Sonoma County Grand Jury • 2003-2004

Child Support Payments - Process Integrity July 1, 2004

Published: July 01, 2004 3 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 6 findings

F1
As recommended by the 2002-2003 grand jury, CSS and an association of similar county groups lobbied the state to reduce the 10% interest rate on child support payment arrears in order to improve collection. It was discovered that reducing this interest rate for child support arrears alone would be discriminatory versus the interest rate on other late payments such as tax arrears where desires exist to keep the rate punitively high. No action is expected.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
CSS uses computer systems to input actual child support payment data which is sent periodically during the month to a state computer system. The state consolidates CSS data with that of other counties and provides data to the IRS, Franchise Tax Board, and credit rating agencies who act upon individual balances that are past due or in arrears. If in arrears to CSS, the IRS will attach tax refunds. In the case of the Franchise Tax Board it will attach both tax refunds and bank accounts.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
There is an unintentional systems’ delay between the time when payments made to CSS are recorded, and when the information is received by the IRS or Franchise Tax Board. This could cause unwarranted attachments. CSS is aware of this shortcoming and has implemented tracking and override procedures to reduce the chance of an unwarranted attachment. It was individual diligence that prevented an attachment in one of the cases reviewed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
CSS staff involved in the calculation of account balances must be made aware of the need to verify arrears with all parties involved and balance their considerations before data is released to the state systems that trigger tax refund or bank account attachments. This assumes the parties have been given proper notice and have had the opportunity to respond. Required Responses to Findings Director-Child Support Services – F5 Required Responses to Recommendations Director, Child Support Services – R1, R2
F4
Brochures have been developed by the state and CSS that outline its services and describe the child support collection process in general terms. These brochures are sent to the payers when collection management by CSS begins, along with a letter which also provides a phone contact number.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
CSS payers are advised in general terms of the collection process, but not of the specific procedures when disputes arise. It is not sufficiently clear to the non-custodial parent that an immediate response to a dispute is imperative to avoid subsequent IRS or Franchise Tax Board action. Payers who are not in arrears and unfamiliar with the CSS process will not be aware that disputed amounts still under review might cause unwarranted penalties and consequences due to the automated workings of the computer system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
CSS should add a paragraph to the initial notification to non-custodial parents (Contact Order) that clearly outlines: (cid:131) How CSS calculates and establishes the account balances, (cid:131) The timing of those steps, (cid:131) How the non custodial parent will be notified of the specifics, and (cid:131) The potential consequences of non-response.
F6
No evidence was found of CSS procedures not being followed or of processing delays within CSS. Conclusions Computer system lags allow for incorrect information to be acted upon, automatically penalizing and unjustly shifting the burden to the non-custodial parents to correct the problem created by the system. Due process requires that there be adequate disclosure and system safeguards so that penalties do not result inadvertently. 2/3 July 1, 2004 The repercussions of IRS or Franchise Tax Board attachments and credit rating agency arrears notification are severe. As a result, it is important that all opposing parties have the opportunity to dispute transactions before the data is released to state systems. CSS staff must carefully research and confirm all data submitted. CSS has done well in trying to communicate its role and responsibilities to all parties involved in this process. It could be improved, however, if their initial advice letter stressed individuals’ prompt attention to their account balances and that any dispute be resolved quickly. In the meantime, CSS should control the release of that data until bona fide disputes are resolved.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
CSS staff involved in the calculation of account balances must be made aware of the need to verify arrears with all parties involved and balance their considerations before data is released to the state systems that trigger tax refund or bank account attachments. This assumes the parties have been given proper notice and have had the opportunity to respond. Required Responses to Findings Director-Child Support Services – F5 Required Responses to Recommendations Director, Child Support Services – R1, R2

Conclusions 2