This article outlines the operational rules and requirements that enable individual offices and the overall CSS program to meet federal program standards.
Audit and Performance Purpose
Within Child Support Services, the Center for Professional Development—CSS auditors are responsible for carrying out Program Reviews and Internal Audits. Meanwhile, the Center for Finance and Budget staff oversees Financial Processing Reviews. All reviews are conducted in accordance with Oklahoma Department of Human Services (OKDHS) regulations and policies, as well as the terms outlined in contracts and cooperative agreements between OKDHS and various District Attorneys (DAs) and private contractors. These evaluations also adhere to applicable State Statutes and the requirements specified in the United States Code (USC) and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR):
- 42 USC 654 (6)(B)
- 42 USC 654 (3)
- 42 USC 654 (4)(A)
- 42 USC 666(a)(5)
- 45 CFR 302.33 (a)(1)(i)
- 45 CFR 302.15(a)
- 45 CFR 302.31
- 45 CFR 302.70(a)(5)
- 45 CFR 303.2(a)(2)&(3)(b)
- 45 CFR 307.10(b)(14)
- 45 CFR §308
The purpose of the review is to identify for OKDHS management, CSS management and District Child Support Office management the areas in which the district office did not comply with Federal Program Standards. The resulting review should be used as a management tool to determine how resources should be applied to achieve the mission and goals of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services and Child Support Services.
Audit Methodology through use of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Federal Case processing requirements may be reviewed in 45 CFR §302 and 303, The Annual State Self Assessment Review and Report criteria can be found in 45 CFR §308. The criteria listed below is as an overview of the requirements and rules.
The CFR policy on locating noncustodial parents follows:
CFR 303.3 Location of noncustodial parents in IV-D cases:
(a) Definition. For purposes of this section, location means obtaining information concerning the physical whereabouts of the noncustodial parent, or the noncustodial parent’s employer(s), other sources of income or assets, as appropriate, which is sufficient and necessary to take the next appropriate action in an IV-D case.
Case Initiation – Per CFR Title 45 §303.2 – 90% Compliance level
The office must make applications for child support services readily accessible to the public. The office must provide an application on the day a request is made in person or send an application within five (5) working days if requested by mail or phone.
For all cases referred to the office, the office must establish a case record within no more than 20 calendar days of receipt.
Case Closure – Per CFR Title 45 §303.11 – 90% Compliance level
The State shall establish a system for case closure. In order to be eligible for closure the case must meet at least one of the twenty-three closure criteria. Several require the State to notify the custodial parent in writing 60 calendar days prior to the case being closed.
Establishment – Per CFR Title 45 §303.4 and §303.5 – 75% Compliance level
Establishing an order or completing service of process necessary to commence proceedings to establish a support order, or if applicable, paternity, within 90 days of locating the non-custodial parent, documenting unsuccessful attempts to serve process in accordance with the State’s guidelines defining diligent efforts.
ESTABLISHMENT ACTIONS
NCP located within 90 days of the end of the audit period.
The State must serve the alleged father or non-custodial parent or document diligent effort to serve within 90 days of locating the person. Therefore, if the person is located within 90 days of the end of the audit period this is considered an action case.
All appropriate locate action.
The State performed the minimum required quarterly locate search of state workforce files, which include data maintained by the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (OESC). Accessing OESC files requires the case to be in Priority 5.
Served the NCP within 90 days of being located.
The State served the NCP within 90 days of locate The State has not yet obtained an order.
Conducted Genetic Testing.
The State has conducted genetic testing and is waiting for the results or waiting on a hearing date outside of the audit period.
Obtained an Order during the audit period.
The State established a current support order during the audit period.
Dismissed a pleading.
The State had filed establishment pleadings and later dismissed the action because the alleged father was excluded through genetic testing or there is a pending private action in District Court (e.g. divorce, paternity/establishment etc).
Referred CP’s non-cooperation to IV-A.
The State referred the CP for non-cooperation to IV-A. The CP’s cooperation is essential to take the next step in establishing an order.
Service of Process
The State was unable to serve the NCP and documented attempts per CSS policy and practices.
Filed a motion to intervene on behalf of the State.
The State filed a motion to intervene on behalf of the State for reimbursement of TANF and/or medical support (usually in divorce proceedings).
Referred case to the NCP’s residential State (UIFSA).
The State located the NCP in another State, sent a UIFSA packet to the other State.
Took all appropriate action to establish an Order.
The case does not fall into one of the categories above, but the State has taken all the proper steps to establish a current support order.
ESTABLISHMENT NO ACTIONS
No locate activity.
The State did not access any locate sources.
Not all appropriate locate activity.
The State conducted some locate activities by assessing certain sources, however, it failed to utilize all available locate sources. Specifically:
- The State did not perform the minimum required quarterly locate search of state workforce files, which include data maintained by OESC.
- Accessing OESC files requires the case to be in Priority 5, which was not properly set or updated.
Served outside time frames.
The State was able to serve the NCP or alleged father, but it was not within 90 days of locate and an order was not established during the audit period.
No establishment activity after locate.
The State had located the NCP or alleged father but did not take any steps to establish a current support order.
Did not document Service of Process.
The State did not document service attempts using CSS policy and practices on process service.
Did not refer to IV-A for non-cooperation.
The CP is not cooperating with the State and the CP’s cooperation is essential to take the next step in establishing an order and the State did not inform IV-A of the non-cooperation.
Did not refer to NCP’s residential State.
The State located the NCP or alleged father in another State, long arm does not apply or has failed, and the State did not send a UIFSA packet to the other State.
Did not take all the appropriate actions to establish.
The case does not fall into one of the categories above, but the State has not taken all the proper steps to establish an order.
Enforcement – Per CFR Title 45 §303.6 – 75% Compliance level
The State must identify non-custodial parents who have failed to comply with a support obligation. The State must take appropriate enforcement action within the following time frames of identifying a delinquency or other support related non-compliance with the order, or the location of the non-custodial parent, whichever occurs later:
- 30 calendar days if service of process is not necessary
- 60 calendar days if service of process is necessary.
- Complete service of process (or document unsuccessful attempts to serve process in accordance with the State’s guidelines defining diligent effort).
Enforcement refers to an appropriate action taken to compel a delinquent parent to comply with an order. Mandatory enforcement actions are:
- Income Assignment
- Federal Tax Offset
- State Tax Offset
- Passport Denial
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
NCP located within 60 days of the end of the audit period.
The State must serve the non-custodial parent or document diligent effort to serve within 60 days of locating the person. Therefore, if the person is located within 60 days of the end of the audit period it is considered an action case.
All appropriate locate action.
The State performed the minimum required quarterly locate search of state workforce files, which include data maintained by the OESC. Accessing OESC files requires the case to be in Priority 5.
Enforced through Income Assignment.
The State identified an employer and sent an income assignment to the employer during the audit period.
Served NCP within 60 days of locate or identifying delinquency
The State served the NCP within 60 days of locate or identifying a delinquency. The State has not yet conducted a hearing.
Enforced through Payments.
The State received payments. These payments could be through the employer, voluntary payments or payments from another source.
Enforced through FIDM action.
The State received a collection because of a FIDM action.
Referred case to the NCP’s residential State (UIFSA).
The State located the NCP in another State and sent a UIFSA packet to the other State.
Provided the Responding State with requested or new information.
The State provided the Responding State with requested information (e.g. a record of payments) or the State provided the Responding State with new information (e.g. new employer).
Received a collection because of a lien.
The State received a collection because of a lien. This could be money from a worker’s compensation lien or money from a lien on real property.
License revocation.
The State has served the NCP, a hearing was held, and a determination has been made. The NCP is either placed on probation and is abiding by the terms of probation or the NCP’s licenses have been revoked.
Redirection that resulted in collections.
The State has obtained and served the NCP with an order redirecting payments through the State’s central receipts unit. This action has resulted in payments, and no further action is required.
Enforcing through contempt citation.
The State was unable to identify the non-custodial parent’s (NCP’s) employer and one of the following actions took place:
- The case was reviewed for possible civil contempt enforcement.
- The NCP’s ability to pay was determined.
- A contempt citation was served to the NCP.
- A hearing was held, and findings of fact were made during the audit period.
- The NCP is currently making payments in accordance with the court order.
A bench warrant was issued.
The State served the NCP with a contempt citation. NCP failed to appear, and a bench warrant was issued.
Referred CP’s non-cooperation to IV-A.
The State referred the CP for non-cooperation to IV-A. The CP’s cooperation is essential to take the next step in enforcing an order.
Tax intercept
The State has exhausted all enforcement actions allowed under the law and the only remedy available is tax intercept. The tax referral resulted in a collection.
Service of Process
The State was unable to serve the NCP and documented attempts per CSS policy and practices.
Collections: A payment was received as a result from one of the following actions:
- Notice of Delinquency (NOD)
- Annual Notice/Subsequent (AN)
- Notice of Payment Increase (NOPI)
- Setting or adjusting judgment payment plan
- Fresh Letter/payment demand letter/other
Enforced by felony.
The State has filed a felony for failing to provide for a minor child.
Referred to the U.S. Attorney.
The State referred the NCP to the U.S. Attorney’s office for prosecution.
All appropriate actions to enforce.
The case does not fall into one of the categories above, but the State had taken all the proper steps to enforce an order.
ENFORCEMENT NO ACTION
Did not send an I/A to a known employer
The State identified or should have identified an employer for the NCP but failed to send a notice of income assignment to the employer.
No locate activity.
The State did not access any locate sources.
Not all appropriate locate activity.
- The State conducted some locate activities by accessing certain sources; however, it failed to utilize all available locate sources as required. Specifically:
- The State did not perform the minimum required quarterly locate search of state workforce files, which include data maintained by the OESC.
- Accessing OESC files requires the case to be in Priority 5, which was not properly set or updated.
No activity after locate.
The State located the NCP but did not take any steps to enforce an order (See CFR 303.3 definition of locate). AOR on file.
Served outside time frames.
The State was able to serve the NCP, but it was not within 60 days of locate and a hearing was not held during the audit period.
Did not document Service of Process.
The State did not document service attempts using CSS policy and practices on process service.
Did not refer for tax offset.
The case meets the criteria for either Federal tax and/or State tax offset, but the case was not referred for offset.
Did not refer to NCP’s residential State (UIFSA).
The State located the NCP in another State, and the State did not send a UIFSA packet to the other State.
Did not send important or new information to the other State.
The State failed to provide requested or new information to the other State (e.g. locate, employer, request status of enforcement).
Did not send the license revocation order.
The NCP was placed on probation. The NCP has failed to abide by the terms of probation and the office failed to send the order revoking the NCP’s license to appropriate licensing agency.
Did not refer to IV-A for non-cooperation.
The CP is not cooperating with the State and the CP’s cooperation is essential to take the next step in enforcing an order and the State did not inform IV-A of the non-cooperation.
Did not take all the appropriate actions to enforce.
The case does not fall into one of the categories above, but the State has not taken all the proper steps to enforce an order.
Medical Enforcement – Per CFR Title 45 §303.30 and §303.31 – 75% Compliance level
Medical enforcement is an ongoing process. The State must petition the court to order health care coverage for the child(ren). If ordered, the State must attempt to secure health insurance information or compel the NCP to enroll the child(ren). Once the information is secured, the State must pass the information on to either third party liability or the custodial parent.
MEDICAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Obtained or attempted to obtain medical information.
The State sent out a medical information questionnaire to the NCP or NCP’s employer to obtain health care coverage information; and/or the information came back negative.
Passed the information to CP or OHCA.
The State obtained health care information and passed the information (insurance carrier, policy number, etc.) on to the CP and to the Oklahoma Health Care Authority (OHCA).
Medical provision in new order.
An order was established at the end of the audit period that contained a provision addressing health care coverage.
Took steps to enforce a medical order.
The State took steps to have the NCP or CP enroll the child(ren) into an available health care plan (e.g. Sent order to the insurance company, contempt of court) per court order.
Cash Medical.
The State is collecting cash medical payments as ordered; until insurance is provided per OAC 340:25-5-168(i)(1).
Modified an order to include a medical provision.
The State modified an existing current support order to address health care coverage for the child(ren).
Located or all appropriate locate action in a MEO.
In a Medical Enforcement Only (MEO) case, the NCP or alleged father was located at the end of the audit period and there was not enough time left to take the next step; or the State took all the appropriate actions to locate the NCP or alleged father.
All appropriate actions to enforce.
The case does not fall into one of the categories above, but the State has taken all the proper steps to enforce medical (e.g. quarterly locate).
MEDICAL ENFORCEMENT NO ACTIONS
New order did not contain medical provision.
The State established a new order during the audit period that did not contain a health care provision.
Did not attempt to obtain medical information.
The State did not attempt to obtain medical information from the NCP or the NCP’s employer.
Did not take all appropriate action to obtain medical info
The State did attempt to obtain medical information from the NCP but not the NCP’s employer or the State attempted to obtain medical information from the NCP’s employer but not the NCP.
Did not pass medical information to CP or OHCA.
The State obtained health care coverage information but did not forward the information to the CP or to OHCA
Did not enforce a medical support order.
The State did not take steps to have the NCP enroll the child(ren) into an available health care plan. (e.g. send the order to the insurance company, contempt of court).
Did not establish a medical order.
In a MEO the State did not, after locating the NCP, take steps to establish paternity and/or a medical support order.
Did not access all appropriate locate sources in a MEO.
In a MEO case the State did not take all the appropriate actions to locate the NCP or alleged father.
Did not modify an order to include a medical provision.
The State did not modify an existing current support order to address health care coverage for the child(ren).
Did not take all the appropriate actions to enforce.
The case does not fall into one of the categories above, but the State did not take all the proper steps to enforce medical.
Review and Adjust – Per CFR Title 45 §303.8 – 75% Compliance level
At least once every three years after a child support order is established, reviewed, or modified, Oklahoma Human Services (OKDHS) Child Support Services (CSS) notifies all parties in a full-service case of the right to request a review of the child support order and the process for requesting a review. CSS conducts a review every three years in cases with a Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) assignment.
REVIEW AND ADJUSTMENT ACTIONS
Started the process within the required timeframes.
- The State initiated the process within the required 15-day time frame after a request for review was received.
- The State notified parties by sending the Right to Review letter.
- The State started the review on a case where there is an assignment to the State under Social Security Act part A. (aka TANF Mod Reviews).
Conducted the review (no adjustment).
The State reviewed the child support order and based on one of the following criteria there was no adjustment in award amount or medical provision:
- The change in the award amount did not meet state’s criteria for adjustment
- One or both of the parties not located or out of the country
- No jurisdiction
- One or both parties were not served
- One of the parties is noncooperative
- No criteria to review order
- Order abated
Modified order to bring into compliance with guidelines.
An upward or downward change in the amount of child support based upon an application of State’s guidelines for setting and adjusting child support awards; and/or a provision for the child’s health care needs, through health insurance coverage or other means.
REVIEW AND ADJUSTMENT NO ACTIONS
No Review: Did not start the review process on an eligible case.
The State did not initiate the review process on a case that was due for review within the required time frame. Cases must be reviewed every three years.
- The State did not initiate the process within the required 15-day time frame after a request for review was received
- The State did not notify parties by sending the Right to Review letter
- The State did not start the review on a case where there is an assignment to the State under Social Security Act part A. (aka TANF Mod Reviews)
Did not complete review within the required timeframes.
The State started the process, but the review was not completed within 180 days.
Incorrect Review Action
The State did not review the obligation sequence containing child support and medical, or the State did not correctly update the review disposition.
Intergovernmental Services – Per CFR Title 45 §303.7 – 75% Compliance level
Intergovernmental cases are reviewed for the appropriate child support services needed and, in addition, the case is reviewed separately for any intergovernmental time frames that applied during the audit period.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS
Referral to the Responding State
The State sent a UIFSA to the NCP’s residing State.
Provided requested information to Responding State within 30 days
The Responding State request information from this State and the State provided the requested information within 30 days.
Passed new information to Responding State within 10 days
This State acquired new information in the case and passed that information to the Responding State within 10 days.
Responded to status request from Initiating State within 5 days
The Initiating State sent this State a status request and the State responded to the request within 5 days.
Provided requested information to Initiating State within 30 days
The Initiating State request information from this State and the State provided the requested information within 30 days.
Passed new information to Initiating State within 10 days
This State acquired new information on the case and passed that information to the Initiating State within 10 days.
All appropriate actions to enforce
The case does not fall into one of the categories above, but the State took all the proper steps to enforce intergovernmental services.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL NO ACTIONS
Did not make a referral to the Responding State
The NCP was located in another State, and the State did not send a UIFSA to the NCP’s residing State.
Did not provide requested information to Responding State within 30 days
The Responding State request information from this State and the State did not provide the requested information within 30 days.
Did not Pass new information to Responding State within 10 days
This State acquired new information in the cases and did not pass that information on the Responding State within 10 days.
Did not respond to status request from Initiating State within 5 days
The Initiating State sent this State a status request and the State did not respond to the request within 5 days.
Did not Provide requested information to Initiating State within 30 days
The Initiating State request information from this State and the State did not provide the requested information within 30 days.
Did not Pass new information to Initiating State within 10 days
This State acquired new information in the case and did not pass that information on the Initiating State within 10 days.
Did not take all the appropriate actions to enforce
The case does not fall into one of the categories above, but the State did not take all the proper steps to enforce interstate services.
Expedited – Per CFR Title 45 §303.101 75% within six months – 90% within a year Compliance level
The expedited process is the measure of elapsed time between the date of service and the date of disposition. This refers only to establishment cases. It does not include enforcement actions.
In IV-D cases needing support orders established, regardless of whether paternity has been established, action to establish support orders must be completed from the date of service of process to the time of disposition within the following timeframes pursuant to Sec. 303.101(b)(2)(i) of this chapter:
- 75 percent in 6 months; and
- 90 percent in 12 months.
- States may count as a success for the 6-month standard cases where the IV-D agency uses long-arm jurisdiction and disposition occurs within 12 months of service of process on the alleged father or non-custodial parent.
Disbursements – Per CFR Title 45 §302.32 – 75% Compliance level
The State must distribute a support collection to the appropriate payee within no more than two business days after receiving the payment from an employer or other source of periodic income, with respect to the most recent payment received for each case.