OCSE published a revised Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement: A Guide for States Seeking Enhanced Funding. The guide describes the general and functional (core) requirements that states must meet to qualify for enhanced federal funding. The general requirements are as follows: To provide for the establishment of a comprehensive, statewide system for each state's Child Support Enforcement Program, each state must amend its State Plan for Child Support Enforcement under title IV-D of the Social Security Act. The state APD must (1) be approved by OCSE and (2) demonstrate that the proposed system will provide more efficient and effective adminis- tration of the state plan. The state APD must (1) represent the sole effort for developing an auto- mated system undertaken by the state and (2) incorporate all political subdivisions and agencies or individuals carrying out title IV-D activities within the state. The state APD must be developed, submitted, and approved in accord- ance with federal regulations. The state methods and procedures for charging costs of acquiring and operating comprehensive, statewide systems must be in accordance with federal regulations. The state systems must be comprehensive, meeting the mandatory core requirements. The core requirements are as follows: The activities necessary for case identifications at the state agency responsible for the Child Support Enforcement Program include (1) accepting case data and uniquely identifying such case types as Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients, former AFDC recipi- ents who continue to receive child support services, and non-AFDC cli- ents; (2) verifying custodial and absent parents through such interstate and in-state sources as the Federal Parent Locator Service, the Motor Vehicle Administration, and the Employment Security Administration; and (3) giving child support cases priority for processing. The activities necessary for case management are updating, locating, establishing paternity and amount owed, and tracking activities, includ- ing (1) entering on a timely basis all data necessary to process a case; (2) GAO/MD-89-1On Automating Child Support Systems 19 Appendix I Requirements for Enhanced Funding Financial Management Enforcement Reporting Security and Privacy connecting by computer with the state Medicaid system for such data as AFDC, Medicaid, or Social Security numbers for the custrAial parent and names and Social Security numbers for the child and tit,. absent parent; (3) establishing case-closing criteria; (4) locating absent parents, using all available automated sources for assistance; (5) tracking and main- taining data on establishing paternity; (6) recording amount owed; and (7) monitoring and accounting for delinquency and enforcement, state and federal location requests, es' ablishment of paternity, and establish- ment of amount owed. The activities necessary for financial management are accounting, including billing, payment-receipts processing, and proper distribution of collections and incentives for both interstate and in-state cases. Such activities include (1) doing all necessary calculations for determining federal, state, and local shares of collections; (2) facilitating state and federal fiscal and financial reporting; (3) maintaining such accounting management data as type of account, child support obligation, and pay- ment history; (4) supporting varied billing cycles and providing correct calculations of nonpayments; (5) generating notices to delinquent pay- ers; (6) accounting for all payment receipts, identifying them by type of enforcement action; (7) distributing collections; and (8) connecting by computer with the state's AFDC system to determine whether the collec- tions render the case ineligible for AFDC. The activities necessary for enforcement are identifying delinquent pay- ers and connecting by computer with related computer systems, includ- ing (1) periodic screening to determine whether an individual is paying or is obligated to pay in more than one jurisdiction and (2) identifying delinquency cases that require additional action and outdated payment orders that need reevaluation. The activities necessary for reporting are (1) generating operational, management, and required federal reports and (2) in3uring automated audit capability, permitting an expeditious review of all automated data used, produced, and reperted by the system. The activities necessary for security and privacy are safeguarding sensi- tive data and personal information, as required by federal regulations, and protecting the system itself, including (1) establishing appropriate 20 GAO/HRD-89-10FS Automating Child Support Systems Appendix I Requirements for Enhanced Funding administrative, technical, and physical safeguards; (2) implementing physical and staff security plans; (3) establishing security policies to guard against unauthorized system use; (4) establishing internal con- trols over system changes; and (5) develcping system security plans. 21 GAO/HRD-89-10FS Automating Child Support Systems Appendix II Status of State Automated Systems (May 1988) Table 11.1: States With Enhanced Funding' State Status o" system as of Phase(s) System transfer Meets core requirements Expected date Mostly operating Certifiable 5/88 9/85 changed DE Fully° Developing 3 No Yes Now 5/88 NY Fully° Installing 2 No Yes Now 6/88 ID Mostlyc Mostlyc 0 No Yes Now 7/88 CT Mostlyc Preplanning 4 Yes Most Now 9/88 HI Mostlyc Developing 2 No Most Now 12/88 AR Mostlyc Installing 1 No Most Now 1/88 IA Mostlyc Planning 3 No Most Now 10/88 VT Mostlyc Mostlyc 0 No Most Now 3/88 NM Mostlyc Developing 2 No Most Now 12/88 GA Mostlyc Installing 1 No Most Now d IL Mostlyc Developing 2 Nu Most Now a NJ Installing Developing 1 No e 1989 3/89 AL, Installing Planning 2 No e 1989 d CO Installing Planning 2 No e 1988 d VA Installing Planning 2 No e 1988 d SD Developing Preplanning 2 Yes e 1989 1/89 NH Developing Planning 1 No e 1988 2/89 ME Developing Preplanning 2 No e 1989 4/89 MI Developing Planning 1 Yes e 1991 d MN Developing Planning 1 No e 1989 d OK Developing Planning 1 No e 1988 d WI Developing Planning 1 No e 1991 d WY Planning No planning 2 Yes e 1989 7/89 AZ Planning Planning 0 Yes e 1990 d DC Planning Planning 0 Yes e d d FL Planning Preplanning 1 Yes e 1990 d IN Planning Planning 0 Yes e 1590 d KY Planning Preplanning 1 Yes e 1990 d MD Planning Preplanning 1 Yes e 1990 d MO Planning Planning 0 Part e d d (continued) 2 2 GA0/11111:419-10FS Automating Child Support Systems Appendix II Status of State Automated Systems (May 1988) State Status of system as of Phase(s) System transfer Meets core requirements Expected date Mostly operating Certifiable 5/88 9/85 changed MS Planning Preplanning 1 Yes e d d NV Planning Preplanning 1 Maybe e d d OH Planning Planning 0 Yes e 1990 d PA Planning Preplanning 1 Yes e 1992 d RI Planning Preplanning 1 Yes e 1990 d TN Planning No planning 2 Yes e 1991 d WV Planning No planning 2 Yes e d d AAs of May 1988, receiving or had submitted plan to receive enhanced funding eFully operating eMostly operating dSystem expected to meet core requirements when installed eData unavailable 23 GAO/HRD-89-10FS Automating Child Support Systems Appendix II Status of State Automated Systems (May 1988) Table 11.2: States Without Enhanced Funding State Status of system as of Phase(s) System transfer Meets core requirements Expected date Mostly operating Certifiable 5/88 9/85 changed AK Mostly' Installing 1 No Yes Now b l'''') Mostly' Preplanning 4 No Most Now b OR Mostly' Mostly' 0 No Yes Now b UT Mostly' Most lya 0 c Yes Ncw b WA Mostly' Installing 1 No Yes Now b KS Installing Preplanning 3 Yes d 1Pd9 b NB Installing Planning 2 No d 1988 b LA Developing Planning 1 No No 1989 b SC Developing Planning 1 No No 1988 b NC Planning Preplanning 1 No No 1989 b VI Preplanning No planning 1 Yes No 1989 b MA Preplanning Preplanning 0 Maybe No 1991 b CA Preplanning Preplanning 0 Yes° No 1994 b PR Preplanning Developing -2' Yes No g b TX Prep.anning Planning -1" Maybe No g b GU No planning No planning 0 No No b b MT No planning No planning 0 No No b b °Mostly operating bNot applicable bAlthough Utah's existing system met the core requirements, Utah submitted, in July 1988, an APD to OCSE to transfer a system to qualify for enhanced funding °System expected to meet core requirements when installed °Planning to transfer for some counties 'Puerto Rico s system development was halted because of a contractor dispute Puerto Rico is expected to resubmit a funding request when the dispute is settled 9Data unavailable hTexas regressed from the planning to preplanning phase as a result of OCSE's transfer policy 24 GAO/HRD-89-10FS Automating Child Support Systems Appendix III Views of State and OCSE Officials on State Automation Progress State State views' OCSE views' AK Great No comment AL Moderate Little AR Moderate Moderate AZ Moderate Moderate CA None Little CO Great Much CT Much Great DC Little Little DE Great Great FL Moderate Moderate GA Much Much GM No comment No comment HI Much Moderate IA Much Much ID Little Little IL Much Moderate IN Moderate Little KS Great Much KY Little Little LA Moderate None MA Moderate Little MD Moderate Moderate ME Great Much MI Much Moderate MN Moderate Moderate MO Moderate Little MS Little Little MT Little Little NB Great Little NC Moderate None ND Great Much NH Much Great NJ Much Little (continued) GAO/HRD-89-10FS Automating Child Support Systems Appendix III Views of State and OCSE Officials on State Autcmation Progress StEte State views' OCSE views' NM Much Much NV Moderate Little NY Great Great OH Little Little OK Moderate Little OR Much b PA PR Moderate Little Moderate Little RI Great Much SC Great Much SD Great Great TN Moderate Moderate TX Moderate Moderate UT b None VA Moderate L .ile VI Little Little VT Great Great WA Great Great WI Great Moderate WV Little Little WY Great Moderate aRepresent views of state progress between September 1985 and May 1988 in developing automated systems for Child Support Enforcement programs, by state °Not applicable because system developed before September 1985 26 Papa 23 GAO/HRD-89-10PS Automating Child Support Systems Appendix IV Comments From the Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Office of inspector General DEC 13 1988 Mr. Lawrence H. Thompson Assistant Comptroller General U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548 Dear Mr. Thompson: Washington, D C 20201 Thank you for providing us the opportunity to review and comment on the draft fact sheet, "Child Support: States' Progress Developing Automated El .orcement Systems," which you prepared for the Acting Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the House Subcommittee on Public Assistance and Unemployment Compensation, Committee on Ways and Means. The information c stained on the fact sheet is basically accurate. We have no comments or suggestions for revision. We would like to note that States' are continuing to show a high degree of progress in automating the child support enforcement program. Since May, the date of your assessment, several States Y- progressed frcm the project phase as shown in the report. example, South Dakota has progressed from development to installation, and Arizona, Kentucky and Rhode Island have moved from planning to development. We are encouraged by the degree of progress States made in 1988 and anticipate even a greater degree in 1989. Again, thank you for sharing this report with us. Sincerely yours, ,/,, , , , 71- ...-,, L t ''-- Richard P. Kussecow Inspector General GAO/HRD-89-10FS Automating Child Support Systems Appendix V Major Contributors to This Fact Sheet Human Resources Division, Washington, D.C. Franklin Frazier, Associate Director, (202) 275-6193 Daniel M. Brier, Group Director Byron S. Galloway, Assignment Manager San Francisco Regional Office Donald J. Porteous, Site Senior 28 (105460) GAO/HRD-89-10FS Automating Child Support Systems Requests for copies of t. ko reports should be sent to: U.S. General Accounting Office Post Office Box 6015 Gaithersburg, )gar} land 20877 Telephone ...)42-275-62.11 The first fix e copies of each report are free. Additional copies are ti2.00 each. There is a 2 "0 discount on orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address. rr Orders must be prepaid cash or b check or nione order made out to the Superintendynt of I/ociinents,