Saturday, March 31, 2012
REPORT: "OCTOMOM" NOW RECEIVING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
According to TMZ, "Octomom" is now receiving public assistance. So, why doesn't the State of California go after the father for child support?
According to TMZ, "Octomom" is now receiving public assistance. So, why doesn't the State of California go after the father for child support?
Labels: Child Support Collection, Miscellaneous
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
DENNIS RODMAN IS SICK, BROKE, & CAN'T PAY CHILD SUPPORT
The Los Angeles Times has reported that former NBA star Dennis Rodman is facing contempt charges for owing over $800,000 in back child support.
The Los Angeles Times has reported that former NBA star Dennis Rodman is facing contempt charges for owing over $800,000 in back child support.
Labels: Child Support, Civil Contempt, Pro Athletes
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
LATEST UPDATE ON STATUS OF SC'S COMPUTERIZED CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION AND TRACKING SYSTEM
Click here to review the March 20, 2012 "South Carolina Department of Social Services Response to Budget Proviso 26.20." South Carolina has now been working on this system for twenty-three years and has been fined over $104,000,000 for failure to install the system in the required time frame. Still, to the credit of new DSS Director Lillian Koller, South Carolina finally appears to be moving in the right direction.
Click here to review the March 20, 2012 "South Carolina Department of Social Services Response to Budget Proviso 26.20." South Carolina has now been working on this system for twenty-three years and has been fined over $104,000,000 for failure to install the system in the required time frame. Still, to the credit of new DSS Director Lillian Koller, South Carolina finally appears to be moving in the right direction.
Labels: Computerized Child Support System, Federal Fines, Problems at DSS
Monday, March 26, 2012
SC DSS PROPOSES TO CORRECT DEFECTIVE NEW HIRE REPORTING STATUTE
Everybody, hold on to your seats, South Carolina is finally going to make a serious effort to enact legislation that the federal government mandated be put into place in 1998. If and when South Carolina enacts this legislation, all fifty states will have adopted a New Hire Reporting Statute mandating that employers report new hires to the Child Support Enforcement Division of their state's Department of Social Services.
We make no comment on whether South Carolina's proposed legislation complies with federal law. We do note, however, that this "employer-friendly" legislation contains no penalties for employers who ignore the law. In other words, this legislation is "all hat and no cattle." Rather than crafting legislation designed to increase child support collections, the South Carolina DSS prefers to propose legislation that will be sure not to inconvenience the business community in the least. Rather than creating legislation that complies with both the letter and the spirit of the federal mandate, lawyers for the South Carolina DSS prefer to tell South Carolina employers, "Here is our new federally-mandated statute. We've put off enacting this as long as we can. But, don't worry--this won't inconveneince you in any way. This is because, although the reporting requirements are 'mandatory,' we have gutted the penalties. So, if you violate the law, nothing is going to happen to you. Go in peace. And don't worry about a thing."
As usual, readers of this Blog do not have to take our word for it. Following is a description of the proposed legislation as well as "an explanation for each proposal."
Everybody, hold on to your seats, South Carolina is finally going to make a serious effort to enact legislation that the federal government mandated be put into place in 1998. If and when South Carolina enacts this legislation, all fifty states will have adopted a New Hire Reporting Statute mandating that employers report new hires to the Child Support Enforcement Division of their state's Department of Social Services.
We make no comment on whether South Carolina's proposed legislation complies with federal law. We do note, however, that this "employer-friendly" legislation contains no penalties for employers who ignore the law. In other words, this legislation is "all hat and no cattle." Rather than crafting legislation designed to increase child support collections, the South Carolina DSS prefers to propose legislation that will be sure not to inconvenience the business community in the least. Rather than creating legislation that complies with both the letter and the spirit of the federal mandate, lawyers for the South Carolina DSS prefer to tell South Carolina employers, "Here is our new federally-mandated statute. We've put off enacting this as long as we can. But, don't worry--this won't inconveneince you in any way. This is because, although the reporting requirements are 'mandatory,' we have gutted the penalties. So, if you violate the law, nothing is going to happen to you. Go in peace. And don't worry about a thing."
As usual, readers of this Blog do not have to take our word for it. Following is a description of the proposed legislation as well as "an explanation for each proposal."
_________________________________________
Proposed Legislation for New Hire Reporting
Part A: An explanation for each proposal.
1. Amend 43-5-598(A)(6): Change in federal law (Public Law 112-40) amends section 453A of the Social Security Act, effective April 21, 2012, as follows:
(a) Definition of Newly Hired Employee- Section 453A(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 653a(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
(C) NEWLY HIRED EMPLOYEE- The term “newly hired employee” means an employee who (i) has not previously been employed by the employer; or (ii) was previously employed by the employer but has been separated from such prior employment for at least 60 consecutive days.
2. Amend 43-5-598(C)(2): Change in federal law. P.L. 111-291, §802(a), inserted “the date services for remuneration were first performed by the employee,”. For the effective date [June 8, 2011, but delay is permitted if State legislation is required], see Vol. II, P.L. 111-291, §802(c).
3. Amend Section 43-5-598 by deleting subsection (G): This would be an employer-friendly amendment. DSS believes working proactively with employers through outreach efforts will result in substantially improved compliance, therefore, the need for a monetary penalty to assure compliance would be reduced. The cost to enforce the penalty outweighs the benefits because data systems and matching reports used to identify possible non-compliance produce false positives.
Federal law makes imposition of civil fines optional for states. DSS has contacted federal officials at the National Directory of New Hires NDNH) to determine what other states are doing relative to enforcement. At this point, they are aware of only two states that may impose fines, Utah and North Dakota.
The accuracy of the new hire data and matching processes used to detect failure to report new hires is an ongoing national discussion. The NDNH acknowledges that enforcement is difficult because there are no quantitatively reliable methods for identifying non-compliant employers. The issues of multi-state employers and employers using multiple FEINs to report on the same employee(s) for New Hires and Quarterly Wages create uncertainty in identifying non-compliant employers. The NDNH is aware of the accuracy issues and discussed the issues with states in a recent conference call in November 2011.
During the call, they invited ideas and solutions from the states.Enforcement efforts in South Carolina, as the statute is currently constructed, are complicated and cumbersome. Even if an offending employer is identified, DSS is required to issue warnings and identify each employee for which the employer failed to report to the SDNH. Then, with the burden of proof on DSS, all evidence must be presented by DSS to a family court judge who would determine if a fine is appropriate.
Once a fine is imposed and collected, 66% of the amount collected must be forwarded to the Federal government and the remaining 34% would be retained by DSS. Therefore, the time and effort needed to enforce through fines is not economically efficient. The cost overwhelmingly outweighs the return.
4. Repeal 63-17-1210 entirely: The subject matter is fully addressed by a later provision of law, Section 43-5-598. The two statutes contain inconsistencies and Section 43-5-598 is the statute that tracks the latest federal requirements.
Part A: An explanation for each proposal.
1. Amend 43-5-598(A)(6): Change in federal law (Public Law 112-40) amends section 453A of the Social Security Act, effective April 21, 2012, as follows:
(a) Definition of Newly Hired Employee- Section 453A(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 653a(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
(C) NEWLY HIRED EMPLOYEE- The term “newly hired employee” means an employee who (i) has not previously been employed by the employer; or (ii) was previously employed by the employer but has been separated from such prior employment for at least 60 consecutive days.
2. Amend 43-5-598(C)(2): Change in federal law. P.L. 111-291, §802(a), inserted “the date services for remuneration were first performed by the employee,”. For the effective date [June 8, 2011, but delay is permitted if State legislation is required], see Vol. II, P.L. 111-291, §802(c).
3. Amend Section 43-5-598 by deleting subsection (G): This would be an employer-friendly amendment. DSS believes working proactively with employers through outreach efforts will result in substantially improved compliance, therefore, the need for a monetary penalty to assure compliance would be reduced. The cost to enforce the penalty outweighs the benefits because data systems and matching reports used to identify possible non-compliance produce false positives.
Federal law makes imposition of civil fines optional for states. DSS has contacted federal officials at the National Directory of New Hires NDNH) to determine what other states are doing relative to enforcement. At this point, they are aware of only two states that may impose fines, Utah and North Dakota.
The accuracy of the new hire data and matching processes used to detect failure to report new hires is an ongoing national discussion. The NDNH acknowledges that enforcement is difficult because there are no quantitatively reliable methods for identifying non-compliant employers. The issues of multi-state employers and employers using multiple FEINs to report on the same employee(s) for New Hires and Quarterly Wages create uncertainty in identifying non-compliant employers. The NDNH is aware of the accuracy issues and discussed the issues with states in a recent conference call in November 2011.
During the call, they invited ideas and solutions from the states.Enforcement efforts in South Carolina, as the statute is currently constructed, are complicated and cumbersome. Even if an offending employer is identified, DSS is required to issue warnings and identify each employee for which the employer failed to report to the SDNH. Then, with the burden of proof on DSS, all evidence must be presented by DSS to a family court judge who would determine if a fine is appropriate.
Once a fine is imposed and collected, 66% of the amount collected must be forwarded to the Federal government and the remaining 34% would be retained by DSS. Therefore, the time and effort needed to enforce through fines is not economically efficient. The cost overwhelmingly outweighs the return.
4. Repeal 63-17-1210 entirely: The subject matter is fully addressed by a later provision of law, Section 43-5-598. The two statutes contain inconsistencies and Section 43-5-598 is the statute that tracks the latest federal requirements.
Labels: New Hire Reporting, Problems at DSS
Saturday, March 24, 2012
UPDATE ON STATUS OF SC CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM
Child Support Enforcement System
Current Status:
In November 2010, DSS reached an agreement with HP to pay for penalties going forward through Federal FY 2011-12. This action enabled DSS to carry forward a portion of the $18.5 million appropriated in FY 2010-11 to pay for system development costs.
After careful deliberation and assessment of the status of the Project and its history, the Executive Committee that governs the Project, consisting of the DSS State Director, the Chief Justice, the Governor’s Office, and representatives from the Budget and Control Board and the Clerks of Court, authorized the filing of a Contract Controversy against HP before the State’s Information Technology Management Office, as authorized by SC Code Section 11-35-4230, on September 2, 2011, alleging material breach.
On March 7, 2012, the State and HP settled the contract controversy. HP agreed to pay federal penalties through Federal FY 2012-13. The development of the Child Support Enforcement System is projected to be completed in FY 2012-13. The system should be in use in all 46 counties and in all DSS regions in FY 2013-14. This settlement extends the contract schedule from 68 months to 73 months. Under the new schedule, the final penalties incurred would be for Federal FY 2012-13. The contract amendment memorializing the settlement must be approved by the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement.
What are the Federal requirements for the system?
In order to be certified, a State’s automated Child Support Enforcement System (CSES) must be comprehensive, operate statewide, and meet the standards of efficiency and effectiveness and the operational requirements established by the US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.
Why is the system so complex?
• CSES is required to work with 39 automated systems utilizing multiple interfaces between state, federal agencies and other entities external and internal to DSS.
• Twenty-four of the 42 interfaces are required to achieve federal certification. These include interfaces with TANF (welfare) payments and foster care payments in order to achieve federal certification.
• CSES and Family Court Case Management System (FCCMS) will be used by over 800 DSS Child Support employees and county Family Court
employees. These 800 users will be trained on the use of CSES and FCCMS under the contract with HP.
• CSES and FCCMS will be rolled out into over 50 separate physical locations. A communication network will have to be in place to connect all of these locations and to provide effective data transmittal.
• CSES must meet 331 specific requirements established by the federal government in order to achieve federal certification.
Why is SC subject to Federal penalties and when did they start?
Because of the State’s failure to have a certified statewide system operational by October 1, 1997, South Carolina became subject to federal
penalties.
What is the maximum penalty that could be assessed?
The maximum penalty is the disapproval of the State’s Child Support Enforcement (Title IV-D) State Plan. This would result in the withdrawal of all federal funding for the State’s Child Support Enforcement program of approximately $22.8 million and over 200,000 child support cases annually.
The second level of penalty would be the disapproval of federal funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, potentially $99 million annually.
What is the Alternative Penalty?
Congress made a less severe alternative penalty available to states that lacked a statewide system if the state was willing to work under federal oversight and under a corrective compliance plan designed to implement a system within a reasonable time.
In January 2001, South Carolina elected to be subject to the alterative penalty and OCSE approved the corrective compliance plan.
The alternative penalties will be assessed until lifted by the federal authorities. When the State submits a letter to OCSE representing that the system is certifiable and requesting official federal certification of CSES, federal system penalties will be placed in abeyance while OCSE certifies CSES. Ninety percent of any system penalties actually paid for the federal fiscal year in which the letter was submitted is rebated by OCSE back to the agency once the CSES is certified.
What are the consequences of not completing the system?
If SC did not complete the automated system, nor proceed in good faith to complete the system, the State would be subject to the maximum penalties as determined by the US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, described above, withdrawal of child support funding and TANF funding.
What oversight has been established for this project?
The project is monitored on a monthly basis by the Project Executive Committee whose members are: the Office of the Governor; the Chief Justice of the SC Supreme Court; the Director of DSS; representatives of the Clerks of Court; and the Budget and Control Board.
Federally required monitors review progress and the effectiveness of project processes on a daily basis.
Labels: Computerized Child Support System, Federal Fines, Problems at DSS
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
TEXAS ANSWERS THE QUESTION "HOW DOES NEW HIRE REPORTING BENEFIT THE COMPANY?"
How does it make sense and help a company's bottom line to comply with such a reporting requirement? Simple: the reports are used primarily for tracking parents who owe back child support and for reducing fraud under various social programs, including unemployment benefits. Employers are a vital link in the effort to ensure payment of child support, not only through garnishment of wages, but also through the new hire reports. If your employees who are owed child support start receiving it because of someone else's new hire report, you will have a better, more focused employee. What you do can help other employers, and what they do in that regard will help you. New hire reporting also helps your company through reduction of benefit fraud. Part of the unemployment tax that every taxed employer has to pay comes from claim fraud that must be recouped somehow, and of course the "somehow" is by resorting to employers! Since a new employee's wages will not be reported to TWC for up to three or four months following their hire, the new hire report can help TWC detect UI benefit claim fraud three or four months earlier than it might normally be found. For more details, see the article titled "How Employers Can Help Reduce Claim Fraud" in the Post-Employment Problems section of this book. In addition, since the new hire reporting law absolutely requires employees to give you their social security numbers, it is one more tool to use in verifying SSNs (see the article in the next section of this book titled "Verification of Social Security Numbers"). If a cross-match turns up a problem with the SSN, you can then contact the Social Security Administration for assistance in verifying whether the number is valid.Finally, new hire reporting can help avoid the problem of employees engaging in "double-dipping" with other state or federal benefit programs, such as workers' compensation.
How does it make sense and help a company's bottom line to comply with such a reporting requirement? Simple: the reports are used primarily for tracking parents who owe back child support and for reducing fraud under various social programs, including unemployment benefits. Employers are a vital link in the effort to ensure payment of child support, not only through garnishment of wages, but also through the new hire reports. If your employees who are owed child support start receiving it because of someone else's new hire report, you will have a better, more focused employee. What you do can help other employers, and what they do in that regard will help you. New hire reporting also helps your company through reduction of benefit fraud. Part of the unemployment tax that every taxed employer has to pay comes from claim fraud that must be recouped somehow, and of course the "somehow" is by resorting to employers! Since a new employee's wages will not be reported to TWC for up to three or four months following their hire, the new hire report can help TWC detect UI benefit claim fraud three or four months earlier than it might normally be found. For more details, see the article titled "How Employers Can Help Reduce Claim Fraud" in the Post-Employment Problems section of this book. In addition, since the new hire reporting law absolutely requires employees to give you their social security numbers, it is one more tool to use in verifying SSNs (see the article in the next section of this book titled "Verification of Social Security Numbers"). If a cross-match turns up a problem with the SSN, you can then contact the Social Security Administration for assistance in verifying whether the number is valid.Finally, new hire reporting can help avoid the problem of employees engaging in "double-dipping" with other state or federal benefit programs, such as workers' compensation.
Labels: Child Support Collection, New Hire Reporting
Sunday, March 18, 2012
ANOTHER YEAR LATE AND ANOTHER $10 MILLION SHORT
As we previously posted at http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-south-carolina-dss-director.html, Lillian Koller knows what to do. The question is whether she is being given adequate support and leeway to get the job done. South Carolina does not need to reinvent the wheel. Every State except for South Carolina has adopted the Model Version of the New Hire Reporting Statute. And, last time we checked, only South Carolina had yet to install the computerized child support tracking and collection system mandated by federal law.
South Carolina's failure to install the computer system will in all likelihood cost the State another $10 Million in fines this year, and in our opinion, places South Carolina at risk for losing up to $80 Million per year in federal funding.
We have offered solutions for cleaning up what we refer to as “The Mess at DSS.” And had our advice been heeded, we are confident that South Carolina could have saved about $50 Million in fines, collected another $250 to $500 Million in Child Support Arrearages, lowered its teenage pregnancy rates, collected incentive bonuses from the federal government, increased its high school graduation rates, and reduced its expenditures on public assistance.
Any South Carolina resident interested in helping Ms. Koller with an enormously difficult job, could start by clicking http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2011/csr/csr1112.pdf and then reading all the ACF Newsletters for the last ten years. Or they could share our BLOG address with Ms. Koller and ask her to contact us. That address is http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/
As we previously posted at http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-south-carolina-dss-director.html, Lillian Koller knows what to do. The question is whether she is being given adequate support and leeway to get the job done. South Carolina does not need to reinvent the wheel. Every State except for South Carolina has adopted the Model Version of the New Hire Reporting Statute. And, last time we checked, only South Carolina had yet to install the computerized child support tracking and collection system mandated by federal law.
South Carolina's failure to install the computer system will in all likelihood cost the State another $10 Million in fines this year, and in our opinion, places South Carolina at risk for losing up to $80 Million per year in federal funding.
We have offered solutions for cleaning up what we refer to as “The Mess at DSS.” And had our advice been heeded, we are confident that South Carolina could have saved about $50 Million in fines, collected another $250 to $500 Million in Child Support Arrearages, lowered its teenage pregnancy rates, collected incentive bonuses from the federal government, increased its high school graduation rates, and reduced its expenditures on public assistance.
Any South Carolina resident interested in helping Ms. Koller with an enormously difficult job, could start by clicking http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2011/csr/csr1112.pdf and then reading all the ACF Newsletters for the last ten years. Or they could share our BLOG address with Ms. Koller and ask her to contact us. That address is http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/
Labels: Computerized Child Support System, Institutional Mismanagement
Saturday, March 17, 2012
WHY IS THERE NO SC STATUTE REQUIRING MANDATORY REPORTING OF NEW HIRES?
We had high hopes for the new Director of the South Carolina Department of Social Services. She is no home-grown inbred, content to worship at the alter of the STATUS QUO because "that is the way things have always been done." Ms. Koller, a well-educated attorney and accomplished public servant, was intimately acquainted with the federal mandates imposed by the 1996 Welfare Reform Act regarding New Hire Reporting before she ever left Hawaii. Yet, a year later, South Carolina still bears the unwanted distinction of being the only State that is not in compliance with the federal mandate to establish a New Hire Directory, just as it is the only state that has no computerized child support tracking and collection system.
Why is this so? "Inquring minds want to know."
We had high hopes for the new Director of the South Carolina Department of Social Services. She is no home-grown inbred, content to worship at the alter of the STATUS QUO because "that is the way things have always been done." Ms. Koller, a well-educated attorney and accomplished public servant, was intimately acquainted with the federal mandates imposed by the 1996 Welfare Reform Act regarding New Hire Reporting before she ever left Hawaii. Yet, a year later, South Carolina still bears the unwanted distinction of being the only State that is not in compliance with the federal mandate to establish a New Hire Directory, just as it is the only state that has no computerized child support tracking and collection system.
Why is this so? "Inquring minds want to know."
Labels: Computerized Child Support System, Federal Fines, New Hire Reporting
Friday, March 16, 2012
AN INTERESTING TAKE ON THE WAY THE CHILD SUPPORT WORLD WORKS
Note "66% to 34%, “Undistributable Child Support Collections,” and why HHS/OAS is more concerned about its share, than kids getting theirs…." athttp://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/66-to-34-undistributable-child-support-collections-and-why-hhsoas-is-more-concerned-about-its-share-than-kids-getting-theirs/."
Note "66% to 34%, “Undistributable Child Support Collections,” and why HHS/OAS is more concerned about its share, than kids getting theirs…." at
Labels: Child Support Collection
Thursday, March 15, 2012
S.C. CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM ALMOST UP, 23 YEARS LATER
We have communicated with a couple of the members of the General Assembly on this subject for a number of years, but to be honest, they appear to have no idea what is going on with this system. However, our understanding is that South Carolina is still making payments on the $100 Fine with a $10 Million payment to be made this year and another payment to be made next year. Our further understanding is that South Carolina will continue to be fined $10 Million each year that the system is not in place.
The latest article we have read on the subject is available at http://www.aikenstandard.com/story/m1055-BC-SC-ChildSupport-Fine-2ndLd-Writethru-03-26-1076. And whereas there should be an August 2011 update to the South Carolina Department of Social Services Response to Budget Proviso 26.20, dated August 31, 2010, we cannot locate it. However, the latest proposed House Budget provides:
Part 1B section 26 L04-DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES2012-2013 House Ways and Means SECTION 26 -L04-DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 26.19.
DSS: Child Support Enforcement System) From the funds appropriated in Part IA, Section 26(F), the Department of Social Services shall prepare a detailed report on the status of the Child Support Enforcement System. The report shall include, but not be limited to, actions currently being undertaken to become compliant with federal government requirements; the cost required to meet minimum federal guidelines; total funds spent so far on the system; the amount of fines assessed by the federal government associated with non-compliance; how much has been spent to satisfy actions taken by the state judicial system; and how much has been spent related to actions taken by any other entity which may have altered the amount required for meeting minimum federal guidelines. The report shall be submitted to the General Assembly by August thirty-first of the current fiscal year.
Presumably, the existence of this Budget Proviso is an indication that the system is not anticipated to be installed before August 31, 2012 and that another update will be necessary.
We have communicated with a couple of the members of the General Assembly on this subject for a number of years, but to be honest, they appear to have no idea what is going on with this system. However, our understanding is that South Carolina is still making payments on the $100 Fine with a $10 Million payment to be made this year and another payment to be made next year. Our further understanding is that South Carolina will continue to be fined $10 Million each year that the system is not in place.
The latest article we have read on the subject is available at http://www.aikenstandard.com/story/m1055-BC-SC-ChildSupport-Fine-2ndLd-Writethru-03-26-1076. And whereas there should be an August 2011 update to the South Carolina Department of Social Services Response to Budget Proviso 26.20, dated August 31, 2010, we cannot locate it. However, the latest proposed House Budget provides:
Part 1B section 26 L04-DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES2012-2013 House Ways and Means SECTION 26 -L04-DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 26.19.
DSS: Child Support Enforcement System) From the funds appropriated in Part IA, Section 26(F), the Department of Social Services shall prepare a detailed report on the status of the Child Support Enforcement System. The report shall include, but not be limited to, actions currently being undertaken to become compliant with federal government requirements; the cost required to meet minimum federal guidelines; total funds spent so far on the system; the amount of fines assessed by the federal government associated with non-compliance; how much has been spent to satisfy actions taken by the state judicial system; and how much has been spent related to actions taken by any other entity which may have altered the amount required for meeting minimum federal guidelines. The report shall be submitted to the General Assembly by August thirty-first of the current fiscal year.
Presumably, the existence of this Budget Proviso is an indication that the system is not anticipated to be installed before August 31, 2012 and that another update will be necessary.
Labels: Computerized Child Support System, Federal Fines
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
NET UNDISTRIBUTED COLLECTIONS (UDC), FISCAL YEAR 2010
Review Net Undistributed Collections (UDC), Fiscal Year 2010 and weep.
We can do better than this.
Review Net Undistributed Collections (UDC), Fiscal Year 2010 and weep.
We can do better than this.
Labels: Child Support Collection
