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
Saturday, August 27, 2011
SOUTH CAROLINA DSS FINES MOUNT CANCELING OUT MUCH OF SURPLUS
Recently, it was reported that the State of South Carolina has a budget surplus. But, maybe those making this claim are unfamiliar with the situation outlined at http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/2010/12/south-carolina-dss-fines-mount-will.html?
South Carolina is paying about $10 Million per year on this debt, but because the State refuses to comply with federal law, the taxpayers are being assessed about $10 Million per year in additional penalties. Therefore, the balance on the fine probably remains around $70 Million. Then there is the stolen $338,500 in federal child-support funds discussed in this article which probably has to be reimbursed also.
So, it appears that the ballyhooed surplus, or most of it anyway, exists only on paper
Recently, it was reported that the State of South Carolina has a budget surplus. But, maybe those making this claim are unfamiliar with the situation outlined at http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/2010/12/south-carolina-dss-fines-mount-will.html?
South Carolina is paying about $10 Million per year on this debt, but because the State refuses to comply with federal law, the taxpayers are being assessed about $10 Million per year in additional penalties. Therefore, the balance on the fine probably remains around $70 Million. Then there is the stolen $338,500 in federal child-support funds discussed in this article which probably has to be reimbursed also.
So, it appears that the ballyhooed surplus, or most of it anyway, exists only on paper
Labels: Computerized Child Support System, e, Federal Fines, Problems at DSS
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
NO RESPONSE FROM DSS: LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE POST AND COURIER
The following letter appeared in the Post and Courier.
____________________________________________________
On June 10 at 1:29 p.m. I placed a call to the local Charleston Child support agency to reach a case worker whom I have attempted to reach 21 times since March with no success. Two years ago I paid the fee to receive assistance in obtaining child support for my grandchildren. On March 3, a Cincinnati court passed a judgment against the non-custodial parent and awarded support.
Details had to come from the Charleston office. So I made multiple attempts to reach them. Last week I sent a letter to them after receiving a request for paperwork that had been filled out five times. I returned it with a letter informing them I had received no information from the March 3 hearing. I received that information via mail one week later. To date I have yet to receive the payments. I challenge anyone to try to reach someone at this agency. Just call 953-9400 and follow the prompts. Good luck.
Connie Scott
Claussen House Drive
Edisto Island
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jun/29/letters-to-the-editor/
Details had to come from the Charleston office. So I made multiple attempts to reach them. Last week I sent a letter to them after receiving a request for paperwork that had been filled out five times. I returned it with a letter informing them I had received no information from the March 3 hearing. I received that information via mail one week later. To date I have yet to receive the payments. I challenge anyone to try to reach someone at this agency. Just call 953-9400 and follow the prompts. Good luck.
Connie Scott
Claussen House Drive
Edisto Island
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jun/29/letters-to-the-editor/
Labels: Child Support, Child Support Collection, Institutional Mismanagement, Problems at DSS
Monday, June 20, 2011
TOTAL AMOUNT OF ARREARAGES DUE FOR ALL FISCAL YEARS FOR FIVE CONSECUTIVE FISCAL YEARS
Click Total Amount of Arrearages Due for All Fiscal Years for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years to access the latest figures from the Office of Child Support Enforcement of the for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
According to these latest figures, the overall arrearages have increased from $104,406,015,371 to $110,261,308,005 over the last five years. And South Carolina’s arrearages have increased from 1,181,830,710 to 1,303,527,806 during that same period with almost $69,000,000 of that coming in the last fiscal year. Over the five year reporting period, South Carolina has had two governors and three appointed DSS Directors, so it is difficult to lay the blame for this mess at any one individual's feet. On the other hand, Larry McKeown has been the Director of the Child Support Enforcement Division for the entire period, so maybe he should be held accountable.
Click Total Amount of Arrearages Due for All Fiscal Years for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years to access the latest figures from the Office of Child Support Enforcement of the for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
According to these latest figures, the overall arrearages have increased from $104,406,015,371 to $110,261,308,005 over the last five years. And South Carolina’s arrearages have increased from 1,181,830,710 to 1,303,527,806 during that same period with almost $69,000,000 of that coming in the last fiscal year. Over the five year reporting period, South Carolina has had two governors and three appointed DSS Directors, so it is difficult to lay the blame for this mess at any one individual's feet. On the other hand, Larry McKeown has been the Director of the Child Support Enforcement Division for the entire period, so maybe he should be held accountable.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Institutional Mismanagement, Problems at DSS
Friday, March 11, 2011
SC DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES LOCATES MISSING $17 MILLION
According to South Carolina Department of Social Service Presentation to the Full Ways and Means Committee, the South Carolina Department of Social Services had a budget deficit of $28 Million as of January 13, 2011. Approximately $10 Million of the deficit is apparently a portion of a recurring federal fine imposed against South Carolina related to the State's failure to install a federally-mandated child support tracking and collection system. According to SC agency: retirement was key in $28 Million deficit, "about $17 Million of the agency's deficit disappeared when it changed how it calculated how much money it needed to cover its programs and froze hiring."
Before what amounts to an accounting error was discovered, DSS advised the Full Ways and Means Committee that the federal government was to blame for its deficit woes. However, the federal fines that were imposed for South Carolina's failure to comply with the federal mandate to install a computerized child support tracking and collection system are of DSS's own doing. And the problems with uncollected child support are the fault of CSED Director Larry McKeown. Additionally, Mr. McKeown has failed to institute measures to reduce the child support arrearages that have been successfully implemented in other States. And as a result of the ineffective manner in which Mr. McKeown has run his department, South Carolina has not only been fined over $90 Million, but has missed out on federal performance grants.
On the bright side, frightening as the "misplacement" of $17 Million is, South Carolina's new DSS Director appears to be on the ball. We would say she has already earned a raise and that if "the past is prologue" the 70,000 missing South Carolina Deadbeat parents should come out of hiding now and try to work out a payment plan before it is too late.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Federal Fines, Institutional Mismanagement, Problems at DSS, Welfare Reform
Friday, February 25, 2011
ALABAMA, MARYLAND, AND PENNSYLVANIA ARE NO LONGER MISSING
We are pleased to announce that Alabama, Maryland, and Pennsylvania are, in the words of Earl Capps, no longer "missing" and that they are no longer on the South Carolina DSS Abandoned Property List. For example, click here to review the "Letter A" portion of the list.
Presumably, South Carolina has forwarded the child support payments it had collected on behalf of these three states to them. And although we still cannot understand why it took so long to complete such a simple task, we commend the South Carolina CSED for its persistence.
Here's hoping that CSED is now fired up and that it will not be another fourteen years before South Carolina installs a computerized child support tracking and collection system. South Carolina is facing an $800 Million budgetary shortfall and cannot afford to spend $10 Million per year on fines associated with the continued violation of federal law.
Labels: Computerized Child Support System, Institutional Mismanagement, Problems at DSS
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
FULL TEXT OF BOHN V. KOLLER COMPLAINT--HAWAII FOOD STAMP CASE
Click here to view the full text of Bohn v. Koller, the Hawaii case that has apparently caused some concern about South Carolina Governor Haley's appointee for Director of DSS. While we believe that this matter should be taken seriously by the State of Hawaii, it is hardly something that should cause concern in South Carolina unless the General Assembly is planning to underfund DSS, thereby interfering with the ability of DSS to comply with federal mandates.
While this case should not be cause for panic in South Carolina, it does provide yet another reason that the South Carolina General Assembly should cease the practice of making DSS (and other state agencies) funnel money to NGO's for non-core, non-mandated programs when it is not complying with federal mandates such as--say it with us--creating a New Hire Reporting Registry.
Click here to view the full text of Bohn v. Koller, the Hawaii case that has apparently caused some concern about South Carolina Governor Haley's appointee for Director of DSS. While we believe that this matter should be taken seriously by the State of Hawaii, it is hardly something that should cause concern in South Carolina unless the General Assembly is planning to underfund DSS, thereby interfering with the ability of DSS to comply with federal mandates.
While this case should not be cause for panic in South Carolina, it does provide yet another reason that the South Carolina General Assembly should cease the practice of making DSS (and other state agencies) funnel money to NGO's for non-core, non-mandated programs when it is not complying with federal mandates such as--say it with us--creating a New Hire Reporting Registry.
Labels: Federal Fines, New Hire Reporting, Problems at DSS
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
SC SHOULD GIVE THE NEW DSS DIRECTOR A CHANCE BEFORE PASSING JUDGMENT
A recent post on FITSNews reveals that Governor Haley's newly appointed DSS Director Lillian Koller left "her agency in Hawaii facing a federal lawsuit over tardy food stamp distribution to needy families." The implication is that South Carolina may be headed down the same path it has has been on for the last fourteen or so years regarding incompetent or ineffective DSS Directors. And the comments to the post are even more critical of DSS. However, before South Carolina runs Ms. Koller out of town on a rail, we say give her a chance; we think that her overall record in Hawaii is cause for optimism and that she may prove to be Governor Haley's best appointment.
As partial support for our optimism, we call everyone's attention to the State Child Support Collection Box Scores for FY 2009. Unlike South Carolina, Hawaii has actually been decreasing child support arrearages, decreasing the number of welfare recipients, and increasing the amount of child support collected.
We certainly do not mean to suggest either that our elected officials should be inviting federal lawsuits or that federal lawsuits are to be taken lightly. However, the fact of the matter is that the Hawaii Legislature may not have allocated sufficient funds for Ms. Koller's Department to comply with federal mandates. Moreover, we note that the referenced lawsuit is equitable in nature and that it is seeking to force Hawaii to comply with federal law rather than seeking either fines or monetary damages. In this respect, this lawsuit is nothing like federal lawsuits against South Carolina that have resulted in over $80,0000,000 in fines with more to come.
Ms. Koller is both an attorney and award-winning public official with a history of getting things done. We believe she will be able to quickly identify the causes of the historical mismanagement of DSS, most particularly mismanagement of the Child Support Enforcement Division. And we hope that both the public and the South Carolina General Assembly will reserve judgment until she has had a reasonable opportunity to evaluate her staff, set priorities, and develop remedial policies. After all, the Mess at DSS was not created overnight and will take some time to rectify.
Labels: Federal Fines, Institutional Mismanagement, Problems at DSS
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
NEW HIRE REPORTING AND THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY IN SOUTH CAROLINA
Those who want the background story may wish to review both the South Carolina New Hire Reporting Form and The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). However, the long and the short of this issue is that the PRWORA mandates that all states which receive certain federal funds both set up a New Hire Reporting Registry and require that all employers—with limited exceptions--report new hires to the state Child Support Enforcement agency. South Carolina has created and posted the requisite forms on the Internet, but remains the only state that does not require mandatory reporting by employers.
So why would the South Carolina Senate refuse to make New Hire Reporting mandatory and thereby risk losing $80,000,000 per year in federal funding? Simple--the South Carolina business community considers mandatory reporting of new hires "anti-business" and "a burden on employers." And why would that be, one may ask? The answer is that the New Hire Reporting Form not only has to be filed in a timely manner, but that it contains the SSN (or Green Card #), D. O. B., and address of new hires and that the information on the submitted form is to be checked against a National Database. The South Homebuilders Association and the Chamber of Commerce--among others--oppose this legislation because, once it is enacted, businesses will not be able to hire undocumented immigrants below minimum wage, house eighteen undocumented Mexican workers in one apartment, avoid with-holding F. I. C. A., or avoid obtaining Worker's Comp Insurance. Moreover, once the New Hire Reporting Law goes into effect, businesses that fail to comply with the reporting requirements can be both audited and fined.
The bottom line is that if the South Carolina Senate would push forward on this legislation finding 70,000 “Deadbeats” would become much easier.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Dodging Child Support, Family Court Reform, Federal Fines, Problems at DSS
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
SOUTH CAROLINA DSS FINES MOUNT
Will Folks writes in "DSS Fines Mount," “Such is the game of unfunded federal mandates,” thereby implying that South Carolina is being victimized by the federal government’s decision to fine the state for its failure to comply with an unfunded mandate. In our view, that implication is absurd.
The federal mandate to implement a computerized child support tracking and collection system is not exactly unfunded. DSS records show that South Carolina has received $79,901,279 to date for implementation of the system. Moreover, had the system been implemented and the child support collections rate increased, South Carolina would have been eligible for incentive bonuses. This is in addition to the approximately $80,000,000 in yearly federal Title IV-D (child support enforcement) and Title IV-A Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) funding that South Carolina receives and which is currently at risk. (Click here for an explanation of how much South Carolina receives in Title IV-D and TANF funding on an annual basis and why that funding is at risk.)
Rather than complaining about the big bad federal government, maybe the South Carolina General Assembly should make some bona fide attempts to actually understand federal law and to enact mandated legislation. And, rather than “rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic,” maybe Governor Nikki Haley should appoint a DSS Director who is not only committed to reform, but who actually understands how to implement mandated reform. And maybe that person should give some serious thought on how to avoid losing $80,000,000 a year in federal funding.
Incidentally, our disagreement with Mr. Folks should in one way be construed as a personal attack against him. We sometimes link to his site and often read the postings to his site. We even sometimes agree with his positions. For example, we agree that DSS is severely mismanaged. We just don't agree that the mandates contained in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act are either unreasonable or unfunded. Essentially, the federal government said to South Carolina, "We are tired of sending so much AFDC money to you each month, so we are going to provide you with a way to make South Carolina fathers pay to support their own children. Additionally, we will fund child support collection costs as well as most of the costs of a computerized tracking and collection system. The catch is that you have to both implement the computerized program and pay for part of the costs. And if you don't implement the program we will start taking our money back and may even stop sending money to you."
We have no idea why these systems cost so much money. Nor do we have any idea of how much they cost to run on an annual basis, though other states can probably provide that information. We do know, however, that the federal government has given South Carolina about $80 Million to build the system and that the federal government sends South Carolina about $40 Million each year to pay for collection of child support; this is on top of the unmonitored "fines" the various family courts access against "deadbeat dads" for child support collection as well as the interest generated on both child support payments and the collected, but undistributed, child support payments paid through the Family Court. We also know that South Carolina's arrearages are increasing, whereas other states who have instituted federally-mandated programs have seen an increase in collections and a decrease in arrearages.
The federal mandate to implement a computerized child support tracking and collection system is not exactly unfunded. DSS records show that South Carolina has received $79,901,279 to date for implementation of the system. Moreover, had the system been implemented and the child support collections rate increased, South Carolina would have been eligible for incentive bonuses. This is in addition to the approximately $80,000,000 in yearly federal Title IV-D (child support enforcement) and Title IV-A Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) funding that South Carolina receives and which is currently at risk. (Click here for an explanation of how much South Carolina receives in Title IV-D and TANF funding on an annual basis and why that funding is at risk.)
Rather than complaining about the big bad federal government, maybe the South Carolina General Assembly should make some bona fide attempts to actually understand federal law and to enact mandated legislation. And, rather than “rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic,” maybe Governor Nikki Haley should appoint a DSS Director who is not only committed to reform, but who actually understands how to implement mandated reform. And maybe that person should give some serious thought on how to avoid losing $80,000,000 a year in federal funding.
Incidentally, our disagreement with Mr. Folks should in one way be construed as a personal attack against him. We sometimes link to his site and often read the postings to his site. We even sometimes agree with his positions. For example, we agree that DSS is severely mismanaged. We just don't agree that the mandates contained in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act are either unreasonable or unfunded. Essentially, the federal government said to South Carolina, "We are tired of sending so much AFDC money to you each month, so we are going to provide you with a way to make South Carolina fathers pay to support their own children. Additionally, we will fund child support collection costs as well as most of the costs of a computerized tracking and collection system. The catch is that you have to both implement the computerized program and pay for part of the costs. And if you don't implement the program we will start taking our money back and may even stop sending money to you."
We have no idea why these systems cost so much money. Nor do we have any idea of how much they cost to run on an annual basis, though other states can probably provide that information. We do know, however, that the federal government has given South Carolina about $80 Million to build the system and that the federal government sends South Carolina about $40 Million each year to pay for collection of child support; this is on top of the unmonitored "fines" the various family courts access against "deadbeat dads" for child support collection as well as the interest generated on both child support payments and the collected, but undistributed, child support payments paid through the Family Court. We also know that South Carolina's arrearages are increasing, whereas other states who have instituted federally-mandated programs have seen an increase in collections and a decrease in arrearages.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Computerized Child Support System, Federal Fines, Institutional Mismanagement, Problems at DSS, Welfare Reform
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
MORE ON COUNTING BLESSINGS AND THE MESS AT SOUTH CAROLINA DSS
In our opinion, many of those in charge at DSS are as incompetent as those in charge at the South Carolina Employment Security Commission. Bless her heart, but Dr. Hayes neither has a clue about how to decrease the child support arrearages in South Carolina nor is equipped to run an agency whose primary failures are related to an inability to understand federal law and implement programs mandated by federal law. Therefore, as we noted, SOUTH CAROLINA SHOULD COUNT ITS BLESSINGS. It could certainly be much worse, and in fact, will be a lot worse before the computer system goes on-line. Not only is South Carolina scheduled to be fined another $10 Million this year, but will be fined at least another $1 Million in 2011.
The real shame of this situation is that, not only is South Carolina being fined for failure to implement federally mandated programs, but that because of its failure to take easy, inexpensive steps to increase its rate of child support collections, South Carolina is missing out on huge federal incentives. Moreover, instead of actually doing something to correct the problems, the State is throwing fathers in jail willy-nilly for allegedly being in Contempt without regard to whether they are actually in contempt and without regard to whether doing so generates more money than it costs the State to house, feed, guard, and prosecute them. (Quick, tell us, who benefits from the incarceration of "deadbeats," how many fathers are currently incarcerated in South Carolina jails for failure to pay child support and what it is costing the State to house, feed, guard, and prosecute them. Now tell us how much money is generated in fees and fines and who gets those fees and fines.)
We can tell you who gets the fees and fines when DSS is involved. You find out the answer to the other questions and you will know why South Carolina has neither implemented the New Hire Reporting Program mandated by Congress nor installed the mandated computer system. Punishing “deadbeats” is a profitable business and the county clerks and sheriffs want to maintain control over who receives the fines and penalties and what can be done with them.
Labels: Computerized Child Support System, Institutional Mismanagement, Problems at DSS, Welfare Reform
Sunday, March 28, 2010
SOUTH CAROLINA SHOULD COUNT ITS BLESSINGS
According to the article “System to track S.C. deadbeats,” "Federal officials said in an e-mail South Carolina is working closely with them in monitoring the system's progress, including quarterly visits and bimonthly teleconferences. But the federal agency contends the penalties are set by law and only Congress can undo them (emphasis added)." This is news to some people, but not to the South Carolina General Assembly and South Carolina DSS. As stated eight (8) years ago in Jim Hodges, et. al. v. Tommy G. Thompson et. al.:
The district court opinion contains a comprehensive history, the details of which need not be repeated here, of the federal government’s longstanding involvement in child support enforcement programs and related federal efforts to work with the States to solve the serious problem of nonpayment of child support. See Hodges v. Shalala, 121 F.Supp.2d 854 (D.S.C. 2000). Currently, as a condition of receipt of any federal funding under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 651-669, States must have an approved state plan for child and spousal support that meets all the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 654. Among the prerequisites for approval of a Title IV-D Plan are the requirements that the State establish and operate an automated data processing and information retrieval system, see 42 U.S.C. § 654(24), and a state child support disbursement unit (SDU), see 42 U.S.C. § 654(27)(A). South Carolina concedes that it has neither a federally certifiable statewide automated system for child support nor an SDU. See Hodges, 121 F. Supp. 2d at 86 (emphasis added).This Order makes clear that South Carolina is lucky to have avoided loosing both Title IV-D (child support enforcement) and Title IV-A (TANF) funding. Certainly, as Dr. Hayes indicates, "money, if not forfeited, could be deployed to help some 250,000 single parents in South Carolina seeking child support through her agency." So the State should count its blessings, get to work solving this problem, and cease playing the victim.
Without an approved state plan, a State may lose federal funding under both Title IV-D (child support enforcement) and Title IV-A (TANF). See 42 U.S.C. § 655(a)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(2). Alternatively, a State may opt for an alternative penalty in lieu of disapproval of their state plan and the withholding of federal funds if the State is making a good faith effort to comply with the program’s requirements and the State has submitted a corrective compliance plan. See 42 U.S.C. § 655(a)(4). South Carolina has elected to incur the alternative penalty.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Computerized Child Support System, Federal Fines, Institutional Mismanagement, Problems at DSS, Welfare Reform
Thursday, February 18, 2010
WASHINGTON STATE UNDERSTANDS THE NEW HIRE REPORTING PROVISIONS OF THE PRWORA
Not only does Washington State understand the provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 related to new hire reporting, but it has enacted the legislation required of those states that desire to continue to receive federal aid for their welfare programs.
Compare the Washington statute with South Carolina Code Ann. §63-17-1210 (1976, as amended) titled "Employer new hire program." The South Carolina statute provides in relevant part:
Not only does Washington State understand the provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 related to new hire reporting, but it has enacted the legislation required of those states that desire to continue to receive federal aid for their welfare programs.
Compare the Washington statute with South Carolina Code Ann. §63-17-1210 (1976, as amended) titled "Employer new hire program." The South Carolina statute provides in relevant part:
Obviously, South Carolina's New Hire Reporting Statute does not conform with the mandates set forth in the PRWORA. However, a simple fix is readily available. All South Carolina has to do is adopt the statutory scheme of Washington State. Or North Carolina. Or Georgia. Or Alabama. Or Florida. Or...(A) By January 1, 1996, the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Department of Social Services shall create and develop an Employer New Hire Reporting program. The Employer New Hire Reporting program shall provide a means for employers to voluntarily assist in the state's efforts to locate absent parents who owe child support and collect child support from those parents by reporting information concerning newly hired and rehired employees directly to the division.(B) The following provisions apply to the Employer New Hire Reporting program: (1) An employer doing business in this State may participate in the Employer New Hire Reporting program by reporting to the Child Support Enforcement Division(emphasis added).
Given that South Carolina has already been fined over $72 Million for its failure to come into compliance with the PRWORA--not to mention the national attention generated by the recent remarks of South Carolina's Lt. Governor on the need for welfare reform--one would think that South Carolina would want to make sure that it is abiding by previously enacted welfare reform laws. And, if South Carolina is incapable of creating the mandated legislation on its own, maybe it should look to the legislation of another State for guidance.
Labels: Federal Fines, New Hire Reporting, Problems at DSS, Welfare Reform
Saturday, January 23, 2010
SC SHOULD ENFORCE EXISTING LAWS BEFORE PASSING NEW LAWS
This is the time of year when members of the South Carolina General Assembly historically introduce reams of useless and pandering legislation in a transparent effort to placate powerful supporters and special interest groups. Even South Carolina's Lt. Governor Andre Bauer--who wants to be Governor and is apparently ignorant of the content and purpose of "The Welfare Reform Act of 1996"--is getting in on the act.
Our impulse is to "out" those who appear to be the worst transgressors of this pandering practice. However, rather than just attacking folks on this Blog, we prefer to try to offer solutions to problems. Additionally, we often try to include links to law cases, statutes, scholarly articles, studies and government publications that support our positions. For example, note "SOLVING THE CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION PROBLEM IN SC."
For reasons that the South Carolina General Assembly and DSS apparently do not understand, South Carolinians are owed more than $1.5 Billion in past due child support. And, addressing this problem is, in our opinion, far more important than introducing additional welfare reform legislation because it will help get custodial parents off of welfare.
Simply stated, State and Federal Legislation already exists to address the problem of irresponsible parents whose children must depend on welfare. South Carolina just has to have the WILL to act legally, morally, and ethically by enforcing the Laws that already exist and insisting that those in government do their jobs. That means, in case we have not made ourselves clear--South Carolina should carry out the mandates set forth in "The Welfare Reform Act of 1996"--identify the fathers of illegitimates, locate them, bring them into court, set a child support obligation, make the non-custodial parents pay child support, distribute the money to the custodial parents or guardians of the children, and get the mothers off of welfare.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Computerized Child Support System, Institutional Mismanagement, Problems at DSS, Silly Laws, Welfare Reform
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
LINKS TO THE COMPLETE RESPONSES OF SC DSS TO BUDGET PROVISOS REGARDING COMPUTERIZED CHILD SUPPORT TRACKING AND COLLECTION SYSTEM
We belive that the South Carolina State house freshmen have received ther answers to their questions--sort of. Following are the three links to DSS’s “explanations" of why it has failed to comply with the Federal Mandate to install a computerized child support tracking and collection system in South Carolina:
A careful review of these documents reveals that the South Carolina General Assembly shares at least part of the blame for this mess. And again, this fiasco has cost the State of South Carolina over $72 Million in fines to date with more guaranteed to come.
Labels: Computerized Child Support System, Federal Fines, Problems at DSS
Monday, January 11, 2010
PROBLEMS AT THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES AND WHO BEARS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM
Admittedly, we should have been able to find this document earlier. However, a careful review of the document will review that there is nothing “murky” about who caused the "Mess at DSS." The only thing that is murky is what steps are being taken to rectify the overall problems including, but not limited to, the lack of the mandated computer system, the lack of a New Hire Reporting Directory, and the Legislature’s failure to amend Legislation that clearly conflicts with Federal Law and that could result in a loss of Federal Funding.
We call your attention to the following:
December 30, 2004 - In a letter dated December 30, 2004, OCSE told DSS they would not approve the RFP because the RFP stated that allocation of child support collections for all case types must be based on state law. OCSE said state law conflicted with the federally mandated allocation hierarchy. To address the allocation issue, the State first sought to negotiate the issue with federal authorities. When this did not provide relief, the General Assembly amended state statute to conform with federal law during the 2004-2005 legislative session. This allowed DSS to amend the RFP and gain federal approval (emphasis added).
Labels: Problems at DSS, Responsibility
Friday, January 08, 2010
A DETAILED REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE SC CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM
On February 24, 2009 we wrote:
On February 24, 2009 we wrote:
We do not know whether DSS has yet presented the South Carolina with "a detailed report on the status of the Child Support Enforcement System including 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." However, we remind everyone that this report was supposed to have been submitted to the General Assembly by August 31, 2008.
To our embarrassment we recently learned that the South Carolina Department of Social Service provided the General Assembly with Response to Proviso 26.25 of the FY 2008-2009 Appropriations Act almost six months prior to our post. In our defense, however, we requested a copy of this document both from members of the South Carolina General Assembly and some high ranking employees of the South Carolina Department of Social Services and they did not even acknowledge its existence.
We do not know why DSS would not provide a copy of the requested document. Nor do we know why the General Assembly and the media do not appear to be concerned about this ongoing problem. However, careful readers will note that, to date, the State of South Carolina has spent over $34,000,000 in development costs on this system and been fined over $63,000,000 with no end in sight and no real time frame for installing the program. Moreover, DSS's response to the General Assembly is both incomplete and evasive. More important, DSS's latest update to the General Assembly indicates that the State of South Carolina has been fined an additional $9,000,000 (total over $72,000,000) and has spent an additional $6,000,000 on the system. And it is now anticipated that the system will still not be ready until September of 2011.
Labels: Computerized Child Support System, Federal Fines, Problems at DSS
Thursday, January 07, 2010
AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FINES IMPOSED AGAINST SC AS OF AUGUST 31, 2007
According to "DSS’s Response to Budget Proviso 13.27 of the FY 2008-2009 Appropriations Act":
According to "DSS’s Response to Budget Proviso 13.27 of the FY 2008-2009 Appropriations Act":
Because of the State’s failure to have a certified statewide CSES operational by October 1, 1997, South Carolina became subject to federal penalties. The full federal penalties are severe. OCSE can disapprove the State’s Child support Enforcement (Title IV-D) State Plan because of the lack of the system. Disapproval would result in the OCSE’s withdrawal of all federal funding, about $22.8 million annually, for the State’s Child Support Enforcement program. The second level of penalty would be the potential disapproval of federal funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, potentially $99 million annually.
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, OCSE notified the State that the alternative penalty was retroactive to federal fiscal year (FFY) 1998, and that continued availability of the alternative penalty to South Carolina is dependent on the State’s good faith efforts to develop and implement a federally certified statewide CSES. In January 2001, South Carolina elected to be subject to the alterative penalty and OCSE approved the corrective compliance plan.
The federal penalty is calculated by CSE for each federal fiscal year based largely on South Carolina's Child Support Enforcement program's actual expenditures, including system development expenditures, reported quarterly to OCSE by DSS.
The alternative penalties will be assessed until lifted by the federal authorities. When the State submits a letter to OCSE requesting certification of CSES, federal system penalties will be placed in abeyance while OCSE certifies CSES. Ninety percent (90%) of any system penalties actually paid for the federal fiscal year in which the letter was submitted are rebated by OCSE back to DSS once the CSES is certified.
For federal fiscal years 1998-2007, the amount of funding lost to penalties was $55,200,000. These penalties are paid with 100% state dollars.
Penalties will continue to be assessed until CSES is deployed and operational, currently projected for June 1, 2010. The amount of these projected penalties is $20,740,046, which includes a 90% reduction of penalties paid in the federal fiscal year in which statewide implementation is intended to occur.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Computerized Child Support System, Federal Fines, Institutional Mismanagement, Problems at DSS, Welfare Reform
