Intergovernmental Improvement Committee Survey

ERICSA 2021 CASE CLOSURE SURVEY TO STATES, TERRITORIES, AND TRIBES

Introduction. 2
Top 3 Case Closure Options Used on Outgoing Intergovernmental Cases. 3
Top 5 Case Closure Options Wanted for Incoming Intergovernmental Cases. 3
Outlier Options-Outgoing/Initiating Intergovernmental Caseload. 4
Outlier Options-Incoming/Responding Intergovernmental Caseload. 5
Variances of Case Closure Across the Participant Jurisdictions—Outgoing/Initiating Intergovernmental Caseload. 6
Variances of Case Closure Across the Participant Jurisdictions— Incoming/Responding Intergovernmental Caseload. 6
Table 1: Case Closure Options Current Used by Participants on Their Outgoing/Initiating Intergovernmental Caseload, Alabama – Nevada. 7
Table 2: Case Closure Options Current Used by Participants on Their Outgoing/Initiating Intergovernmental Caseload, New Hampshire – Wyoming. 7

Introduction

In the spring of 2021, the Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association (ERICSA) sent a survey to the IV-D Directors of states, territories, and tribes in the child support program about case closure options. The survey presumed three things:

The jurisdictions use only options found in 45 CFR §303.11 for case closure.
The only case closure options that expressly apply to intergovernmental cases are 45 CFR §303.11(17)(18) and (19).
45 CFR §303.11(17) is the only section of the three intergovernmental options above that applies to actions taken directly by the responding jurisdiction for their incoming intergovernmental caseload: “The responding agency documents failure by the initiating agency to take an action that is essential for the next step in providing services.”

The ERICSA survey listed all case closure options under 45 CFR §303.11 and asked each jurisdiction two questions: 1) which options did you adopt as your jurisdiction’s policy for your outgoing/initiating intergovernmental caseload (local cases) and 2) which of these options would you want to apply to your incoming/responding intergovernmental caseload.

The survey closed in the fall of 2021 with responses from 31 states, 2 territories, and 4 tribes, totaling 37 jurisdictions. ERICSA asked the participants for permission to share their answers to the first question and post them on the ERICSA website. Most participants (31) agreed to share their current policies on their outgoing/initiating intergovernmental caseload (question 1), so their answers appear in the tables.

The jurisdictions are organized alphabetically into two documents. Table 1 (Alabama through Nevada) and Table 2 (New Hampshire through Wyoming) below set forth their responses. Therefore, this survey does not represent all IV-D jurisdictions, but ERICSA shares it to be helpful to frontline intergovernmental caseworkers working with one of the participating jurisdictions.

Top 3 Case Closure Options Used on Outgoing Intergovernmental Cases

The top three case closure options currently used by the jurisdictions for their intergovernmental outgoing/initiating caseloads are:

The noncustodial parent or alleged father is deceased and no further action, including a levy against the estate, can be taken. 45 CFR §303.11(4). [34 jurisdictions]
There is no longer a current support order and arrearages are under $500 or unenforceable under State law. 45 CFR §303.11(1). [33 jurisdictions]
The non-IV-A recipient of services requests closure of a case and there is no assignment to the State of medical support under 42 CFR 433.146 or of arrearages which accrued under a support order. 45 CFR §303.11(12). [33 jurisdictions]

Top 5 Case Closure Options Wanted for Incoming Intergovernmental Cases

The top five case closure options wanted by the jurisdictions, in addition to 45 CFR §303.11(17)(18) and (19), for their incoming/responding caseloads are:

The noncustodial parent or alleged father is deceased and no further action, including a levy against the estate, can be taken. 45 CFR §303.11(4). [30 jurisdictions]
The noncustodial parent’s sole income is from Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments made in accordance with sections 1601 et seq., of title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. 45 CFR §303.11(9)(i). [29 jurisdictions]
The noncustodial parent’s sole income is from both SSI payments and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits under title II of the Act. 45 CFR §303.11(9)(ii). [28 jurisdictions]
The noncustodial parent’s location is unknown, and the State has made diligent efforts using multiple sources, in accordance with §303.3, all of which have been unsuccessful, to locate the noncustodial parent over a 2-year period when there is sufficient information to initiate an automated locate effort. 45 CFR §303.11(7)(i). [28 jurisdictions]
The IV-D agency has determined that throughout the duration of the child’s minority (or after the child has reached the age of majority), the noncustodial parent cannot pay support and shows no evidence of support potential because the parent has been institutionalized in a psychiatric facility, is incarcerated, or has a medically-verified total and permanent disability. The State must also determine that the noncustodial parent has no income or assets available above the subsistence level that could be levied or attached for support. 45 CFR §303.11(8). [28 jurisdictions]

Outlier Options-Outgoing/Initiating Intergovernmental Caseload

The three case closure options used by the fewest number of jurisdictions for the outgoing/initiating intergovernmental caseload are:

The IV-D agency has completed a limited service under 45 CFR §302.33(a)(6) of this chapter. 45 CFR §303.11(13). [13 jurisdictions]
The IV-D case, including a case with arrears assigned to the State, has been transferred to a Tribal IV-D agency and the State IV-D agency has complied with the following procedures: The State IV-D agency completely and fully transferred and closed the case and the Tribal IV-D agency has a State-Tribal agreement approved by OCSE to transfer and close cases. The State-Tribal agreement must include a provision for obtaining the consent from the recipient of services to transfer and close the case. 45 CFR §303.11(21)(ii and iv). [14 jurisdictions]
The IV-D case, including a case with arrears assigned to the State, has been transferred to a Tribal IV-D agency and the State IV-D agency has complied with the following procedures: Before transferring and closing the IV-D case with the State, the CP requested the State to transfer the case to the Tribal IV-D agency and close the case with the State; or the state notified the CP of its intent to transfer and close the case with the State and the CP did not respond to the notice to transfer the case within 60 calendar days from the date notice was provided. 45 CFR §303.11(21)(i). [16 jurisdictions]

Outlier Options-Incoming/Responding Intergovernmental Caseload

The three case closure options wanted by the fewest jurisdictions for the incoming/responding intergovernmental caseload are:

Another assistance program, including IV-A, IV-E, SNAP, and Medicaid, has referred a case to the IV-D agency that is inappropriate to establish, enforce, or continue to enforce a child support order and the custodial or noncustodial parent has not applied for services. 45 CFR §303.11(20). [11 jurisdictions]
The IV-D case, including a case with arrears assigned to the State, has been transferred to a Tribal IV-D agency and the State IV-D agency has complied with the following procedures: Before transferring and closing the IV-D case with the State, the CP requested the State to transfer the case to the Tribal IV-D agency and close the case with the State; or the state notified the CP of its intent to transfer and close the case with the State and the CP did not respond to the notice to transfer the case within 60 calendar days from the date notice was provided. 45 CFR §303.11(21)(i). [11jurisdictions]
In a non-IV-A case receiving services under 45 CFR §302.33(a)(1)(i) or (iii) of this chapter, or under 45 CFR §302.33(a)(1)(ii) when cooperation with the IV-D agency is not required of the recipient of services, the IV-D agency is unable to contact the recipient of services despite a good faith effort to contact the recipient through at least two different methods. 45 CFR §303.11(15). [15 jurisdictions]

Variances of Case Closure Across the Participant Jurisdictions—Outgoing/Initiating Intergovernmental Caseload

There are 29 case closure options under 45 CFR §303.11 including each section and subsection. The average number of case closure options used among the jurisdictions for their outgoing/initiating caseload is 21, and the median number of case closure options used is 22.

There are four jurisdictions (out of the 37 that provided responses) that use all 29 case closure options in their policy for the outgoing/initiating caseload. There are four jurisdictions that reported using less than ten closure options, with one jurisdiction using only two.

Variances of Case Closure Across the Participant Jurisdictions— Incoming/Responding Intergovernmental Caseload

There are 29 case closure options under 45 CFR §303.11 including each section and subsection. The average number of case closure options wanted by the jurisdictions for use on their incoming/responding intergovernmental caseload is 18, and the median number of case closure options wanted is 20.

There are three jurisdictions of the 37 that responded that want to use all 29 case closure options in their policy for the incoming/responding caseload. There are nine jurisdictions that indicate they want less than ten of the case closure options to apply to their incoming/responding intergovernmental caseload with three suggesting zero case closure options.

Table 1: Case Closure Options Current Used by Participants on Their Outgoing/Initiating Intergovernmental Caseload, Alabama – Nevada

View ERICSA CC Survey – Table 1 for Q1

Table 2: Case Closure Options Current Used by Participants on Their Outgoing/Initiating Intergovernmental Caseload, New Hampshire – Wyoming

View ERICSA CC Survey – Table 2 for Q1