Rationale for Redefining State Roles in Interstate Case Processing Regulations
- IV-D interstate regulations, published in 1988, have not kept up with Federal legislative activity, technology enhancements or improved methods of securing support for children across State lines.
- We need to clarify State roles, create standardized rules to revolve longstanding interstate issues and reconcile out-of-date interstate regulations to today's interstate case processing world.
- Under UIFSA, PRWORA and FFCCSOA, State IV-D agencies have authority to take actions directly across State lines, by-passing IV-D agencies in those States. They must recognize orders and enforcement actions taken by other States, determine controlling orders and reconcile arrearages accruing under multiple orders.
- Customer service and accurate payment records are critical in interstate situations. The State in which a family is receiving assistance or applies for IV-D services is in the best position to ensure responsive customer service and timely payment distribution.
- Current regulations are built on a two-State, one-by-one, paper-oriented interstate case-processing model. However, experience has shown that taking actions to establish and secure support directly across State lines, and using electronic communication and mass case processing, often increase support collections for children.
- States are pursuing direct enforcement techniques authorized under UIFSA and PRWORA, resulting in duplication of enforcement actions, inconsistent arrearage balances, and the potential for confusion for States, employers, financial institutions and families.
- These direct activities often by-pass the two-State process that is recognized in the interstate regulations and programmed into statewide automated systems, in some cases despite there being an open interstate IV-D case.
- We need to maximize the benefits of direct actions and mass case processing and eliminate duplication of effort by setting specific roles and responsibilities for each State. Direct enforcement techniques should not increase the burden on employers and other critical sources of securing collections. Accurate accounting will ensure fair treatment of obligors.
- To that end, proposed regulations would redefine the role of the initiating State as the manager of a IV-D interstate case. The initiating/case manager State would take whatever actions it can take and seek assistance from other, responding States when necessary, as well as allocate and disburse payments to ensure accurate distribution and payment records.
- Any other State's role would be to respond to requests for assistance or take any actions that the initiating State cannot take itself. Assistance may be needed from several States.
- In response to States' concerns, we are working to minimize the impact on State systems of excluding additional services or actions that would be the responsibility of the initiating/case manager State (e.g., income withholding if direct withholding is in place, and reporting to consumer credit agencies). Currently, responding States do not submit arrearages in TANF cases for Federal income tax refund offset.
- In response to a second State concern, we will address allocation of all collections among States with assigned arrearages and families, and the associated accounting and reporting issues. States will receive FFP for costs of providing limited services and States collecting support will continue to count those collections for incentives purposes.
- Any change in IV-D interstate case processing regulations and procedures will include adequate time for necessary systems reprogramming, extensive technical assistance and training, and enhanced capabilities for electronic communications among all involved.