14.01.2025 Views

January 2025 CSQ

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.


Table of Contents

January 2025

NCSEA President’s Message ...................................................................... 3

Back to the Future: 25 Years Later .............................................................. 6

Celebrating 50 Years of the Child Support Program .................................... 9

Charting the Impact of 50 Years: Federal Child Support Services ............. 11

Unanimous Consent: A Legislative Victory for Child Support Equity .......... 12

Employment and Training Services For Child Support Agencies: The Rule

is Final!...................................................................................................... 14

Intersecting Drug Court Participation and Child Support Obligations: A

Journey Through Monroe County, Wisconsin ............................................ 19

The Role of Thoughtful Consideration: Challenges and Best Practices for

Requiring SNAP Cooperation ................................................................... 27

Holistic Changes: Continuing to Build a Program that Serves Families ..... 33

The Numbers Side of Child Support: Audits & Federal Reporting ............. 37


Charles Smith,

NCSEA President

Happy New Year, NCSEA!

I hope that your 2025 is off to a wonderful start.

Like you, I have spent the last few weeks reflecting on 2024. I thought

about the successes and setbacks along the way, things that happened

that I wish I had done or not done, very successful things, and things that

did not go according to plan even with my best efforts. This is why I view

life as a journey of continuous improvement. While I set personal and

professional goals, I try not to fixate on the highs or lows that occur

throughout the year. Each aspect presents an opportunity to learn, improve,

and excel.

This is what I love about being a part of the child support community. Each

day, thousands of you get up and decide you can make a difference in the

lives of others. When dealing with challenges in your personal life, you do

your best for your team and families. When dealing with professional

challenges, you still do your best for your team and families. Your efforts

make your state, your tribal program, and our country better.

As we think about things being better, I cannot believe our Policy Forum

gets better every year. I can assure you that everyone who attends the

meeting, in person or virtually, will be excited about the strides we have

made as a program and challenged about the work still to be done. The

planning committee, led by Trish Skophammer, Carla West, and Katie

Kenney, has amassed tremendous national talent and speakers. I am so

appreciative of the committee’s work and desire to create an environment

for discussion, encouragement, and learning.


When I think about people who loved and worked tirelessly for NCSEA, I

would be remiss without mentioning the loss of our former Executive

Director, Ann Marie Ruskin. Ann Marie’s smile and laughter could brighten

any room. She was laid to rest earlier this month. Her love of NCSEA and

the love that NCSEA has for her will ensure that her name will be

continually spoken. Our hearts go out to her husband, Glenn, and their

children. We hope they find comfort in knowing the child support

community mourns with them.

In conclusion, I want to touch on some initiatives underway that will help

propel our program forward. For many years, our tribal partners have

sought parity with state programs about access to federal offsets and

federal tax information. Through their tireless efforts, NCSEA, and multiple

states across the country, bipartisan legislation was finally passed to

achieve this milestone and fix a longstanding IRS issue regarding

contractors for states.

The child support program was established in 1975. Happy 50 th

Birthday!!! Over the years, I have seen many changes in federal and state

regulations, requirements, and laws. Programs and associations have

changed their names to reflect the current services provided and be more

inclusive to the parents we are here to support. In December 2024, the

NCSEA Board approved the latest revision of our legislative package (2.1).

This package contains proposals to further modernize the child support

program by giving us incentives, tools, and flexibility to provide personcentered

child support services that mitigate unequal outcomes and

experiences for families. Keep an eye out for its official release. Cheers to

the next 50 years!

Thanks for all that you do to support families.

I hope your 2025 is filled with joy, peace, blessings, and prosperity.

Charles Smith is the Vice President of Business Development for GreenCourt Legal Technologies, LLC. Charles

worked for 27 years in the Office of the Attorney General of Texas, Child Support Division. He served as a volunteer

in a child support office and worked his way up to serve as Texas’ IV-D Director. Charles has been active in NCSEA

for many years, serving on the board from 2007-2015 and from 2018 to the present. He has worked on almost every

committee within NCSEA and served as an NCSEA U instructor in 2018 and 2019. Charles is the “POP” to four

beautiful granddaughters and a proud graduate of Texas Tech University.


In Memory of Ann Marie Ruskin

The National Child Support Engagement Association

(NCSEA) celebrates the life and legacy of Ann Marie

Ruskin, whose leadership and vision forever shaped our

community.

Ann Marie was deeply passionate about the Child Support

Communique (CSQ), nurturing its growth and impact as a

leading voice for the child support program. Her dedication

to NCSEA brought transformative initiatives like NCSEA U

and the Leadership Symposium, leaving a lasting mark on

the organization and the families it serves.

Her legacy lives on through the CSQ and the countless

contributions she made to NCSEA, inspiring all who

continue this important work.


Back to the Future: 25 Years Later

by Mary Ann Wellbank

In honor of the child support program’s 50th

anniversary, the CSQ editorial committee

brings you this reprint of “Mission for the

Millennium,” first published in the Fall 1999

CSQ, and based upon a presentation I gave

at the 1999 NCSEA conference. The idea

was to envision—with a little humor added

in—what the child support program would

look like in the year 2025. As we reflect on

the progress made over the last quartercentury,

it's fascinating to revisit earlier

expectations and observations. While some

of the planned improvements have been

implemented, others have grown in

unexpected ways, showing both the child

support program's development and the challenges it faces as it continues

to adapt to the changing needs of families.

Mary Ann Wellbank has been involved in the child support program for over 33 years, including 10 years

as Montana’s IV-D Director before moving to the private sector. She founded her own company in 2019.

She received the OCSS Commissioner’s Award for Distinguished Service and NCSEA’s Kathy Duggan

Memorial Award. A past president of NCSEA and the National Council of Child Support Directors (NCCSD),

she holds Honorary Life Memberships with NCSEA and the Western Intergovernmental Child Support

Engagement Council (WICSEC).

She co-authored “The Insiders’ Guide to Child Support: How the System Works” with Jeff Ball. She holds

an M.B.A. in finance from DePaul University and a B.A. in English from Illinois State University.


G

ood morning members of

NCSEA. I have a very

special crystal ball with

new CBT, Crystal Ball

Technology, developed by

Michelle Jefferson. My crystal ball will

allow you to see into the year 2025,

where I am giving a presentation to the

successor of NCSEA, ICSEA, the

International Child Support

Enforcement Association. Please join

me in looking into my crystal ball to

the year 2025.

Greetings ICSEA members and

guests from lunar and planetary workstations.

As the IV-D director with the

most longevity in the country in this

year of 2025, I am honored to be here

today to provide a brief history of the

Title IV-D Program in the United States.

Over the past half century, we have

developed and nurtured an effective

national child support and visitation system

that is non-invasive and transparent

to compliant parents. We have provided

Americans with an opportunity to

financially and emotionally support

their children in a manner that's both

dignified and rewarding.

We have made significant progress

over the past fifty years. To give you an

idea of the continuous evolution of the

program, it began with a complicated

funding scheme which was finally

simplified to a block grant early in the

21 st Century when the Fertility Control

Opportunity and Responsibility Act

(FCORA) was passed by Congress.

And for nearly a decade during my

tenure in the 1990's, IV-D programs had

the responsibility of enforcing medical

support. Many of you probably don't

even remember those days before the

National Health Insurance Program

became a reality and many children did

not have or could not afford health

coverage. Yes, medical support enforcement

is now an obsolete function of the

IV-D program.

Also, today we have virtually eliminated

paternity establishment as a IV-D

function. With the recent completion of

the Human Univalent Genome project

(HUG) we finally achieved Judge David

Gray Ross's vision expressed in the historic

1994 IV-D conference in Virginia

Beach of 95% paternity establishment

nationwide. This is attributable to the

Mary Ann Wellbank delivers her views of child support in the year 2025.

wide acceptance of the Unisex Pre and

Post Intercourse Contraceptive

Alternatives (U-PPICA-pronounced.

You Picka) pill, the home DNA testing

kit and the DNA testing performed

routinely at birth. The great strides

accomplished by HUG ensure most

children have two parents and allow

IV-D programs to focus on the 5% of

children who still need paternity

established.

Another major aspect of the early

years of the program was "financial

enforcement." Believe it or not, the

majority of cases we handled required

aggressive, proactive enforcement, not

the exception-based system we have

today. In the 20 th Century, child support

was not always a top priority in a

parent's allocation of income - and

excuses for non-payment were still

widely accepted by many members of

our society. IV-D agencies coerced and

cajoled parents to pay. Proactive

"enforcement" was necessary on over

80% of the cases. It was only after years

of public education and the national

2002 ad campaign, "Friends Don't Let

Friends Avoid Child Support", that

Americans began changing their attitudes,

and it is now the exception, rather

than the rule, when parents willfully

choose not to honor their obligations.

The idea of a "computer in every

port" was finally realized in the early

2000s, facilitating Internet access by all

American families. This advance

allowed child support workers to

telecommute from their homes, and

offered families the opportunity to take

a more active role in their cases with up

to the minute monitoring capabilities

and progress reports. Our current

international administrative hearing

video-conferencing capabilities would

not have been possible without this


sophisticated systems of communications,

our new remote lie detector technology

will aid our hearing officers in assessing the

credibility of witnesses from distant

locations.

Automatic income withholding was

a relatively new concept in the 20 th

Century and was considered an invasive

procedure requiring a flurry of paperwork

to both obligated parents and

employers. The Government

Empowerment of Electronic With

Holding and Information Zapping Act or

the GEEWHIZ Act of 2005 eliminated

paperwork and set a new standard of

two-minute reporting and electronic

withholding on the majority of cases.

And, thanks to GEEWHIZ, one of

the most problematic issues faced by

child support agencies and customers

alike was eliminated: "distribution."

With the generous government tax credit

GEEWHIZ offers to all businesses

utilizing electronic Internet payroll

systems, 99% of the nation's employers

are deducting and electronically

transmitting child support directly to

families' Omnicard accounts without need

for IV-D intervention or processing.

''

Our 2025 IV-D Program

reflects today's global

society. We have child

support workers placed in

all of our embassies

around the world and on

our lunar and planetary

workstations

''

Our 2025 IV-D Program reflects

today's global society. We have child

support workers placed in all of our

embassies around the world and on our

lunar and planetary workstations. And,

even construction workers on Mars are

subject to the two-minute withholding

requirements of GEEWHIZ.

Further, enactment of the Uniform

International Electronic Tracking,

Monitoring and Control System for

Criminal Non-Support strengthened our

ability to enforce support both nationally

and across international boundaries. As

you know, the "control" aspect of that

legislation has been very controversial.

The 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals, in the

case of Doe v. Montana, recently determined

behavior modification through

implanting of molecular chips violates

the 1 st , 4 th , 8 th , and 13 th amendments. This

case is currently before the U.S.

Supreme Court, and we should see a

decision early next Spring.

I have mentioned some key legislation

that has been enacted in the 21 st

Century, but I also want to mention the

extraordinary advances of IV-D personnel.

As you know, in 2010, all states

adopted the Uniform Interstate

Accreditation Standards, and finally

child support workers began to receive

better compensation and more recognition

for the important work they do.

Stepping back into 1999, (Beam me

down, Scottie!), the picture I have tried

to paint has been half tongue-in-cheek,

half serious. We will certainly have the

technology to be there. My true hope for

the next millennium is that the Child

Support Enforcement Program becomes

obsolete. That there will be no need for

government to take extraordinary measures

to compel payment of support or

enforce visitation because parents will

voluntarily do what is right.

Unfortunately, the year 2025 may be

too early to realize this vision. But, I do

think the IV-D program will undergo

some extraordinary changes, and I predict

the system will transform into an

exception-based system which focuses

exclusively on non-compliant cases.

I cannot say, however, that I am

confident the IV-D Program will move

smoothly into the future. I expect some

setbacks and backlash, even while we

are moving forward. Current issues facing

the program concern confidentiality

of information, broad access to data,

centralization of information, individual

rights to privacy and due process considerations.

We have moved very rapidly

over the past five years from manual to

'' We have moved very

rapidly over the past five

years from manual to

automated systems,

administrative enforcement

and huge national

databases.

On one hand, these tools

are necessary for an

effective enforcement

program. On the other,

these tools are very

powerful and the potential

for abuse cannot be overlooked.

''

automated systems, administrative

enforcement and huge national

databases. On one hand, these tools are

necessary for an effective enforcement

program. On the other, these tools are

very powerful and the potential for

abuse cannot be over-looked. Citizens,

legislators and public officials who are

very sincere about child support are also

sincerely committed to personal privacy

and due process. Each of us in the child

support community-no matter what

our role-needs to tread very thoughtfully

and carefully into the future. I

caution you not to take the future for

granted. Carefully safeguard the

privileges we have that allow us to

obtain support for children.

Mary Ann Wellbank is the IV-D

Director for Montana. She received

creative input from her Montana

colleagues Mike Billings, Marilyn Irey,

Gwen Kloeber, Ann Hefenieder, Mike

Perkio and Amy Pfeifer.


Celebrating 50 Years of the Child Support

Program

by the Office of Child Support Services

Let’s cut straight to the exciting news—the child support program

celebrates its 50 th anniversary this year! And in half a century, the program

has evolved a lot. It’s made big strides to become a more inclusive, familycentered,

and service-oriented program.

Many child support programs now operate or promote initiatives that

connect parents to important services so they can develop strong and

healthy relationships with their children. They also operate employment and

training programs that help noncustodial parents find jobs. Many also have

reentry partnerships that help formerly incarcerated parents reintegrate into

their communities.

Today we have over 60 tribal child support programs that provide services

to families that are consistent with their values and cultures. And to help

families living outside the United States, OCSS has an international service

that streamlines outgoing child support payments.

Our national child support program understands that the whole family

thrives when child support payments are consistent. So, many state and

tribal agencies have guidelines that consider the noncustodial parent’s

income when setting the payment amount. This makes it easier for the

noncustodial parent to make regular child support payments and allows the

custodial parent to plan based on consistent income to provide for their

child.


How you celebrate

Our theme for this milestone year is Celebrating 50 Years of Child Support:

Advancing a Family-Centered Approach. To celebrate the progress of the

program, we’re launching a 50th-anniversary landing page as a hub for

content that you can share, including:

• An anniversary video: We created a kickoff video that highlights the

evolution of the child support program. We’ll post other videos

throughout the year.

• History: Take a look at legislative milestones throughout our

program’s history and data that shows their impact.

• How Child Support Works handout: Read about services offered

by the child support program.

• Social media toolkit: Promote the 50 th anniversary by using our

toolkit to post on social media. We’ll also post a special social media

toolkit to help you promote Child Support Awareness Month in

August.

• Blog series: This blog is the first in a yearlong series highlighting

accomplishments and our movement toward a family-centered

program.

Keep an eye out for the launch of this page by visiting

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css.

Stay up to date with how we’re celebrating throughout the year by signing

up for our monthly Child Support Report newsletter.


Charting the Impact of 50 Years:

Federal Child Support Services

For five decades, the federal Office of Child Support Services (OCSS) has

empowered families by securing financial support and promoting responsible

parenting. This graphic highlights select milestones, illustrating its

transformational journey from enforcement-focused beginnings to a holistic

approach toward family self-sufficiency.

1975

Establishment of the Child Support Enforcement Program: The program was established as Title IV-D of

the Social Security Act in 1975 to ensure children receive financial support from their parents. (Source)

1981

Federal Income Tax Refund Offset Program: Authorized to intercept tax refunds to pay overdue child

support. (Source)

1984

Child Support Amendments: Required states to establish expedited processes for paternity and support

order establishment, created the first Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS), and introduced income

withholding as a standard enforcement tool. (Source)

1988

Family Support Act: Required state programs to implement automated systems for child support

enforcement. (Source)

1996

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA): Marked a major

transformation of child support enforcement by emphasizing automation, including the establishment of

the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) and strengthening of enforcement mechanisms. (Source)

1998

Mandatory State Disbursement Units (SDUs): Required centralized collection and distribution of

payments for states under PRWORA. (Source)

2004

Tribal Child Support Programs Recognized: Final regulations (45 CFR 310) were published, allowing tribes

to apply for start-up financing and become eligible to receive 100% federal funding for two years. (Source)

2006

Deficit Reduction Act of 2005: Increased the amount of child support money that states can pass on to

children who are receiving or were previously receiving welfare. (Source)

2010

2016

2023

Claims Resolution Act: Introduced a definition of "newly hired employee" for the purposes of the NDNH

that encompasses both certain rehired employees and personnel who had never worked for the company

before. (Source)

Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Programs Final Rule: Federal regulations

were updated to improve fairness in setting support orders, especially for low-income parents, and to

reduce barriers to compliance. (Source)

Name Change to Office of Child Support Services (OCSS): Reflecting its expanded role, the Office of Child

Support Enforcement (OCSE) was renamed to better represent its mission of supporting all families, not

just enforcing orders. (Source)

2025

50th Anniversary Celebration: Honoring five decades of service in strengthening families and improving

the lives of children through innovative child support services.


Unanimous Consent: A Legislative Victory for

Child Support Equity

by Jim Fleming, Director of the Child Support Section of the North

Dakota Department of Health and Human Services

At 1:21 AM Eastern on Saturday December 21, 2024, the

effort to fix the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) regarding child

support use of federal tax information (FTI) came to a

successful conclusion. Considering that the effort to change

the IRC began nearly 15 years ago with tribal child support

agencies after meeting with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in April

2010, it should come as no surprise that the enactment of the legislation

was neither simple nor fast.

Following several public hearings, the Strengthening State and Tribal Child

Support Act (H.R. 7906) was introduced in the United States House of

Representatives on July 24, 2024. More recently, the provisions in H.R.

7906 were copied into the Supporting America’s Children and Families Act

(H.R.9076). On September 18, 2024, H.R. 9076 was approved by a

resounding 405-10 bipartisan vote and was immediately referred to the

Senate Finance Committee.

As the 118 th Congress was coming to a close, furious efforts were

undertaken to obtain unanimous consent in the Senate to enact the

legislation. In the final days of the Congress, the language in H.R. 9076

was added to the “big” Continuing Resolution (CR). Ultimately, the big CR

did not move forward, but there was always a back-up plan: to complete

the unanimous consent process and enact the stand-alone bill on the

Senate consent calendar. The bill cleared the internal unanimous consent


process without any objection, but the big question was whether the Senate

would act on the bill before adjourning for the year.

In the last hours before Congress adjourned, both chambers passed a new

CR, which was much shorter and did not include the changes in the IRC

related to child support. The Senate had yet to adjourn late on December

20 after passing the CR, so there was still a glimmer of hope. Finally, after

an anxious couple of hours, the Senate Majority leader took the floor and

began making a series of unanimous consent requests, including approval

of H.R. 9076. Less than 10 minutes later, the Senate adjourned for the

year, but the work was done. The President later signed the bill, ironically

yet appropriately on the 50 th anniversary of the IV-D program.

In the last few years, the progress in raising public awareness has been the

product of a joint effort of the National Tribal Child Support Association

(NTCSA), the National Council of Child Support Directors, and the National

Child Support Engagement Association, with the invaluable assistance of

NCSEA Advocate Tom Joseph. But one cannot overlook the 15-year effort

of NTCSA and particularly Lisa Skenandore, Tisch Keahna Kruzan, Sue

Smith, and Jerry Sweet, whose hill visits (with a record of 22 visits in two

days) laid the groundwork for bi-partisan support of the legislation.

Enactment of the legislation finally gives parity to tribes on the use of FTI to

establish and enforce child support, and maintains the critical ability of child

support programs to obtain help from private contractors to deliver quality

child support services.

Congratulations to all involved on the completion of this long but successful

legislative journey.

James C. Fleming is the director of the Child Support Section of the North Dakota Department of Health

and Human Services (HHS) and the interim director of the Vocational Rehabilitation Section of HHS. Jim is

a past president of both the National Child Support Engagement Association (NCSEA) and the National

Council of Child Support Directors (NCCSD) and is a member of the Board of Directors for the Western

Intergovernmental Child Support Engagement Council (WICSEC). He is co-chair of NCSEA’s Policy and

Government Relations Committee and NCCSD’s Employer Collaboration Committee. Jim also serves as a

member of the NCCSD Executive Committee, NCCSD’s Policy and Practice Committee, the editorial

committee for the NCSEA Child Support CommuniQue, and the Finance Committees for both NCSEA and

WICSEC.


Employment and Training Services For Child

Support Agencies: The Rule is Final!

by Diane Potts, Director, CGI

For many years, the child support program has pursued

federal resources for states to provide employment and

training services to parents who are not able to pay child

support due to unemployment or underemployment. A

federal financial participation match (FFP) would benefit

many child support programs in helping parents obtain gainful employment,

thereby leading to increased collections and more children receiving

financial support.

The federal Office of Child Support Services (OCSS) issued a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Employment and Training Services for

Noncustodial Parents in the Child Support Program on May 31, 2024,

proposing to allow FFP for specific, nonduplicative employment and

training services to parents owing child support. See Federal Register, 89

FR 47109, 2024-11842.pdf. NCSEA submitted comments that generally

supported the NPRM and recommended specific changes to further

strengthen the rule.

NCSEA is happy to report that OCSS published the final rule on

December 13, 2024! See Federal Register, 89 FR 100789, 2024-

29081.pdf. Effective January 13, 2025, this regulatory change will allow

state and tribal child support agencies the option to use FFP available

under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act to provide employment and

training services to eligible parents owing support.


The services that qualify for FFP include: job search assistance; job

readiness training; job development and job placement services; skills

assessments; job retention services; work supports; and occupational

training and other skills training directly related to employment. OCSS

explained in the final rule that other allowable expenses include related

administrative activities, such as costs associated with start-up, staffing,

technology, training, outreach, and rent, with the caveat that the costs must

be necessary, reasonable, and appropriately allocable to employment and

training services. In addition, case management costs related to providing

services are an allowable expense. In the final rule, OCSS also clarified

that legal assistance incidental to removing employment barriers, such as

expungement or reinstating a driver’s license, may be considered work

supports and thus eligible for FFP.

In the final rule, OCSS explained that there are certain expenses that are

not FFP-eligible. Those include subsidized employment and any cash

payments, checks, reimbursements, or any other form of payment that can

be legally converted to currency.

The rule allows programs discretion in determining partners. Child support

agencies may partner with workforce agencies or community-based

employment organizations. But programs also are permitted to provide

employment and training services directly to parents in need.

Reasons Why Child Support Should Have Employment and Training

Services

OCSS explained that the new regulation was justified for several reasons.

First, years of research and data from state and federally funded projects

have demonstrated the effectiveness of IV-D employment and training

programs for parents needing help. The rule also aligns with the child

support program’s mission to promote responsible parenting and family

self-sufficiency by supporting state IV-D agencies that recognize the

importance of employment and training services for parents owing child

support.

In addition, OCSS recognized that there have been changing

demographics and shifts in the labor market in the United States over the

past several years. Those changes are:

• The percentage of children who need child support services has

increased, and the ability of parents overall to pay child support has

declined.


• Less-educated men now have significantly fewer job opportunities

and less income than in prior years.

• As of 2018, over 70 percent of parents owing support in the child

support program had not attended college.

• In 2017, more than one-third of paying parents—3.4 million—lived in

families with incomes below 200 percent of the official poverty

thresholds, and 43 percent did not work year-round full time.

• Incarceration rates have increased dramatically, with an estimated

six percent of all children in the United States having a parent who is

or has been incarcerated.

OCSS recognized that often front-line workers, as well as attorneys dealing

directly with parents in court, are frustrated with merely being able to refer

parents to potential service providers in the community, as opposed to

having the ability to more directly connect parents to employment services.

The new rule and its proposed FFP reimbursement structure now gives IV-

D agencies the ability to closely monitor and establish a closed-loop referral

process for employment services. This ability to more closely track

employment service compliance enables the program to track a parent’s

progress and reconsider enforcement actions against a delinquent parent

who is participating in the employment and training program.

Parents Eligible to Receive Employment and Training Services

The final rule establishes criteria that a parent in the Title IV-D program

must meet in order to be eligible to receive services. The parent must have

an open IV-D case and be under an order to pay child support or be

cooperating to establish an order. The parent must also be unemployed or

underemployed or at risk of being unable to comply with the support order.

In addition, the IV-D agency must determine that the parent is not receiving

the same employment and training services under another federal program

such as TANF and SNAP.

While the NPRM suggested that parents could sign an attestation to rule

out non-duplicative services, OCSS, in the final rule, did not prescribe any

specific verification method. Programs, therefore, are free to establish the

policies and processes that work best to confirm that parents are not

already receiving the same services under another program. This could

include a simple verbal confirmation from the parent, which is less onerous


and likely not to create a barrier to entry into the program, like a written

attestation.

Finally, the NPRM originally limited eligibility for employment and training

services to parents with a current support order. However, in response to

comments received from NCSEA and other associations, OCSS changed

the final rule to include parents with arrears-only cases. OCSS recognized

that parents with arrears-only cases are still responsible for paying overdue

child support and, like parents with current support orders, may face

barriers to employment that limit their ability to pay. Programs now have the

option to provide employment and training services to help parents pay off

arrears once and for all. In addition, OCSS clarified in the final rule that

parents who have zero-dollar child support orders are eligible to participate

as well.

Tribes Can Also Offer Employment and Training Services

In the final rule, OCSS expanded the breadth of the regulation—originally

applicable to state programs only—to include tribes. The eligibility criteria

for tribal parents are identical to those for parents in state programs. Unlike

state programs, tribes do not have a set list of programs to verify nonduplicative

services due to the unique needs, capacity, and barriers faced

by Tribal IV-D programs. Tribes, however, like states, will still need to adopt

policies and procedures for determining that the parent paying support is

not receiving the same employment and training services from any other

federally-funded program.

States Must Have a Statewide Plan for Employment and Training

Services

In the final rule, OCSS explained that because 45 CFR 302.10 requires IV–

D state plans to operate on a statewide basis, states electing to provide

employment and training services using FFP must make at least a

minimum level of services available statewide. The services for some

jurisdictions in a state may be virtual job readiness training that parents

could access online or at their local child support services offices. For

example, online training could be on how to interview for a job, prepare a

resume, navigate job listings, or provide occupational training related to

employment, such as programs to complete high school or obtain a high

school equivalency certificate. Other jurisdictions in the same state may

offer more intensive in-person employment and training services. The final


rule allows states the flexibility to tailor specific services in different

jurisdictions based on local conditions, resources, and needs.

The Congressional Review Act

The final rule faces one more potential roadblock. Because it was

published close to the change in administration, it is subject to the

Congressional Review Act (CRA), which is a tool Congress can use to

overturn certain federal agency actions. The CRA requires agencies to

report all final rules and provides Congress with special procedures, in the

form of a joint resolution of disapproval, under which to consider

overturning a rule. If a CRA joint resolution of disapproval is approved by

both houses of Congress and signed by the President, the rule is void.

A CRA joint resolution of disapproval is introduced in the same way as any

other bill. However, the joint resolution must be introduced within a specific

time frame: during a 60-days-of-continuous-session period beginning when

the rule has been published in the Federal Register and received by

Congress. The period counts every calendar day, including weekends and

holidays, and excludes only days that either chamber (or both) is gone for

more than three days pursuant to an adjournment resolution.

Conclusion

NCSEA and the entire child support community applauds OCSS for finally

publishing a final rule that gives child support programs the resources

needed to provide parents with employment and training services when

they are struggling to meet their financial obligations to their children. The

final rule provides tremendous benefits to the child support program and

the families it serves, and hopefully will not be rolled back by Congress.

Diane Potts is the Child Support Lead Director on the National Strategy Team at CGI Technologies and

Solutions Inc. Diane served for over 10 years on the National Child Support Enforcement Association

(NCSEA) Board of Directors and is NCSEA’s Past-President, past Secretary, and an Honorary Lifetime

Member. Diane also is on the Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association (ERICSA) Board of

Directors and is the Vice President of Policy and Legislation. She is a frequent presenter at national,

regional, and state conferences. Diane received her law degree from Washington University Law School

and her undergraduate degree from University of Illinois.


Intersecting Drug Court Participation and Child

Support Obligations: A Journey Through Monroe

County, Wisconsin

by Pamela Pipkin, Monroe County, Wisconsin Child Support

Director and Past President of the Wisconsin Child Support

Enforcement Association

The journey between drug court and child support was established to

positively support families navigating substance use disorders and

treatment court obligations who also have child support obligations in

Monroe County, WI.

Many individuals may not know about treatment courts and how they help

the families they serve. There are various types of treatment courts,

including drug courts, OWI courts, family treatment courts, mental health

courts, and veterans courts.

Adult drug courts are an

alternative to incarceration

that combines public health

and public safety

approaches to connect

people involved in the

justice process with

individualized, evidencebased

treatment and

recovery support services.


Treatment courts partner with the criminal justice system and the treatment

community. Partnerships have been developed with the circuit court, district

attorney, public defender, Department of Corrections, Department of

Human Services, law enforcement, treatment providers, and case

managers/coordinators. Drug court consists of intensive supervision and

individualized treatment with comprehensive, wraparound services. It isn’t

the typical adversarial courtroom atmosphere and uses a team approach,

utilizing incentives and sanctions to encourage behavior modification.

Adult drug courts are the most carefully studied and well-proven

intervention in our nation’s history for leading people with substance use

disorders out of the justice system and into lives of health and recovery—

ultimately allowing them to support their children and, many times,

rebuilding a relationship with their children. i

National statistics indicate that about 50%–75% of participants graduate

from the program, more than double the success rates for probation and

the general inmate population. ii

Across the nation, communities are finding treatment courts a successful

alternative to traditional methods of incarceration. Below are some

highlights of this alternative.

• Treatment courts are the single most successful intervention in the

criminal justice system;

• They promote family and limits foster care needs;

• These courts save money:


o For every $1.00 invested, treatment courts return an average of

four to twelve times the original investment; and

o $6,000 tax dollars are saved per participant; iii

• They reduce:

o Crime and recidivism; iv

o Incarceration;

o Costs to the system; and

o The need for services; and

• These courts save lives by improving:

o Education;

o Housing;

o Employment; and

o Financial stability.

As of December 31, 2023, approximately ten treatment courts were

operating in Wisconsin, while 4,000 were operating nationwide. v

After careful consideration and guidance from the National All Rise

Standards and Wisconsin Treatment Court Standards, Monroe County

expanded its incarceration alternatives by creating a drug court program in

2020. To establish the program, they needed to determine eligibility

protocols and target population. The following are their current eligibility

criteria:

• High-risk/high-need participants are at significant risk for committing a

new crime or failing to complete a less intensive disposition like

probation; and

• Participants have a moderate to severe substance use disorder that

includes a substantial inability to reduce or control their substance

use, persistent substance cravings, withdrawal symptoms, and/or a

pattern of recurrent substance use binge episodes; and

• Participants cannot have a pending case or past conviction for a

violent offense; and

• Participants cannot have prior drug distribution offenses that meet

exclusion criteria.

Once admitted into the program, the Monroe County drug court team

requires participants to engage in alcohol and other drug abuse (AODA)


services as well as mental health services to begin their journey of

recovery. This is a holistic approach that aligns with what child support

programs are striving to attain.

The discussion of working together to better serve Monroe County’s

families started when a bench warrant was issued at a child support

hearing for a drug court participant. The participant was under a contempt

order and failed to appear at a child support hearing or comply with the

purge conditions. The child support agency did not know this individual

participated in the Monroe County drug court program. At the drug court

hearing, Judge Radcliffe discovered another branch had issued a bench

warrant.

The two programs, drug court and child support, were conflicting, and the

participants were being told opposite information from each agency. The

contempt order for failure to comply with the court order to pay child

support required the participant to look for work. Drug court told the

participants that they shouldn’t work for the first phases of the program so

they could focus their efforts on sobriety.

It was quickly determined that Monroe County needed to figure out a way

to positively support families navigating substance use disorders, mental

health disorders, and treatment court obligations who also have child

support obligations.


Once this need was identified, the affected departments met to discuss

how to work together. Until then, child support hadn’t crossed the minds of

the drug court staff, despite the two agencies serving the same population.

The initial meeting consisted of Judge Rick Radcliffe, Monroe County

Circuit Court Judge, Branch 3, who handles drug court; Tara Nichols,

Monroe County Drug Court Coordinator; Pamela Pipkin, Monroe County

Child Support Director; Kerry Sullivan-Flock, Assistant Corporation

Counsel; and Wendy Swenson, Monroe County Child Support Specialist.

After lengthy discussions, a process was developed for new drug court

participants who are also child support payers.

The Drug Court Coordinator and Child Support Specialist work closely to:

• Identify if each new drug court participant is a child support payer and

obtain a release of information from the participant;

• Temporarily assign the family court case to Judge Radcliffe, as

Monroe County’s philosophy is “one judge per family;” and

• Temporarily assign the child support case to Wendy Swenson, the

child support specialist who handles all child support cases for drug

court participants, as it is most efficient to have one specialist handle

these cases.

The two agencies then collaborate to ensure the following:

• The child support agency files a motion to modify the child support

obligations based on drug court participation. The standard request is

to suspend current support and set a very minimal arrears payment

for the duration of the drug court participation.

• The drug court coordinator sends a notice to the custodial

parent/guardian explaining the intense time commitment required to

succeed in drug court and the very limited ability to maintain

employment and comply with the requirements of their child support

orders while in drug court.


• A hearing is held before Judge Radcliffe to modify support. The

reason for the temporary modification (deviation) of the child support

obligations is stated on the record. The custodial parent can attend

the hearing and address the court if they appear.

Continuous communication between the child support agency and the drug

court coordinator is key throughout this process. A shared OneDrive

spreadsheet was developed to facilitate quick, effective communication

between the departments.

Many changes have been warranted as the journey has continued to

evolve. Initially, the court suspended the support while in drug court, and

reinstatement was at the previously ordered child support amount upon

graduation or termination of the program. It was determined that this was

not necessarily the best practice; many drug court participants face

additional barriers such as: criminal records, no driver’s license, limited

work history, and special vehicle equipment needs. Due to these barriers,

they may not have the same earnings capacity they had before

participating in drug court. It was determined that it would be more

appropriate to schedule review hearings when there are significant

changes in circumstances, such as employment obtained, drug court

termination, or drug court graduation. The court would determine if support

was to be reinstated and the dollar amount that would be appropriate for

the payer to pay based on individual circumstances and guidelines.

After drug court participation has concluded, either by graduation or by

termination, the family case would be reassigned back to the original judge

and child support specialist.


Monroe County’s current biggest challenge is handling child

support obligations from other counties and other states outside

of drug court. If the child support order is in another Wisconsin

county, the child support agency has been providing the drug

court coordinator with the information on where the order is and

giving them contact information for that child support agency. However, a

process has not been developed to handle cases where Wisconsin

enforces an out-of-state order.

The Monroe County team recently presented at the Wisconsin Child

Support Enforcement Association (WCSEA) Fall Conference to over 400

child support professionals on the benefits of this collaboration, hoping to

encourage other agencies to follow in their footsteps.

Picture of Wendy Swenson, Tara Nichols, Judge Radcliffe, and Pamela Pipkin

presenting at the 2024 WCSEA Fall Conference.

This could work for agencies across the nation—just look at the big picture

and start brainstorming.

• Start small—develop a relationship with your drug court program or

attend a drug court hearing.

• Drug courts usually have a very minimal number of participants at

any given time due to the intensive nature of the program. So

remember that this isn’t a large portion of the child support caseload.

However, many of the participants in drug court have child support

obligations and haven’t been successfully maintaining employment

and supporting their families due to their addictions.


• Short-term sacrifice = long-term gains. By providing a break in paying

support so participants can focus on sobriety, they have a better

chance to succeed, thus becoming productive members of society,

providing for the needs of their children, and possibly reestablishing

relationships with them.

• Even if you cannot assign the family case to the drug court judge,

your drug court staff could provide information to the family court to

assist in facilitating changes.

• Develop administrative policies to review child support obligations in

drug court if judicial processes are unavailable.

• Use technology to your advantage—shared spreadsheets, virtual

meetings, etc.

• Communication is key!

Partnerships such as this will continue to make the child support program

one of the most successful in the nation and highlight the exciting changes

that are taking place. The child support program continues to evolve from a

collection-based approach to a more holistic one that serves the whole

family. Relationships such as this are what continue to improve

communication between all parties, which in turn improves the perception

of the program as a whole—something every child support professional

should strive for.

Pamela Pipkin is the Monroe County Child Support Director in Wisconsin. She is on the Wisconsin Child

Support Enforcement Association (WCSEA) Board and was WCSEA President from October 2019 until

December 2022. In 1989, Pamela graduated from Winona State University with a Bachelor of Science in

Paralegal Sciences. She began her career in child support with Monroe County in 1989 as a child support

specialist and, in 2006, became Monroe County Child Support Director. She received the 2019 WCSEA

Member of the Year award. In 2022, Monroe County received the WCSEA County of the Year award. She

currently serves on the following committees: the Legislative Committee, the Policy and Advisory

Committee (PAC), Contracts, and the Thrive (Modernization) User Advisory Group.

i

https://allrise.org/about/treatment-courts/

ii

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3211110/

iii

https://allrise.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/All-Rise-Hill-Brief-Final.pdf

iv

https://allrise.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/All-Rise-Hill-Brief-Final.pdf; http://ncdrugtreatmentcourts.com/Costs.html

v

https://ntcrc.org/maps/interactive-maps/


The Role of Thoughtful Consideration:

Challenges and Best Practices for Requiring

SNAP Cooperation

by Alisha Griffin, Managing Director of AlishaGriffinWks LLC, and

Paula Phillips, Policy Manager for the Arkansas Office of Child

Support Enforcement

In June 2024, Mathematica released the results

of an in-depth analysis of states requiring the

cooperation of Supplemental Nutrition

Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients with

child support programs in order to receive and

maintain their benefits. i This report follows an

earlier report by Mathematica published October

2018, which included an additional study of the

requirement among childcare recipients. ii

The long-awaited 2024 evaluation identified six

key areas for states to consider before

implementing a SNAP requirement:

Automated, integrated data systems are

key but can require substantial upfront costs.

Ongoing implementation creates administrative complexity and costs,

particularly for child support staff.


The requirement may lower SNAP benefit costs to the government,

but savings may be offset by increased child support enforcement

costs for the government.

Implementation of the requirement did not result in increased child

support payments to SNAP households, on average.

The financial stability of parents sanctioned for noncooperation may

worsen, and the processes for getting them back into compliance can

be challenging.

States are not adequately implementing good cause exemptions that

are intended to protect parents from domestic violence.

A review of the Congressional Research Library shows that a requirement

for families with dependent children to cooperate with child support in order

to receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and SNAP

(formerly the Food Stamps Program) first evidenced itself in the 1993-94

congressional legislative proposals. Over the course of the next few years

and several amendments, final legislation was issued as the 1996 Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA).

While states were mandated to implement cooperation with child support

for benefits in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, formerly

AFDC) and Medicaid, PRWORA provided the use of cooperation

requirements in other assistance programs—including SNAP—as optional.

In the initial years after passage of PRWORA, only about a third of states

included a child support cooperation requirement for SNAP and childcare.

In subsequent years, some of the original states that required cooperation

ceased to require it, and others who originally did not require it added it. As

was found in the recent Mathematica study, states make the decision

whether to require SNAP cooperation based on their assessment of its cost

benefit to the state or any possible value to program effectiveness.

According to a 2018 report by the federal Office of the Assistant Secretary

for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), seven states had a requirement for

SNAP cooperation (at the time, six of those states also had a requirement


for childcare cooperation). iii As of 2023, nine states had a requirement for

SNAP recipients, with only four of them being the same as those in the

2018 report (Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, and Mississippi).

The June 2024 Mathematica study lays out a clear analysis of the policy

considerations as well as the benefits—or lack thereof—for states and for

families who are recipients of services. This analysis overall shows limited

positive impacts to states and mostly negative impacts to both states and

families. It aligns concerns in this report with those highlighted in an

October 2024 article published by the Center on Budget and Policy

Priorities. iv

There are additional costs and operational issues that states must address

if they are planning to enact and implement the child support cooperation

requirement for the receipt of SNAP benefits. These can possibly have

significant impact on the benefit analysis for states when considering

adding cooperation into the service paradigm. States should conduct a

thorough assessment of the overall costs and benefits for implementing this

requirement. States should also be aware there are additional operational

and budgetary considerations over and beyond those identified in the

Mathematica report and in the recent study released by the Center on

Budget and Policy Priorities. Both reports indicate key factors that states

should take into consideration in assessing the overall cost benefit for

implementing this requirement. Considerations include:

Computerization

• This includes computerization by one or more agencies in the state,

and adaptability and interplay between the multiple agencies.

• The agencies administering these programs should already have a

relationship, so updating systems may not be as painful as creating a

new interface with a new agency. Still, implementing system changes

could take a year or longer. If a child support program is under the

umbrella of the same agency that handles the SNAP program, the

change may not be as time consuming but will still require state

resources and a shifting of budgetary and computerization priorities.

Agencies not under the same umbrella are certain to find increased

challenges in implementing the requirement.

• Depending on the law and who is required to cooperate, there could

be challenging system changes. For example, if a state child support

program currently only receives referrals for custodial parties, but


now noncustodial parents are referred because of a SNAP

requirement, the changes will be substantial to that state’s child

support system.

• Careful analysis should be employed, as one program (e.g. Medicaid

or TANF) may require all custodial parties to cooperate, and that

same state’s SNAP program may require only parties who are

biological parents to cooperate.

• During the discussion, development, and initiation phases of

implementing a new cooperation requirement, it is important to

ensure the business and policy sides of both programs are in the

same discussions with the technical sides. Missing this step can

create long-term problems.

Training and implementation practices

• Consider how to help staff handle an increase in caseload churn,

which is inevitable in the initial phase of the requirement, and possibly

throughout the requirement.

• Consider how to provide support during the time between

implementation and when child support and SNAP programs get a

foothold on working together.

• A strong relationship between the child support program and SNAP

agencies is key to working through the implementation of a new

program and in adjusting procedures to match what actually works.

• Create staff training for the new requirement and how to address

these new changes as positively as possible.

• Carefully review and consider the new policies and the exemptions

for cooperation, as well as any interactions with existing program

interactions.

• Reach out to other states that have implemented the same

requirements to learn from any problems they may have

encountered.

Public relations and communications

• The program administering SNAP will need to send some form of

mass communication to all SNAP recipients notifying them of the new

requirement and informing them that there could be an impact to their


existing benefits. This will result in an increase in calls to the child

support program. Staff should be trained in how to best respond to

callers.

• Communications should focus on the benefits that regular child

support payments bring to families.

• Some child support programs with strong work assistance to parties

could find more agreeable participation if the program is successful

as did programs recently reviewed by Brookings. v

• Specific training and modeling in customer management and

appropriate discourse should be provided for staff.

In conclusion, SNAP requirements should be implemented with careful

assessment, planning, messaging, and an evaluation of the above

considerations and research findings. Looking to other states and their

successes and failures can be a valuable guide to best practices in

implementation and the avoidance of problems.

Additional Resources

Child Support

Cooperation

Requirements in

SNAP Are

Unproven, Costly,

and Put Families at

Risk

Child Support

Pass-Through and

Disregard Policies

for Public

Assistance

Recipients

Modernizing Public

Benefits Delivery:

How Innovation

Can Deliver

Results for Eligible

Households and

Taxpayers

SNAP Insights:

Child Support

Cooperation

Requirement

Research Findings

and Policy Options

(February 2020) (May 2023) (June 2023) (June 2024)

Access Access Access Access

Alisha Griffin is the Managing Director of AlishaGriffinWks LLC, an independent consulting firm with key

projects that focus on improving program operations and service delivery to make services more

accessible, timely, and successful. As the former Director of California and New Jersey state child support

programs, she has been active in the child support community since 1996. Ms. Griffin continues to serve

NCSEA by volunteering and working on several committees and has served as an NCSEA Board member

and president of both NCSEA and of the National Council of Child Support Directors (NCCSD).


Ms. Griffin was also a delegate for 5 years to the negotiations for The Hague Private Law Convention on

Family Maintenance and Child Support and its subsequent review and renewal seven years later. She

continues to serve on the Hague’s Advisory Committee on iSupport.

Paula Phillips has worked for the Arkansas Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) since 2002. She

has happily spent her time with OCSE working on policy matters and is currently the Policy Manager for the

state child support program. Ms. Phillips has served several years on the NCSEA’s Emerging Issues and

Latest Practices subcommittee and its International subcommittee.

i

https://www.mathematica.org/publications/evaluation-of-child-support-enforcement-cooperation-requirements-in-snap

ii

https://www.mathematica.org/publications/child-support-cooperation-requirements-in-child-care-subsidy-programs-and-snap-keypolicy

iii

https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_legacy_files//184901/EMPOWERED_Child_Support_Cooperation_Issue_Brief.pdf

iv

https://www.cbpp.org/research/income-security/directing-child-support-payments-to-families-not-government-would-help

v

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/envisioning-a-more-equitable-and-inclusive-farm-bill/


Holistic Changes: Continuing to Build a Program

that Serves Families

by Trish Skophammer and Carla West, NCSEA 2025 Policy

Forum Co-chairs

The NCSEA 2025 Policy Forum will take place from

January 30 to February 1 at the JW Marriott in

Washington, D.C. This year’s theme,

“Holistic Changes: Continuing to Build a

Program that Serves Families,” will

share the outcomes of recent policy

changes and provide a forward-looking

perspective on what’s next for the child

support program’s future.

Through insightful discussions, expert

panels, and interactive sessions, this year’s

conference will examine how the child support

program has adapted to meet the evolving

needs of families. We will explore recent innovations,

challenges, and strategic shifts shaping the program. You will have

opportunities to engage in conversations about future developments for

continued improvement.

Policy Forum will kick off Thursday morning with a thought-provoking

conversation featuring state, federal, and tribal leaders. This discussion will

center around the future direction of child support policies, offering a

platform for these leaders to share their insights and perspectives on the

evolving landscape of the program. The conversation will set the stage for


the conference by addressing key challenges, emerging

trends, and the policies shaping the future of child support

services.

Next, we will be joined by a panel of experts who will reflect

on the modernization of the judicial system. This session will

explore innovative changes and the impact of those changes in ensuring

equitable access to judicial systems. Experts will discuss improved service

delivery, access to child support services, and fair treatment for all families,

especially those facing barriers to accessing the courts.

The day will continue with a panel discussion on the transformative impact

of innovation grants in the child support program. This session will highlight

how various programs have been reshaped through grants for alternatives

to contempt actions, improving intergovernmental caseload processes, and

increasing awareness through digital marketing.

The final plenary on Thursday will focus on the positive effects of child

support programs on maternal and child health and well-being. We will

learn how the child support system can play a crucial role in improving

outcomes for both mothers and children. This session will highlight the

broader societal benefits of effective child support programs and their

importance in fostering healthy, thriving families.

Friday will begin by exploring how the child support program

has been integrated into broader family support systems. This

session will focus on areas where child support is working

alongside other services to better meet families’ diverse

needs. The goal is to understand how child support programs

can align with and complement other family-oriented services

to provide holistic support, ensuring families have the resources they need

to thrive.

The next plenary will address the impact of the child support program on

survivors of domestic violence. We will hear from real experts, the

survivors, who will share their stories and perspectives on how child


support can be more responsive to their unique challenges and help them

achieve financial stability. Their insights will help us understand the

changes we can make to increase safe access to child support services.

On Friday afternoon, you will have the unique opportunity to engage in a

modern-day Roman forum. This interactive session creates a collaborative

setting where everyone can share insights and contribute to shaping the

future of the child support program. Inspired by the traditional Roman

forum, we encourage open dialogue, thoughtful discussion, and the

exchange of diverse perspectives.

We will wrap up Friday with a panel on child support guidelines that

includes state, tribal, and advocate perspectives. How child support orders

are set is critical to outcomes, compliance, and family dynamics. We will

learn about recent research, the challenges of changing guidelines,

parenting time and cliff effects, and in-kind support opportunities.

On Saturday, the final day of the Policy Forum, we offer two

exciting plenary sessions you won’t want to miss. The first

plenary will focus on a recently published report regarding

mandatory referrals for families receiving Supplemental

Nutrition Assistance Benefits (SNAP). The report explores

the implications of referring families who participate in SNAP

to the child support program, including the impact on the families involved

and the efficiency and effectiveness of the child support program.

The final plenary will focus on the critical issue of enforcement actions and

the profound impact on the families served by the child support program.

This session will engage in a discussion about the effectiveness of

enforcement actions, the consequences for families, and how the child

support system can balance the need for compliance with the well-being of

families. The discussion will consider the challenges of enforcing court

orders, explore potential improvements, and reflect on how enforcement

can hinder long-term positive outcomes.


NCSEA President Charles Smith and the Policy Forum Co-chairs, Trish

Skophammer and Carla West, are excited to see you in Washington, D.C.!

Register today at NCSEAPolicyForum.org.

Dr. Trish Skophammer serves as the Director of the Child Support Services Division in the Ramsey

County Attorney’s Office located in St. Paul, Minnesota. She has 27 years of experience in child support.

She has been involved in national, regional, and local associations with conference planning committees,

policy workgroups and DEI initiatives. In addition to her expertise in child support policy and practice,

Trish’s expertise includes organizational leadership topics. Trish has a master’s degree from Bethel

University in Organizational Leadership and a doctorate degree in Public Administration from Hamline

University.

Carla West, Human Services Division Director at the North Carolina Department of Health and Human

Services, leads the strategic direction, planning, operations, and evaluation of a broad array of programs

within a complex, integrated service delivery system. Carla manages critical Economic Services Programs,

including Child Support Services, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Low-Income Household

Energy Programs, and the State Office of Refugee Services. She also drives Continuous Quality

Improvement initiatives for these programs, along with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and

oversees customer service call centers for both child support and electronic benefits. In addition, Carla

directs the Division of Aging, which encompasses housing and homelessness programs. Carla holds a

Master of Business Administration and a Bachelor of Science in Business Management, both from Bellevue

University.


The Numbers Side of Child Support:

Audits & Federal Reporting

by Amy Gilmore, Performance Management Specialist, Michigan

Office of Child Support, and Victoria Harrison, Deputy Director,

Oklahoma Child Support Services

Audits.

Federal Reports.

Performance Measures.

While the main focus of the IV-D program is on serving families, these

things are still constants within the IV-D program in every state and tribe.

But have you ever wondered if you’re doing these things the way everyone

else does? Do you read the 157 instructions and think, “How do we

interpret this?” Do you approach the Self-Assessment Audit or the Data

Reliability Audit with a feeling of dread?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, you may want to consider

joining us for the newest NCSEA Connects Group: Audits and Federal

Reporting. These quarterly, come-as-you-are, meetings are designed to

establish a professional network and resource hub for child support

professionals, facilitating inquiries and promoting peer-to-peer learning

regarding audits and federal reporting. Our focus areas will include Self-

Assessment, Data Reliability Audit (DRA) and Data Reliability Review

(DRR), Performance Measures, OCSS-157, as well as IRS inspections and

the development of corrective action plans.


Through this collaborative platform, participants will have the opportunity to

enhance their knowledge and skills, ultimately contributing to improved

practices within the child support system.

The Audits and Federal Reporting affinity group will meet once each

quarter in March, June, September, and December. We will send a survey

prior to the first meeting—which will be held in March 2025—to determine

topic priorities, and then co-facilitators Victoria Harrison (Oklahoma Child

Support) and Amy Gilmore (Michigan Child Support) will create an agenda

based on feedback from that survey.

As a self-directed team, we will explore these topics to share best

practices, “hacks,” and resources for ensuring integrity and efficiency in

auditing and reporting. We welcome any subject matter experts to join us,

as well as those who are new to audits and reporting. For questions, feel

free to reach out to Amy Gilmore (gilmorea2@michigan.gov) or Victoria

Harrison (Victoria.Harrison@okdhs.org).

Amy Gilmore has been with the Michigan Office of Child Support (OCS) since April 2003, beginning as a

Child Support Specialist (caseworker). She has served in her current role as the Performance Management

Specialist since 2018. In this capacity, Amy leads the Self-Assessment Audit, the Data Reliability Audit, and

data collection for the OCSS-157. She is also a Product Owner for an Agile Scrum team known as Data,

Statistics and Analytics (DSAT). DSAT creates reports and visualizations for the Michigan child support

program and provides data to child support professionals within the program as requested.

Amy and her husband Dan have been married for 21 years. They have two boys ages 14 and 17 and two

cats (one of whom thinks he’s a dog).

Victoria A. Harrison serves as the Oklahoma Deputy Director for Child Support Services, a division of

Oklahoma Human Services. A 1990 graduate of Oklahoma University College of Law, Victoria has devoted

her career to the practice of family law, domestic violence, and poverty issues.


As Deputy Director, Victoria has been a leader for the child support program in implementing and

presenting new programs and training to a staff of over five hundred. She leads the federal audits and

reporting, as well as the onboarding and training of staff, and document and information security.

Victoria is also the Program Director for the Oklahoma demonstration grant from the OCSS SAVES center.


Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!