Note: This analysis of the Interstate Reform Initiative (IRI) Working Draft Concept Paper follows the lay-out of that paper. Further, throughout this analysis, underlined text denotes impact on the Oregon Child Support Program and recommendations.

I) Application or Referral for Services

IRI states that TANF/IV-E/Medicaid agencies would refer individuals to the IV-D agency in the state in which the family receives TANF/IV-E/Medicaid assistance. It is unclear whether the IRI definition of “family” includes the noncustodial parent. If “family” includes the noncustodial parent and the custodial parent lives in a state other than the noncustodial parent's state, and the noncustodial parent applies for services, the TANF/IV-E/Medicaid agencies would refer the noncustodial parent to the state in which the custodial parent resides. If, on the other hand, “family” does not include the noncustodial parent, the noncustodial parent could apply for, and receive, services in his or her state. IRI must clarify whether “family” includes the noncustodial parent.

IRI appears to contemplate that only the custodial parent would ever apply for services. In reality, the noncustodial parent may also apply for services. IRI should clarify how the case manager state is determined when the noncustodial parent is the applicant for services.

IRI regulations should contain language to ensure that there is never more than one case manager state.

II) Customer Service

IRI requires that states adopt best practices regarding customer service, develop a 1-800 number and develop methods for communicating with IV-D agencies in other states in a timely manner. These means of improving customer service all require a commitment of resources. IRI should provide more details on improving customer service as well as how the resources needed to improve customer service will be funded.

IRI regulations should require that, for each case being worked, a case manager state identify to states providing limited services on that case a specific contact person. This would help expedite timely service in the event that the limited services state must contact the case manager state.

III) Establishment of a Support Order

No comments.

IV) Determination of Controlling Order and Reconciling Arrearages in IV-D Cases

IRI specifies that the case manager state determine if there are multiple orders in a case. However, IRI does not specify how the case manager state is to make this determination. To be clear, IRI should specify that to determine if there are multiple orders in a case, the case manager state must request case status from the Federal Case Registry (FCR). Since this would necessitate that states submit case information to the FCR, the IRI should also include this as a requirement.

(A) When a Controlling Order Determination Must be Initiated
IRI should specify that only a IV-D agency with personal jurisdiction over all parties may initiate a controlling order determination. IRI should also specify which state would do a controlling order determination when more than one state has personal jurisdiction over the parties. Further, since controlling order determinations are an essential piece of interstate child support, the controlling order determination must be binding on all states. A penalty should be assessed for those states that do not do or comply with controlling order determinations.

(B) Responsibility to Provide Notice and Gather Appropriate Documentation
IRI should specify the time frames in which a state IV-D agency from which information, including orders and payment history, was requested must provide that information.

(C) Reconciliation of Arrears
Under IRI, the controlling order determination would include a reconciliation of arrears owed on all related records. This would have a large impact on Oregon. Oregon currently does controlling order determinations; however, Oregon does not do a reconciliation of arrears at the same time. Requiring that a reconciliation of arrears be done as part of the controlling order determination will slow down the controlling order determination, thus delaying child support payments to the family (since Oregon does not enforce the order until the controlling order determination has been completed). Rather than requiring that reconciliation of arrears be done as a part of the controlling order determination, it would facilitate more timely flow of child support to the family to follow a two-step process. First, determine the controlling order. Second, begin enforcement of the ordered amount as soon as the controlling order determination is complete and, at that time, begin the process to reconcile the arrears. This two-step process allows for both the controlling order determination and the reconciliation of arrears to be done but also shortens the time period that the family must wait to begin receiving support.

Requiring a reconciliation of arrears would also require a systems change so that reconciliation of arrears could be done automatically.

(D) Referral to Appropriate Tribunal
IRI provides that the IV-D agency responsible for initiating the controlling order determination would refer the controlling order determination request to the appropriate tribunal in its own state or to another state's IV-D agency for referral to the appropriate tribunal in that state. Because there may be instances in which more than one tribunal may have jurisdiction and thus be appropriate to refer the controlling order determination request to, IRI should provide more specific information on which tribunal to refer a controlling order determination request to when more than one tribunal has jurisdiction.

(E) Notification of Interested Tribunals of Notification
No comments.
(F) Continued Enforcement
IRI provides that enforcement continue while a controlling order determination is being done. Oregon currently does not enforce orders while a controlling order determination is being done. A two-step process may be more appropriate than continued enforcement. First, stay enforcement while the controlling order is being determined. Second, begin enforcement of the ordered amount as soon as the controlling order determination is complete but before reconciliation of arrears has been done. This would ensure that the controlling order is done (and the proper order enforced) but will also allow enforcement to begin in a more timely manner than would staying enforcement until arrears are reconciled.

(G) Resolution of Issues Associated with Determination
No comments.

(V) Responsibility for Enforcement

(A) Case Manager Responsibilities
(1) IRI provides that the case manager state continue management of a case when current support has been terminated and only arrears are owed, even if no arrears are owed to the case manager state. One possible problem with this concept is that, on a case worker level, there may be very little incentive for a case worker, already overburdened with cases connected to that worker's state, to work a case with no connection to that worker's state. This provision of IRI requires the ability to understand the concept of working on a national basis, rather than just for one's state. Although this concept may be ideal, in reality it may prove difficult to implement. IRI should include training incentives and/or penalties to help ensure that states will make working cases with no connection to a state the same priority as working cases with a connection.

(2) Certification for Federal Offset
IRI provides that only the case manager state be allowed to certify arrearages for collection through federal offset (including IRS, administrative offset, passport denial and multi-state FIDM). Since all states currently certify arrearages for collection through federal offset, which creates duplication of effort and generates collections for only the first state to certify arrearages, this IRI proposal would be a positive change. However, in Oregon, certifying arrearages for collection through federal offset is part of the full enforcement of a case and is done automatically. Therefore, Oregon, and states that operate like Oregon, must make systems changes to accommodate both cases that need full enforcement and limited services cases for which the state will not automatically certify arrearages for collection through federal offset.

(3) Submittal to Credit Reporting Agencies
According to IRI, only the case manager state would report arrearages to credit reporting agencies. Oregon currently reports all cases that meet the arrears threshold to credit reporting agencies. Therefore, Oregon, and states that operate like Oregon, must make systems changes so that only those cases for which a state is the case manager state would be submitted by that state to credit reporting agencies.

(B) Limited Services Responsibilities
No comments other than those under (V)(A)(2) and (3) above.

(VI) Receipt, Distribution and Disbursement of Collections and Maintenance of Payment Records

(A) Receipt of Collections
Since IRI requires that any payments made to the controlling order state be redirected through the case manager state, IRI regulations should include that any redirection of payments be done by electronic funds transfer. This is much more timely and efficient than redirecting payments through the mail.

Passing all payments through the case manager state, rather than directly to the family, will slow the flow of dollars to the family. Again, IRI should include regulations that states set up electronic funds transfer to counteract the slowing effect of routing payments through the case manager state.

(B) Distribution and Disbursement of Collections
No comments.

(C) Maintenance of Payment records
IRI should specify how payment and accounting information is to be shared between the controlling order state, which is to maintain a payment record, and the case manager state, which is to maintain a complete accounting record.

IRI should address how the case manager state is to maintain complete accounting records when the rules of the controlling order state apply. IRI seems to anticipate that state computer systems will be set up to track complex accounting issues involving multiple states. This will require large systems changes.

(D) Resolution of Payment Record Disputes
IRI specifies that all distribution disputes would be solved in the case manager state. However, IRI does not specify whether distribution will be based on the rules of the controlling order state or whether IRI contemplates that there will be uniform distribution rules. If there are not uniform distribution rules, each state would be required to know and understand every other states' distribution rules in order to solve any distribution disputes that arose. Again, this would require systems changes.

(E) Communication between States
IRI provides that states provide necessary case/collection/distribution updates expeditiously. This is too vague to be helpful. IRI should define the terms “necessary case/collection/distribution,” “updates” and “expeditiously” so that each state does not give each term its own definition and then proceed to operate according to that definition. Further, the definition of “expeditiously” should include explicit time lines and IRI should include penalties to be assessed if a state fails to meet these time lines.