17.C Self Assessment Review Committee Notes
Appendix 17.C – Self-Assessment Review Committee Notes
Purpose:
After each self-assessment review, the Self-Assessment Review Committee (Committee) will meet to discuss the cases where the State CSP Office Self-Assessment Reviewer indicated an “error” in a category and the District CSP Office Manager responded to the error finding. The following are the notes from the Self-Assessment Review Committee.
Notes:
Update to Notes from the Self-Assessment Review Committee from 10-1-14 to 9-30-15
Note: The Self-Assessment Review Committee uses the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) as the guiding authority over the self-assessment review and the CFR source guide is used in the decision making process.
Update to Notes from the SAR review from 10-1-14 to 9-30-15
It should be noted that the SAR Committee uses the CRF as the guiding authority over the self assessment audit and the CFR source guide is used in the decision making process.
Locate
10-1-03 to 9-30-04/10-1-13 to 9-30-14: Case notes should reflect the specialist attempts to locate through all available information sources, i.e., FCR, contact with parties. If log notes do not sufficiently document the locate resources tried, then the file will be reviewed for paper locate data. If there is no paper locate data to support the resources tried, the case will be counted as an Error.
Closure
10-1-03 to 9-30-04/10-1-13 to 9-30-14: In order for a closure to “Pass” the following must be done: (1) The correct closure reason is used. (2) The Intent to Closure Letter is documented on the Posse Document Log List as generated. (3) A case note is made on Case Maintenance. (4) There must be a signed copy of the Closure Letter in the file. (5) The closure reason on Posse must match the closure letter listed on the Closure Letter.
10-1-08 to 9-30-09: Please note that staff cannot close a case “Noncooperation CP” because a closure letter was not received. 303.11 (b) (11) states that ‘an action by the recipient of services is essential for the next step in providing IV-D services’. Per federal guidance, Case Closure is not a service that is provided by the IV-D program. A letter should be sent requesting information from the CP and if that information is not provided we will close the case for “Noncooperation CP”.
10-1-09 to 9-30-10: Please note that staff cannot close a case “Noncooperation Other State” because a closure letter was not received. A follow-up letter should be sent requesting information from the Other State and if that information is not provided we are then able to close the case for “Noncooperation Other State”.
Enforcement
Establishment
10-1-06 to 9-30-07: Based upon AT 94-06 (Part 4) no case shall be removed or excluded from the audit because of extenuating circumstances outside of district office control. Effective with the next self assessment audit, cases will no longer be excluded or removed from the audit for this purpose.
10-1-13 to 9-30-13: If the CP is not located per the State guidelines and per CFR 308.2(b)iv. The process of obtaining paternity or an order, stops until they are located.
10-1-11 to 9-30-12: The following clarification was made by Brenda Lyttle the IV-D Director: If private attorneys are involved in the case and the expedited process time frame is met the case shall pass. If private attorneys are involved in the case and the expedited process time frame is not met the case shall fail. All attempts to contact the private attorneys throughout the audit period shall be documented.
Expedited Process
10-1-11 to 9-30-12: 45 C.F.R. 303.4(d) states within 90 calendar days of locating the alleged father or non-custodial parent, regardless of whether paternity has been established, establish an order for support or complete service of process necessary to commence proceedings to establish a support order and, if necessary, paternity (of document unsuccessful attempts to serve process, in accordance with the State’s guidelines defining diligent efforts under 303.3 (c) ). The guidelines for when expedited process begins are as follows: acceptance of service, date of a stipulation, the return of service, or the Order Relating in District 6.
10-1-11 to 9-30-12: The following clarification was made by Brenda Lyttle the IV-D Director: If private attorneys are involved in the case and the expedited process time frame is met the case shall pass. If private attorneys are involved in the case and the expedited process time frame is not met the case shall fail. All attempts to contact the private attorneys throughout the audit period shall be documented.
Interstate
10-1-03 to 9-30-04: Need clarification from Rosanne on C.F.R. 303.7 (Provision of services in interstate IV-D cases) (4) The central registry must respond to inquiries from other States within 5 working days of receipt of the request for a case status review. The question is whether the field offices are considered the “Central Registry” if the request goes through the Central Registry and is then forwarded onto the field office and if the 56 working days timeframe therefore still applies? Per response from Rosanne “I consulted with our OSCE Central Office about you question. They indicated that AT-88-02 (Final Interstate Regulations) addresses this issue in the response to 301.1 and 303.7(a) Interstate Central Registry at comment #11:
#11: Comment: A number of commenters wanted the initiating State to be allowed to deal directly with the local office handling the case or wanted to limit inquiries to the central registry to those made prior to the initiating State’s receipt of notice of where the case was sent for action.
Response: Once a case is forwarded to the appropriate agency or court for action and the initiating State has been notified where the case was sent, we intend that the initiating State and agency or court actually working the case should be in direct contact. In order to adequately work a case a case the responding jurisdiction responsible for working the case must communicate with the initiating State to request additional information, if necessary, or otherwise communicate on actions taken in the case. Such direct contact is essential and it is not our intention that these ongoing contacts should flow through the central registry.
The requirement at 303.7(a)(4) for central registries to respond to inquires from other States is intended for situations in which an initiating State loses track of a case or is unable to determine whether any action is being taken on a case. Inquiries to the central registry should, therefore, be limited to instances where direct contact between the initiating State and the agency or court working the case is ineffective or impossible.”
It’s not appropriate to refer to the district child support office as the “Central Registry” as the definition in 45 CFR 301.1 refers to a “single unit or office.” Wyoming’s approach for communicating with the initiating state, as described in your email, comports with the description in the Response to Comment#11 (above). If another state does request a case status review from the Wyoming Central Registry (presumable because contacts with the district office are ineffective), the Wyoming Central Registry is required to respond to the inquiry within five working days. Based on the information provided by Rosanne, the SAV committee decided that we would not consider the field office to be the Central Registry. The field office will have 5 working days to respond to a request for status.
10-1-03 to 9-30-04: CSENet updates (change of name, address, employer, etc.) are NOT considered specific answers to Status Requests of Request for Information. To pass, a case must have documentation (i.e., transmittal or CSENet message) that support that we provided/answered the appropriate questions asked.
10-1-09 to 9-30-10: For clarification purposes pursuant to both “Initiating “ and “Responding” when the CFR references the following: “the request for information by submitting an updated form, or a computer generated replica in the same format and containing the same information, and any necessary additional documentation”. The committee will accept information provided in the following ways within the time-frames: telephone call that is documented on Posse, a csenet, a fax a letter, transmittal, or a copy of an order.
R & A
10-1-03 to 9-30-04: Need clarification form Rosanne on initiating cases. Are we responsible to send the R & A notice to all parties regardless of whether or not if it is a WY order. Per response from Roseanne:
“UIFSA provisions dicate how to determine Continuing Exclusive Jurisdiction (CEJ) and CEJ is the concept that applies to the legal authority: (jurisdiction) to modify a child support order. A state that has issued a controlling order under UIFSA has CEJ to modify the order as long as the state is the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued. The 2001 version of UIFSA amended section 205(a)(1) to specifically clarify that the residence of the parties at the time of the filing of the request for modification is considered when determining whether CEJ exists.
10-1-08 to 9-30-09: Update response received from Rosanne:
I previously indicated I would consult with our OCSE Central Office since I was unable to find any written policy guidance which responded to your inquiry. I have heard back from OSCE policy staff and they confirmed that we do not have any written policy concerning which state is required to send the 3 year notice. While 303.7(b)(6) requires the initiating state to send the request for the review of the child support order to the responding state, it appears that is does not make the leap that the initiating state is also responsible for sending the notice out to both parties.
It seems that Wyoming’s current policy of sending the 3 year notice to everyone is a sound way to ensure all parties have been notified.
Medical
10-1-03 to 9-30-04: In all cases where “medical” is ordered the Child Support Enforcement Office is responsible to see that all medical information is loaded correctly onto Posse, even if the Clerk of District Court is responsible to load the support order.
General Information
10-1-03 to 9-30-04: If a case originally had an error but was initially assessed using an incorrect ‘cite’ the Committee reviewed for the correct ‘cite’ and put the case as an Action, an Error or removed the case from the sample.
10-1-14 to 9-30-15: a specific cite will be used to error a case file and if applicable the SAR Committee Notes can be referenced.
10-1-05 to 9-30-06/10-1-09 to 9-30-10: If the physical file is not sent to the SAR Committee and documentation in the file is needed to complete the review, the Committee will not review the case and the case will remain an error. However if the file is not sent and the review can be done solely by the documentation on Posse the review will take place. The Committee would suggest that if the weather prevents an office from personally delivering the files to the Committee for review it should be mailed.
10-1-05 to 9-30-06: The Committee needed clarification when reviewing the ‘law required actin’ and the action went into the next audit period on how this should be viewed. The following shall be the guide regarding this issue: AT-1998-G, Case activity will generally be reviewed for the 12-month review period only. Credit will not be given to child support activities provided prior to or after the 12-month review period.
10-1-06 to 9-30-07: There must be a clear date stamp from each respective office on all documents received (except legal docs). This is imperative for the tracking of time frames. If a date stamp is missing then the Committee will rely on the most recent date on the document. (i.e. for postals the date it was stamped by the postal service will be used; 543-will use the date signed by the CP).
10-1-07 to 9-30-08: There must be documentation of all service attempts (good and bad) in the physical file or noted in Posse notes.
10-1-07 to 9-30-08: In any scenario where the NCP is Employed (meaning that wage withholding is not really Available/Workable/Viable) and /or NCP is paying on a Voluntary Basis OR just where Income Withholding cannot be or should not be initiated based upon the circumstances of that specific case…(one example is where CSE actually terminates the wage withholding because the Employer is ‘keeping’ and not remitting the Withheld Wages and the NCP is therefore specifically advised to pay directly.) It was decided that these cases should Pass. This decision was made at the District Managers Meeting in Green River October 20, 2009 by the District Manager, the State Office Staff and the IV-D Director Brenda Lyttle.
10-1-08 to 9-30-09: The Committee made a clarification to the above decision in that this applies to Enforcement category scenarios, therefore it will read: any enforcement category scenario where the NCP is Employed(meaning that wage withholding is not really Available/Workable/Viable) and /or NCP is paying on a Voluntary Basis OR just where Income Withholding cannot be or should not be initiated based upon the circumstances of that specific case…(one example is where CSE actually terminates the wage withholding because the Employer is ‘keeping’ and not remitting the Withheld Wages and the NCP is therefore specifically advised to pay directly.) It was decided that these cases should Pass. This decision was made at the District Managers Meeting in Green River October 20, 2009 by the District Managers, the State Office Staff and the IV-D Director Brenda Lyttle.
10-1-13 to 9-30-14: In cases that are linked together, share the same court order or “tied” together, all cases must reflect the same case notes by duplicating the same note. A case can fail for a CRF cite if log notes don’t indicate an action has been taken. This can be done by utilizing the additional case pop-up located on the case activity log maintenance, to show that the appropriate action is taking place according to the CFR.