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.