January 2023 CSQ

ChildSupportCommuniQue

Table of Contents
January 2023
Executive Director’s Message……………………………………………3
Community Corner: Thank you, dear friend. You will be missed……..5
Taking a New Look at Appropriate Medicaid Referrals to Child
Support…………………………………………………………………….10
Self-Assessments and Data Reliability Audits…….…………………..15
Intergovernmental Hot Topics Part 2…………………………………...21
Teleworking Tips…………………………………………………………..27
Policy Forum Preview…......................................................................32
NCSEA U Alumni Spotlight……………………………………………….36

Ann Marie Ruskin
NCSEA Executive Director
In September of 2010, I received an email in response to a job application I
submitted. It was from the Executive Director of the National Child Support
Enforcement Association, and she wanted to interview me for an open
position. I had never heard of the National Child Support Enforcement
Association, and my only knowledge of child support was supporting a
good friend trying to collect ordered child support from an absent father and
ex-husband. But, that day I started on a journey that has brought me not
only tremendous professional satisfaction, but wonderful friends and
colleagues and a true appreciation for the child support community, and the
critically important work they do.
One of the first things I learned after joining NCSEA is that the IV-D
program is . . . complicated! Just when I thought I understood the program
administration or process, I discovered a new complexity. To this day, I am
constantly learning about the program and trying to understand its many
details and nuances.
Directing NCSEA’s professional development programs from 2010 to 2015,
I worked with knowledgeable, dedicated volunteers and proudly introduced
NCSEA U and Leadership Symposium to the child support community.
With a background in government relations, I was eager to work with the
Policy & Government Relations committee and subcommittees, and
enjoyed the opportunity to promote legislation to improve the IV-D program
and make positive changes to help families.
From February 2016 to February 2018, I worked on two other MCI USA
(our association management company) clients. While the work brought me
satisfaction and it was nice meeting and working with new people,
something was missing. The something was the organizations’ mission, a
commitment to the greater good. And so, when the opportunity came to

eturn to NCSEA, I couldn’t say yes fast enough. I missed the people, I
missed the work, and most of all I missed NCSEA’s mission impacting
policy and supporting children and families. I felt I was “home” again.
Since February 2018, I have had the privilege to lead NCSEA, working with
an incredible staff including Katie, Gillyn, Kate, LaTrese, Sierra, and
Amalia, as well as wonderful officers, board members, and committee
leads and members. It’s been an adventure for sure—breaking attendance
records for both the Policy Forum and the Leadership Symposium,
establishing strong financial performance, increased engagement on
Capitol Hill with policy-makers, and managing the topsy-turvy world of the
pandemic! We were faced with new challenges, and I feel we rose to the
occasion each time. And I knew I always had the support and backing of
the NCSEA leadership.
So, as I approach retirement, I want to say thank you . . . to the NCSEA
officers, board members, committee chairs, and committee members (all
past and present), for supporting me and encouraging me, for lots of laughs
and good times. NCSEA will continue to flourish because volunteers are
the heart of the organization—the dedication of its members and their
passion for helping children and families is amazing! I’m constantly in awe
of you who work tirelessly to lift children out of poverty, and improve the
lives of children and families. It is an honor to refer to you all as friends and
colleagues.
I look forward to retirement and spending quality time with family and
friends. But I will miss all of you, as well as the work we do. Good luck and
best wishes for success to each and every one of you as you continue to
advance the important mission of NCSEA well into the future!
With warm wishes,

Ann Marie with two of her four treasured grandchildren—Maximus and Blair
Thank you, dear friend. You will be missed
by Jim Fleming, NCSEA President
Most of us have experienced that dreaded moment when a colleague you
really like announces her retirement. You simultaneously want to shout “no”
and “hurray for you!” You will badly miss the retiree, yet you really can’t
fault someone who says “I want to spend more time golfing and playing
with my grandchildren.” All you can do is face the reality of “all good things
must come to an end.”
NCSEA Executive Director Ann Marie Ruskin will be retiring at the end of
February 2023. No matter how many months of advance notice she gives
us, there is still no filling her shoes.
Ann Marie started with NCSEA in September 2010 directing professional
development and education. In her words, “Since then, I have had the
privilege of working with the most passionate, dedicated group of people
that comprise NCSEA.” After a brief hiatus from 2016–18, the NCSEA
Board of Directors invited Ann Marie to rejoin NCSEA as Executive Director
and we are very glad she said “yes.”
Highlights of Ann Marie’s tenure include our
robust Corporate Partner program and
implementation of free webinars as a benefit of
NCSEA membership. NCSEA is a thriving
organization today in no small part due to the
talent, commitment, and stewardship of Ann Marie
Ruskin. Thank you so much, Ann Marie—your
Ann Marie & husband, Glenn

husband, three children, and four grandchildren will be very lucky to enjoy
more of your time. You will be missed!
Here is a collection of some parting words from some of Ann Marie’s
colleagues during her service as NCSEA Executive Director:
• Tanguler Gray, NCSEA President 2019–2020: “I hate so much to see
her go. I want her to know how much I respect and appreciate all she’s
done for NCSEA, especially during my presidency when she said I was
acting like a madwoman trying to educate people about our membership
benefits. She’s always been in the right place at the right time to capture
that perfect moment. Thank you and happy retirement!”
• Katie Kenney, NCSEA Senior Manager for Professional Development:
“Without exaggeration, Ann Marie is the most gracious person under
whose direction I’ve ever had the pleasure of working. She has an
innate ability to identify people’s strengths and empower them to act
independently and confidently. I am so grateful for the opportunity to
have worked with her and hope to continue the legacy of her dedication
to NCSEA. She’s also an amazing resource for a mean cocktail recipe.”
• Lori Bengston, NCSEA President 2020–2021: “I always valued Ann
Marie as the NCSEA Executive Director, but it was not until I was
NCSEA President that I fully realized the dedication she has to our
organization. Ann Marie juggles so many priorities and always made
sure I was ready for whatever was next as NCSEA President. I truly do
not know what I would have done without her organization skills and
ability to handle so many competing demands. I will always remember
her as an exceptional leader and a true friend, and I wish her a long and
happy retirement!”
• Lisa Skenandore, NCSEA President 2019–2020: “My first experience
with NCSEA was as an ex officio board member in my role as NTCSA
president. Ann Marie consistently went out of her way to welcome me
and always had a warm hug in greeting. I always felt comfortable in her
presence. This warmth and hospitality has continued to this day. I will
always be grateful for Ann Marie's kind and welcoming presence and
most of all friendship. All the best.”

• Gillyn Croog, formerly NCSEA Director for Professional Development:
“When I first joined NCSEA, Ann Marie told me, ‘You will get to work
with the best people. They are good people, trying to do great things for
kids. I really have missed them.’ If you are not aware, Ann Marie
stepped away from NCSEA for a few years and worked on other
projects. When the Executive Director’s job opened, the Board asked
her to return. NCSEA needed seasoned leadership—someone familiar
with the organization, fiercely protective of the mission, able to make
hard decisions, and focused on NCSEA’s best interests—and she was
the perfect partner, who happily reengaged whole heartedly. She had
missed the mission and most of all the people. She worked tirelessly for
the good of NCSEA and enjoyed every minute; I was lucky to have been
there with her for part of her journey. She is a rare gem in every sense
of the word. Looking back, when she said you get to work with the best
people, she wasn’t talking about herself, but she absolutely is the best of
the best. While she is off enjoying retirement—time with her kids,
grandkids, and Glenn—she will miss you. You NCSEA people have a
With daughter Kara and sons Bryan and Kyle
habit of making a lasting impression on people. I know that from
experience. But I want to let you in on a little secret: you will miss her
more. Trust me, I know that from experience.”
• Sharon Pizzuti, NCSEA Treasurer: “Ann Marie has always embraced
NCSEA with a motivating compassion. She has a clear mission to see
people flourishing in their fullness. Her empathy and commitment drive
the NCSEA community to aim higher for the good of others. She always
set her sights on noble goals and was committed to not give up. She has
inspired me and others to step outside of comfort zones and be changed

y the experience and I am grateful. Congratulations to you, Ann Marie,
and Godspeed in your retirement journey!”
• Craig Burshem, NCSEA President 2018–2019: “I had the distinct honor
of working closely with Ann Marie when I was NCSEA president. She
was unfailingly kind, professional, helpful, and unflappable, and she
made my job so much easier. Ann Marie is one of those people
everyone turns to for advice and answers, and her vast experience has
been invaluable in keeping NCSEA running smoothly for many years.
She somehow always knows what to do even when no one else does!
They say no one is irreplaceable, but Ann Marie is certainly the
exception to that rule. NCSEA and the whole child support community
are better for having had Ann Marie as their advocate and support. Her
work over the years has undoubtedly improved the lives of countless
families. I am grateful to call her my colleague and even more grateful to
call her my friend. Wishing Ann Marie many happy years of retirement.
She will be sorely missed!”
• Ashley Dexter, NCSEA Secretary: “Ann Marie is so genuinely
passionate about NCSEA, professional development, and partnerships. I
served as the Leadership Symposium planning committee co-chair for 3
years and Ann Marie always kept the true purpose of the Leadership
Symposium—Professional Development and Leadership—at the
forefront of planning committee activities. Ann Marie graciously values
input and feedback and has elevated the value of the corporate partner
program each and every year for partners and NCSEA. Her commitment
to NCSEA, its mission, and its members is amazing. Most of all, Ann
Marie always has a smile and hug even when she is running around like
crazy at conferences. She will be sorely missed, but I wish her a very
happy retirement and lots of birdies!”
• Erin Frisch, NCSEA President-Elect: “Being executive director of an
organization like NCSEA takes adept organizational skills, being open
and welcoming to a diverse group of people, and in many ways leading
from behind the scenes. Ann Marie has done all this and more with
incredible grace and an unwavering positive attitude. We have come to
expect the best through her leadership, and these will be hard shoes to
fill! Thank you, Ann Marie, for adopting our cause as your own and

ecoming a dear friend in the process. Best wishes for many happy
days ahead!”
• Diane Potts, NCSEA President 2017–2018: “I was so happy when Ann
Marie decided to come back to NCSEA in 2018. She served for more
than four years as our Executive Director and led NCSEA to success
during that time in many ways that included bringing in amazingly
talented folks like Gillyn and Katie. Ann Marie, you will be missed by all
of us!”
With granddaughter Reagan and the newest family member, Baby Lincoln
The words of my fellow officers, former NCSEA presidents, and our past
and present team members capture so well what has made Ann Marie a
tremendous Executive Director. Through a decade on the NCSEA board
and nearly six years on the Executive Committee, I have had countless
honest and candid conversations with Ann Marie on NCSEA matters, and it
has always been reassuring to know that someone so skilled and kind with
such good instincts has been at the helm of our organization. Thank you
and farewell!

Taking a New Look at Appropriate
Medicaid Referrals to Child Support
by Jim Fleming, North Dakota Child Support
Services
In July 2022, guidance was issued by the federal Administration for
Children and Families (ACF) reiterating that federal law requires referrals
from the Foster Care program to Child Support only “where appropriate.” i
This flexibility is not new. It was previously acknowledged by ACF at least
as early as September 6, 2007. ii
The renewed guidance and support from ACF for selective referrals has
triggered a new round of discussion around the country on how the Child
Support and Foster Care programs can better cooperate to support
reunification efforts of families with children in Foster Care and avoid
referrals of unproductive cases.
This article suggests comparable attention should be spent analyzing
appropriate referrals from the Medicaid program to Child Support.
Since at least 2008, which is nearly as long as the Foster Care guidance
has been in place, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) has
similarly indicated that referrals from the Medicaid program to Child
Support are not required in all cases:
Title XIX of the Act, and its implementing regulations or guidance, do
not require State Medicaid agencies to refer Medicaid applicants or
recipients to State IV-D agencies. Therefore, a State Medicaid
agency may determine which cases are appropriate to refer to State
IV-D agencies. State IV-D and Medicaid agencies should coordinate
to determine criteria for referring appropriate cases and exchanging
information by the most efficient and cost-effective means available
(using manual or automated systems). OCSE IM-08-03 (April 22,
2008). iii

This flexibility was enhanced in 2016 when federal regulations were
changed to authorize child support agencies to close a case that is opened
as the result of an inappropriate referral. iv
One could suggest, perhaps only somewhat
sarcastically, that medical support joins
distribution and intergovernmental as a
“special” area of thankless expertise
frequently assigned to the newest policy
person in a child support agency. All three
topics can be very complicated and take a
long time (if ever) to master.
Analysis of “appropriate” Medicaid referrals should begin at the end—what
is the desired outcome in the case? In other words, what does Medicaid
want to accomplish by referring the case to Child Support?
As amended in late 2016, federal regulations accept both public coverage
and private insurance as acceptable forms of medical support. v So, if a
state is content with the child being covered by Medicaid without seeking
replacement private coverage or cost recovery through a cash medical
support obligation that is often uncollectible, why bother with a referral?
The answer may also depend on whether paternity has been established
for the child.
It is worth noting that most health care exchanges and Medicaid
applications do not do an adequate job collecting information about
noncustodial parents from custodial parents who are seeking health care
coverage. To this author, the implied message is that it is not a priority for
the child support program to establish and enforce medical support in
Medicaid cases.
Federal regulations suggest an opt-out approach to Medicaid referrals
regarding establishment and enforcement of child support: the child support
agency must provide all IV-D services “unless the individual notifies the
State that only IV-D services related to securing medical support are
wanted.” vi The requirement of an “opt out” for child support services in
Medicaid cases warrants development of effective pre-referral processes
where the Medicaid agency gives the custodial parent an informed
opportunity to provide any needed information about the noncustodial
parent and express a preference regarding receipt of child support

services. If the custodial parent is not cooperative, or is not interested in
receiving child support services, a Medicaid-only referral to Child Support
can be avoided.
Alternatively, the child support agency could develop intake procedures
where supplemental information is automatically requested from a custodial
parent after a
Medicaid referral prior
to setting up a child
support case, and the
case is closed as an
inappropriate referral if
the needed response
or information is not
forthcoming within a
predefined period of
In preparing for this article, the author asked a
handful of state directors about their current
Medicaid referral practices. The responses varied
widely from referring all Medicaid-only cases to
not referring any Medicaid cases regardless of
whether the custodial parent opted out of child
support services.
time. Either approach would successfully limit Medicaid referrals to cases
where beneficial child support and medical support services can be
provided to a cooperative custodial parent.
In preparing for this article, the author asked a handful of state directors
about their current Medicaid referral practices. The responses varied widely
from referring all Medicaid-only cases to not referring any Medicaid cases
regardless of whether the custodial parent opted out of child support
services.
A complicating factor is a federal regulation providing that a Medicaid
recipient cannot be required to provide an application or other request for
services in order to obtain child support services. vii In a state where
Medicaid cases are not referred and the custodial parent needs to apply for
child support services, one could wonder whether this regulation is being
honored. The regulation may be outdated.
Why spend time analyzing Medicaid referrals? In the author’s state for
example, which still has broad referral policies for both Foster Care and
Medicaid cases, there are roughly three times as many open Medicaid-only
cases as Foster Care cases. The same proportion would apply to the
Former Assistance caseload. The potential efficiencies through improved
Medicaid referral processes are significant and surpass the similar
efficiencies that could be achieved through improved Foster Care referral
processes (which the author strongly supports as well).

This article is not meant to suggest the fewer Medicaid referrals, the better.
To the contrary, Medicaid is a means-tested program. If a family is
receiving Medicaid but is not yet eligible for benefits under other programs
such as TANF, a Medicaid referral can be a key gateway to child support
services that can help provide funds to families and promote selfsufficiency.
The time between the original application for Medicaid and the
opening of a child support case is critical to screen appropriate cases,
including domestic violence screening, and gather the information needed
for the case to move forward.
This article is limited to the Medicaid referral
process and does not delve into the
complexities of establishing and enforcing
medical support, especially amid a decline
in the availability of employer-provided
coverage. In the time since federal medical
support regulations were significantly
changed in 2008, medical support policy
development has followed a tortured path of enactment of the Affordable
Care Act, implementation of the health care exchanges, delayed
compliance with the 2008 mandates, and ultimately the expansion of
“health care coverage” in 2016 to include public coverage. viii
Ironically, efforts to improve the quality of Medicaid referrals will lead only
to further reduction of the child support caseload in many states. As states
work to develop “smarter” referral practices, it would therefore seem
important to communicate with internal and external stakeholders that a
reduction in total caseload can be expected and is not necessarily a
negative outcome.
Conclusion
OCSE IM-14-01 was issued before states were authorized to close
inappropriate referrals, but otherwise provides helpful guidance to states on
making informed decisions about Medicaid referrals: “[w]hile establishing or
updating Medicaid referral policies, States should consider cost
effectiveness, safety, and the desired child support outcomes for the
family.” The IM lists the negative impacts of inappropriate referrals and
offers four strategies (not including case closure) to collaborate with the
Medicaid agency.

Flexibility to avoid inappropriate referrals, whether from Foster Care or
Medicaid, is a great opportunity for child support agencies to conserve
scarce resources and improve the quality and effectiveness of referrals.
Not to mention improvement in performance for which we all strive.
_________________________________________
James C. Fleming is the director of the Child Support Section of the North Dakota
Department of Health and Human Services, President of the National Child Support
Enforcement Association (NCSEA), member of the Board of Directors for the Western
Intergovernmental Child Support Engagement Council (WICSEC), and former President
of the National Council of Child Support Directors (NCCSD). Jim is a member and
former co-chair of NCSEA’s Policy and Government Relations Committee and
NCCSD’s Policy and Practice Committee, and a member of the editorial committee for
the NCSEA Child Support CommuniQue. Jim also co-chairs NCCSD’s Employer
Collaboration Committee.Jim was named the 2022 recipient of the American Payroll
Association’s Government Partner Award. He has been an assistant attorney general
for North Dakota for 28 years, following a clerkship with the North Dakota Supreme
Court. Jim and his wife Terri are the proud parents of four daughters and were recently
blessed with a perfect granddaughter.
i
OCSE DCL-22-06 (July 29, 2022). The DCL attached a joint letter from the Children’s Bureau
and Office of Child Support Enforcement announcing changes to the Child Welfare Policy
Manual.
ii
ACF IM-07-06 (September 6, 2007). See also ACF IM-12-06 (August 1, 2012).
iii
See also OCSE DCL-00-122 (December 22, 2000) (attaching a December 19, 2000, letter
from the HHS Health Care Finance Agency to state Medicaid directors).
iv
45 CFR § 303.11(b)(20).
v
45 CFR § 303.31(a).
vi
45 CFR § 302.33(a)(5).
vii
45 CFR § 302.33(a)(2).
viii
For a thorough analysis of the choices and considerations in pursing medical support, see
MEDICAL SUPPORT 2.0: Re-Positioning Medical Support in the Changing Landscape of Health
Insurance, Robert G. (Bob) Williams, Ph.D. (July 25, 2019).

Self-Assessments and Data Reliability Audits:
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
by Gay Harris, Arizona Department of Economic Security
Brian Miele, Arizona Department of Economic Security
Liz Schriber, Georgia Division of Child Support Services
One of the best strategies to prepare for federal audits is to establish a
solid self-assessment process. Self-assessment and internal data reliability
audits are management tools for states to gauge and improve their
performance. For a self-assessment process to be an effective tool for
management, it must provide accurate and reliable information. The
information provided should identify program strengths, weaknesses, and
relevant estimates of current performance levels. This provides leadership
teams with data to make informed decisions.
Child support offices in Arizona and Georgia
have seen a lot of good come from their selfassessment
processes and they have been able
to prevent negative results on self-assessment
and internal audits.
Start with the Good
There are various ways to establish a good self-assessment process that
helps ensure favorable results when being audited by the federal Office of

Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). States have options in terms of where
they establish a self-assessment unit. For example, a unit can be
established within the IV-D agency, as is done in Georgia, or within an
umbrella agency containing
the IV-D agency, as is done
in Arizona with its
Department of Economic
Security (ADES). Other
options include establishing a
unit within another state
As a result of their self-assessment and
data reliability efforts, Arizona and
Georgia have continued to receive
favorable results in their federal Data
Reliability Audits (DRAs).
agency or using contracted staff from a private company. One key to
success is ensuring that those conducting self-assessments have a healthy
degree of separation and independence from those managing the cases. In
Arizona and Georgia, teams are solely designated to conduct these
required self-assessments to help ensure data reliability. Another key to
success is that these teams follow well-defined self-assessment processes
that ensure consistency and efficiency. For example:
● In Arizona, a team of auditors is solely dedicated to conducting selfassessments
for each of Arizona’s 14 offices annually, and is
responsible for submitting the annual audit to the OCSE. In addition,
they conduct internal data reliability audits each month. The audit
team is located within the ADES Office of Inspector General and is
structurally independent of program management. In addition to
having its audit processes well-documented, these auditors have
prior experience managing cases, and in addition, are overseen by
an audit supervisor.
● In Georgia, a performance management team–consisting of
individuals who have no case management responsibilities–conducts
a statewide annual self-assessment review of program operations
and compliance with internal standard operating procedures (SOPs),
financial reviews of internal units, and special projects. These
processes are well established and evolving to increase efficiency.

As a result of their self-assessment and data reliability efforts, Arizona and
Georgia have continued to receive favorable results in their federal Data
Reliability Audits (DRAs). With this, they have avoided monetary penalties
imposed when federal data reliability benchmarks are not met, and
continue to receive incentive funding to benefit the child support program.
Avoid the Bad
Even if a self-assessment process is established with an independent team
that has a documented process, this could still result in a negative outcome
without considering a few additional keys to success. For example, an
office may have a pattern of underperforming in
a particular area, or new problems may arise
that result in underserving clients or losing time
and money. A key strategy for preventing
repeat problems is to address the root cause of
problems identified in self-assessments.
Further, a key strategy for preventing new problems is to use selfassessment
processes to proactively identify and address high-risk areas.
Examples of these strategies include the following:
● In Arizona, the team conducting individual self-assessment audits
evaluates cases against the criteria for the eight federal requirements
to ensure benchmarks are met for each criterion. As a proactive
measure, cases are also evaluated for quality control to identify highrisk
areas such as ensuring support orders are promptly added to the
child support system so that families receive the support payments on
time. The internal data reliability audit team reviews sample data
each month and uses a similar methodology used by federal auditors.
They validate the data on the child support system to ensure the
information is correct. The team has also identified the root causes of
problems in the cases that directly impact the federal requirements or
the OCSE-157 line items, which has resulted in updates to specific
procedures for the Division.
● In Georgia, for this federal fiscal year, its performance management
team is taking a holistic approach to conducting compliance reviews

y using case samples from each office, which will be reviewed by
the financial, paternity, and self-assessment teams. Georgia’s
Division of Child Support Services (DCSS) has taken several
proactive steps to improve data reliability and performance. For
example, DCSS creates a report based on a proactive review using
the data relationship schedule, which is typically provided to states
during a federal DRA or federal Data Reliability Review (DRR). The
proactive relationship schedule compares the same performance line
logic and is reviewed prior
to the end of the federal
fiscal year. Another report
proactively reviewed for
data reliability is the “All
Child” report, which as its
name suggests, contains
paternity and support order
information for all children.
Reviews are also conducted for SOPs that may have higher
standards than the federal compliance requirements. The Same Day
Service SOP’s timeframe to establish a IV-D case is the day the
application is received, or within three business days based on the
application type. This differs from the 20-day federal requirement in
an effort to ensure compliance, efficiently process requests for
service, and provide excellent customer service.
Transform the Ugly
No matter how good or bad the self-assessment process looks on paper, it
will be ugly without a culture of collaborative communication between those
conducting a self-assessment and those benefiting from it. The
independent nature of the self-assessment team helps keep results
consistent and unbiased but should not make the team come off as cold,
aloof, or ignorant. Those managing the cases should not feel afraid of the
team or feel like the team has them under a microscope. Instead, the team
should act as, and be viewed as, a trusted partner that will help ensure the

agency is ready for OCSE audits. A culture of open communication and
respect will go a long way in preventing the “bad” things mentioned above.
Below are some ideas on how to help establish such a culture:
● In Arizona, a collaborative meeting between the audit team and
DCSS leadership resulted in getting a good perspective on how the
audit reports can add value to benefit the program. Further, the audit
team developed a survey to obtain valuable feedback about its selfassessment
and data reliability reports. As a result, the audit team is
working to add additional information to the report to make it easier
for case managers to review the report without having to do further
research. The audit team also expanded its exit conferences to
encourage the whole office to attend–including line staff–rather than
meeting with only the office manager to discuss the audit process and
the report. This change in the style of the meeting was especially
informative to case managers who were new to the child support
program and helped them realize how vital their role is to ensure data
is accurate and reliable. Their attendance also allowed case
managers to ask questions about how the audit team reviews the
information. This collaboration with the entire office created a
partnership and open communication even if the result of the audit
report was not favorable. The audit team can be viewed as a trusted
partner with the child support division.
● In Georgia, DCSS held virtual training sessions for staff—including
case managers and their supervisors— to explain the importance of
data reliability in audits, and its impact on incentive awards. The DRA
process is a team effort involving staff in local offices and state office
units. This year, DCSS held a virtual kick-off meeting with managers
to discuss the process and outcomes from the prior year’s audit to
help identify improvements for next year. A similar closeout meeting
will be planned after the final report is issued.
Summary
Child support programs can face federal audits with confidence by following
a few keys to success. These keys include establishing an independent

and well-documented self-assessment process, using self-assessment
audits to address the root causes of problems, proactively identifying and
addressing high-risk areas, and ensuring a culture of collaborative
communications between those conducting the self-assessment audits and
those managing the cases. Ultimately, the goal is to not only pass OCSE
audits with flying colors but to provide the best possible experience for the
clients served.
_________________________________________
Gay Harris is currently an Audit Supervisor for the Arizona Department of Economic
Security (ADES) and joined the Office of Inspector General, Internal Audit
Administration office in 2012 to conduct internal data reliability and control selfassessment
audits. Prior to that, she worked in ADES, Division of Child Support
Services for 25 years in various roles as a case manager and conducting internal audits
for the Division. She has extensive knowledge and experience in the child support
program specifically in data reliability and control self-assessment. She attended
Haskell Indian Nations University in Lawrence, Kansas, and received a degree in
business education. She is also a Certified Inspector General Auditor.
Brian Miele is the Chief Auditor for the Arizona Department of Economic Security
(ADES). He joined ADES in 2019 and has been involved in auditing the Arizona state
government since 2006. Brian received a Master of Public Administration from Brigham
Young University and is a Certified Inspector General Auditor.
Liz Schriber currently serves as the Strategic Performance Planning Manager for the
Georgia Department of Human Services, Division of Child Support Services (DCSS).
She has been with DCSS since 2006. She is an NCSEA U Alumni and Co-chair of the
NCSEA Research Subcommittee. Liz has extensive data analysis experience and
comes up with creative ways to identify trends and opportunities for improvement. Liz
has a Bachelor of Political Science degree with a minor in sociology from the University
of Georgia.

Intergovernmental Hot Topics! Part 2
by Rob Velcoff
Intergovernmental Support Services
The January 2022 Child Support CommuniQue included part one of
“Intergovernmental Hot Topics!.” If that article left you wanting more, please
allow me to introduce Part 2. In the first article, we discussed items such as
interstate payment processing, enforcement of “dead” cases, and $0
orders. Now let’s add a few more controversial subjects to the list.
Interstate Case Closure Regulations
There are currently 21 case closure criteria listed in CFR § 303.11. Of
these, a responding jurisdiction in a two-state interstate case has only three
at its disposal for case closure:
(17) The responding agency documents failure by the initiating
agency to take an action that is essential for the next step in providing
services;
(18) The initiating agency has notified the responding State that the
initiating State has closed its case under § 303.7(c)(11);
(19) The initiating agency has notified the responding State that its
intergovernmental services are no longer needed;
The other 18 criteria can be used only by an initiating jurisdiction. That
means that if the initiating jurisdiction wants the responding jurisdiction to
keep a two-state interstate case open, the responding jurisdiction has to do
so even if one or more of the other 18 case closure criteria apply in its
jurisdiction. Remember, the federal case closure criteria are optional, not
mandatory. States may choose which ones they do or do not want to use.
Let’s say the responding jurisdiction normally closes a local case in its own
state using criterion #9(i), “The noncustodial parent's sole income is from
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments ….” But if the initiating
jurisdiction does not use that particular criterion, the responding jurisdiction
would have to keep such a case open. They might have previously closed
several in-state cases that met these circumstances, but they would have
to keep an interstate case open. This defies logic, to say nothing of the fact

that it would be very difficult to have to explain to one custodial parent why
her/his case with a given noncustodial parent has to be closed while the
case of a different custodial parent with the same noncustodial parent must
remain open.
This situation cries out for consistency. There is a fear that states will be
closing two-state cases against the wishes of the initiating jurisdictions.
Perhaps. But this would not occur very often. In fact, in an attempt to
mandate cooperation, the reverse is actually occurring. It would be better to
encourage communication and understanding between the states instead
of trying to force a policy that only works part of the time. Responding
jurisdictions should be able to close their two-state cases if any of their
case closure criteria apply, while the initiating jurisdiction keeps the case
open (if applicable) and works it to the best of their ability as a local onestate
case. If the case circumstances change, the case can always be
made two-state in the future if the given case closure criteria no longer
exists. Trusting states to work out these issues among themselves might
be the better option than attempting to mandate something that
perpetuates inconsistency.
Interest
Interest in child support is very controversial – you either love it or you hate
it. States that add interest to their arrears or money judgments generally
think it is an important tool to assist custodial parents in keeping their
financial heads above water when
dealing with delinquent payors. Some
custodial parents may have to go into
debt due to the non-payment of support,
and may end up having to pay interest
on their own overdue bills as a result, so
the extra money received in interest
payments is a way of evening things out.
States that do not charge interest
believe it is just another burden to heap on the backs of parents who are
struggling to meet their financial obligations without having to compile
additional fees onto an often insurmountable sum. We’ve all heard the
stories of arrears-only cases where the noncustodial parent is making
monthly payments but, due to high interest charges, the total arrears
amount due at the end of each month is actually higher despite some
payments being made.

Is there any sort of compromise possible on interstate cases when one
state charges interest and the other state does not? Or when two states
each charge different percentages? For those states that don’t charge
interest on child support arrears or that call for a single percentage
nationwide, remember that
interest rates on money
judgments are not just a child
support thing. States that
charge interest generally do
so on all money judgments,
child support or otherwise,
Interest forgiveness can also be an
important tool when conducting debt
compromise on a case.
and do not have the ability to vary this amount from judgment to judgment.
If a tax judgment charges interest in State A at a rate of 10%, so too would
a child support judgment, and the child support agency enforcing such a
judgment would likely have no discretion when working the case.
Interest forgiveness can also be an important tool when conducting debt
compromise on a case. Many states do this on their TANF caseloads.
States often do this in non-TANF cases as well, either with the custodial
parent’s permission or via state policy. The reasoning behind this approach
makes perfect sense: most parents to whom the support is owed would be
perfectly happy to receive current support and a little something toward the
arrears. To help ensure such payments, interest accruals are something
many of them would be more than willing to forego.
When a responding jurisdiction registers a court order from a state that
charges interest, the registering state is not expected to calculate the
interest. That is the responsibility of the initiating jurisdiction. However, the
responding jurisdiction is expected to enforce the interest that has accrued.
In fact, federal policy requires this. If you recall the information from Part 1
of this article, the state that issued the controlling order has the official
determination of arrears. So when the court order state periodically updates
the arrears figure and adds interest, the responding jurisdiction is bound by
those figures and must enforce them. Updated payment histories are
helpful; a best practice is for annual updates, although if a case is going
into court on an enforcement or a modification petition that would be a good
time for an arrears reconciliation as well. While this is extra work on the
part of the responding jurisdiction, helping each other is part of our jobs.
Explaining to the person paying support why the arrears are so high due to
the interest that is charging is something the child support worker from the
paying parent’s jurisdiction is expected to do.

There has been some discussion about not charging any interest on
interstate cases as a nationwide policy. While initially that might make
sense because it would make everyone’s life easier, I do not agree with
that policy. Noncustodial parents would still be charged interest in many
states; it’s just that said interest would not be enforced by the responding
jurisdiction. So by the time the order terminates and the responding state
closes the two-state case, there could be thousands of dollars in interest
that is still owed on the initiating state’s case record. Asking all states to
waive interest charges on interstate cases is not a viable solution either, as
some child support agencies might not have the authority to do so. Plus
some states think that charging interest is a good thing. Making child
support workers’ lives easier should not be the only goal in interstate case
processing. There are just too many reasons not to introduce such a policy.
While charging interest on child support arrears might be an interesting
topic for debate, remember that the states that charge interest are
generally required by law to do so. There might be no option here. All
states must enforce the accrued interest on those registered orders
whether they agree with the concept or not.
Interstate IWO on UIB
One of the best things that happened when
the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act
(UIFSA) came about in 1996 was the
advent of the interstate income withholding
order (IWO). For more than twenty-five
years, states have had the authority to send
wage withholding orders to employers
anywhere in the United States. This has
greatly increased collections, reduced timeframes, cut down on two-state
actions, and resulted in tremendous improvements to the child support
program nationwide. The language in UIFSA is very cut and dried:
SECTION 501. EMPLOYER’S RECEIPT OF INCOME-
WITHHOLDING ORDER OF ANOTHER STATE. An incomewithholding
order issued in another state may be sent by or on behalf
of the obligee, or by the support enforcement agency, to the person
defined as the obligor’s employer under the income-withholding law
of this state without first filing a petition or comparable pleading or
registering the order with a tribunal of this state.

The next question is, does this section of law also pertain to unemployment
insurance benefits (UIBs)? The answer depends upon whom you ask.
Currently, only 14 states/territories (out of 54, or a little over 25%) permit
this type of withholding: Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Virgin
Islands, and Wisconsin. There is
additional information on the
Intergovernmental Reference
Guide (IRG) about this for these
states/territories. For the rest, the
simple explanation is that
unemployment insurance benefits
do not fall under the legal
definition of “income” in that jurisdiction. That is an oversimplification, and
there certainly may be more to it than that.
In most if not all states, UIB intercepts are done via a mass match, not by
individual IWOs. The Unemployment Benefits office may not have the
ability to handle individual IWOs sent one at a time. However, this lack of
resources should not be enough to stop a legally issued formal document.
There has to be something more at work here. The issue likely goes back
to the legal definition of “income” and “employer.” Here is some information
from a very old federal policy document, PIQ-99-04, dated March 22, 1999:
Question 1: Are State Employment Security Agencies (SESAs)
required to process UC intercepts from States other than their own?
Answer: Yes. If the State UI agency is encompassed by the definition
of "employer" within section 501 of the Uniform Interstate Family
Support Act (UIFSA) as enacted by the receiving state, an income
withholding order may be sent directly to the UI agency since it is "the
person or entity defined as the obligor’s employer under [the income
withholding laws of the State]...". Withholding for UI benefits is also
governed by sections 303(e) and 454(a)(19) of the Social Security
Act (the Act).
What this seems to boil down to is the legal definition. Still, the intent of
section 501 of UIFSA is very clear. Since interstate wage withholding works
so well for employment, it would also work equally well for unemployment.
For the three-quarters of the states/territories that do not currently allow
interstate wage withholding for UIBs, reconsidering the definition of
“income” and “employer” would work for the greater good of the child

support program and would ultimately benefit the children and families we
all serve.
Rob Velcoff is an independent child support consultant with his own agency,
Intergovernmental Support Services. Before starting his own agency, Mr. Velcoff
worked for the New York State Division of Child Support Services for over 30 years. Mr.
Velcoff has received several awards, including ERICSA’s Felix Infausto Award
(President’s Award). An individual member of NCSEA, Mr. Velcoff received a BS in
Criminal Justice from the State University College of New York at Brockport and an MA
in Criminal Justice from the State University of New York at Albany.

Teleworking Tips as a Service to
Child Support Workers
by Laurel Eaton, Rachel Karch, and Nancy Sonleitner,
University of Oklahoma, Center for Public Management
On March 16, 2020, Oklahoma Child Support Services (CSS) staff, along
with all but essential workers in all areas of employment across Oklahoma
government, were sent home to quarantine in an effort to slow the spread
of COVID-19. The abrupt change in work location and how work was to be
done was a challenge for many CSS workers. In order to keep employees
engaged and still feeling like a part of the CSS team, three members of the
University of Oklahoma Center for Public Management (OU-CPM) i contract
team began writing daily Teleworking Tips.
In order to write a daily one- to two-page article, we used available
resources for inspiration and, in some cases, content. We were careful not
to plagiarize, and we faithfully cited our sources. We focused on the child
support audience and used inclusive language to create and maintain a
cohesive identity of going through the difficulties together. Initially, the
Teleworking Tips concerned technology issues. Before quarantine, and
with an eye on the future, the Oklahoma Department of Human Services
(OKDHS) administration ii was making a move toward using more
technology, including Microsoft Office 365. The Teleworking Tips first
began addressing how to use Teams, its various features, and ways to
keep in touch with co-workers in “offices” that were no longer housed
together.

“Thank you, thank you! It
always seems that
whenever I’m feeling down
or stuck, along comes the
perfect tip! I loved the one
about the stretching
exercise the other day, and
then today up pops ‘Just
Breathe.’ Again, thanks a
lot!”
The Teleworking Tips team includes a
talented artist who made the Tips visually
interesting so more child support staff
would be enticed to look at the Daily Tip to
see what it was all about.
Our artist-in-residence created an
imaginative logo for Tips articles, as well
as for new Technology Training articles
and health and wellness articles we
created for child support field workers. The
backgrounds and images used were
engaging and sometimes amusing. The
team is lucky to have this person, and we are proud of her contributions to
the aesthetic of the Tips.
As we settled into our daily production routine, the Teleworking Tips team
became aware of concerns about staying safe and healthy during the early
months of quarantine. Many businesses were closed; just about the only
open businesses were grocery stores and pharmacies. The team wrote
articles on mask wearing, social distancing, handwashing, and DIY
cleaning products.
As the weeks turned into months, it became clear that vacations and
cruises were not going to happen, and movie theaters, restaurants, and
other entertainment venues were still closed. Seeing that the child support
workforce might need a distraction and some recreation, the team wrote
articles on amusement parks, museums
around the world, U.S. National Parks,
online zoos, and night sky gazing.
Articles offered virtual roller coaster
rides, featuring some of the most famous
wood and steel roller coasters in the
United States. We located virtual
museum tours around the world where
viewers could “walk through” the
museum as if they were there themselves. We identified celestial events
taking place within the month and explained what they were and how to
see them. There are also several interesting things to see in Oklahoma; the
team wrote about them and their locations in one memorable publication.

Children staying home from school, with parents thrust into the role of parttime
educators while trying to keep up with
“Thanks so much. The tips
full-time work, was stressful. The
seem like common sense
Teleworking Tips team wrote articles on
until I sit down and just get
how to keep children entertained and busy,
absorbed by my laptop.
featuring activities that took little effort to
The "do more than just get
create and needed little supervision. The
a cup of coffee" one hits
team produced suggestions on
home!”
office/workspace arrangements, including
signs and signals parents could use to let
children know when not to interrupt. The team also supported parents in
their role as substitute educators by writing articles that included
suggestions for coping and reminding them that they did not have
education degrees, no one expected them to replace their children’s
teachers, and they were doing the best they could.
The team also considered other stressors, such as dealing with unfamiliar
technologies, separation from co-workers, and concerns about staying
healthy. The Teleworking Tips included articles on mental health, stress
reduction, short exercise breaks, physical activity, and self-care. Articles on
breathing, meditation, and taking 5-minute body scan breaks to relieve
tension were also part of the effort to help with stress management.
Understanding the value of laughter in helping our immune system and
improving mood, the Teleworking Tips team also wrote articles featuring
jokes to give readers a chuckle. The jokes were mainly “dad jokes” and
family-friendly, amusing puns.
Many folks fondly remember making bread and experimenting with cooking
during the pandemic. The team wrote articles on snacks, easy to prepare
main dishes, “tour of the world of food” recipes, and lots of comfort food
recipes. As holidays approached, the
team included holiday craft ideas,
recipes, and tips on how to have virtual
family parties when it wasn’t safe to get
together. These tips included ideas for
decorating, “eating together,” and family
game nights.
As the pandemic wore on and the
promise of a vaccine was on the horizon, the Teleworking Tips focus
shifted somewhat to include more health and resilience articles. The team
also presented an entire series on all the Microsoft Office 365 apps, not

only via email but also through presentations on MS Teams to answer
questions and demonstrate how to access, set up, and use the apps in the
world of child support.
In addition, to help separated co-workers retain a sense of community,
readers were asked to send pictures of their
“I love this article! It’s so on
pets to feature these “co-workers” in an
point with the Science of
article. There were so many responses to
Hope, positive psychology,
this request that this article was written as a
and changing your mindset
series featuring unusual pets, cats, and
to a Growth Mindset! This
large and small dogs. The series featured
is wonderful!”
pets’ human companions as well, along with
their comments about their pets’ cuteness
or quirkiness.
As we slowly began to emerge from the months-long isolation of
quarantine, some of us were not sure how to re-engage. The team wrote
articles on how to create your own Pandemic Pod (e.g. safe social group)
and what to keep in mind when getting together with others indoors. Other
articles focused on suggestions for how to stay safe while flying or using
other forms of travel.
During the pandemic, many people from all walks of life lost their jobs or
were suffering financially. The Teleworking Tips team wrote articles
addressing this source of stress, as well as articles offering suggestions
and support during the difficulties.
After more than a year of daily Teleworking Tips, we reduced articles to five
to six times a month with an emphasis on applying Microsoft 365
technology to child support processes and procedures, along with
occasional articles to provide entertainment or tips on wellness and
technology. From the middle of March 2020, the team wrote approximately
240 articles in the first year and over 100 articles in the second year and
continues to produce informational and helpful articles.
You may access some of the Tips here.
Other states also sent encouraging emails to their staff throughout the
pandemic to help them carry forward throughout the stress of the
quarantine. These encouraging emails gave us all hope for a better day.
Hope is one of the strongest predictors of well-being, and an emerging,
robust body of evidence is demonstrating that hope is also an important
component of organizational well-being. Based on this research and on the
experiences many CSS workers have on a daily basis with our customers,

it has become apparent that hope benefits
everyone in the child support system, from
caseworkers to customers. The
Teleworking Tips team’s goal was to
provide hope, information, and a sense of
community to the many CSS workers who
diligently continued to serve our customers
during a difficult and unprecedented time.
_________________________________________
Laurel Eaton retired in 2016 as the Programs Manager for the Office of Planning,
Evaluation, and Learning-Child Support Services after 46 years with the Oklahoma
Department of Human Services—38 of those years with or related to CSS. She is now a
Project Coordinator with the University of Oklahoma, Center for Public Management,
contracted to Child Support Services. Ms. Eaton is an individual member of NCSEA.
Rachel Karch has a master’s degree in Instructional Leadership and Academic
Curriculum, specializing in classroom gamification, from the University of Oklahoma.
She has taught in Lexington and Norman Public Schools as an AP World History
teacher and an art teacher, during which time she received several awards and grants
for her work in education. In 2019, she began working for OUCPM as a curriculum
developer, became an instructional designer for the same team, and now is the OSIS
Policy Contract Manager.
Dr. Nancy Sonleitner has a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Oklahoma and
has taught in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, the University of Tennessee (Martin),
and online at Bowling Green State University and local community colleges. Currently,
Dr. Sonleitner is assisting Oklahoma Child Support Services create training materials for
the Child Support workforce, and assisting with course development for asynchronous
and face-to-face workforce training.
i
OU-CPM - https://outreach.ou.edu/community-services/health-human-services/center-publicmanagement/services/
OU-CPM is the administrator of the Child Support Specialist Certification
Program, the CSS Employer Services Center, and a host of other services for OKDHS.
ii
OKDHS (Oklahoma Department of Human Services) is the umbrella agency for Child Support
Services.

NCSEA 2023 Policy Forum Preview
by Margot Bean and Connie Chesnik
Co-chairs, NCSEA 2023 Policy Forum
Early in February 2023, Child Support and Human Services professionals
from across the country will come together again in Washington, D.C. for
the annual NCSEA Policy Forum. This year’s theme, “Engagement –
Delivering Quality Services with a Passion for Helping Families,”
focuses on what we in the child support program do well with passion while
being mindful of the impact and ramifications of our decision-making. Over
the Forum’s three days, sessions will explore the important balance of
keeping a focus on child support’s strong historical foundation, while
embracing innovations and program evolution.
As we set out planning this year's agenda, we remained committed to our
effort to build on NCSEA’s collaborative inclusion of various perspectives
and priorities that clearly support our collective vision. The perspectives of
our tribal members, the impact of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)
efforts, and the importance of engaging external partners were vital to the
conversations. The Policy Forum Planning Committee has developed 10
plenary sessions that offer attendees a variety of perspectives on trending
topics in the entire child support community. We continue our practice from
last year’s Policy Forum of presenting–in some of the sessions–a short
video from a variety of think tanks performing research and advocacy that
showcases their insights into child support engagement and quality
services.

Thursday’s Opening Plenary will begin with NCSEA President Jim Fleming
sharing his vision for the Policy Forum, followed by welcoming remarks
from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS),
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) Assistant Secretary,
January Contreras. ACF Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)
Commissioner, Tanguler Gray, will deliver a keynote reflecting on the past
year’s accomplishments and the future focus of her Office.
Thursday’s second plenary will present an ambitious proposal from
NCSEA’s Policy and Government Relations (PGR) Committee that resulted
from a massive effort to develop a comprehensive child support legislative
proposal not seen since PWRORA was passed in 1998. PGR’s work has
identified improvements and solutions in different areas of the program that
will enhance performance and quality service delivery to families, including
reforms and changes to TANF recovery, performance measures,
intergovernmental, program funding, and enforcement. In addition,
congressional staff will share their views on a variety of potential child
support legislative proposals.
Thursday afternoon will commence with a focus on modern child support
enforcement tools. This includes using enforcement as a stepping-stone to
building family capacity, engaging effectively through electronic hearings,
requiring the reporting of independent contractors, and improving the
insurance match process. The afternoon finishes with a comprehensive
review of the 20-plus years’ history of federally funded Section 1115 grants,
Special Improvement Project (SIP) grants, and Section 1115 waiver
demonstration projects that have aided the seismic shift from a focus solely
on enforcement to comprehensive engagement. The session will highlight
the most recent demonstration grants, including employment services and
support for non-custodial parents, behavioral interventions, procedural
justice, and communication and outreach in a digital world.
In the last two-plus years, much has been shared and debated on how we
go about implementing DEI. Friday’s plenaries will open with expanding the
DEI conversation by hearing from those who have succeeded in
implementing DEI-related change and are continuing to build on their
initiatives. They will share the challenges and tools they used to help us
form action plans to benefit the child support community across the
country. This plenary is followed by a discussion of the recent joint ACF
OCSE/Children’s Bureau guidance on case referrals from IV-E to IV-D.
From a panel of states that have changed their processes, the audience

will learn more about the guidance and the supporting research,
implementation considerations, strategies, and challenges, and how these
changes can strengthen collaboration between child support and child
welfare.
Friday’s program continues with a session that builds off the work of an
existing partnership among the American Public Human Services
Association (APHSA), the National Conference of Child Support Directors
(NCCSD), and NCSEA to create strategies to align child support with
parallel programs and services. The panel will include child support
directors and economic support administrators who will discuss advancing
economic mobility and improving collections through promoting supportive
services, access to assistance, and enhanced employment and training
opportunities for all parents and caregivers. The panel will also discuss
successfully aligning services with families at the center with perspectives
from tribal human services. This session will also incorporate custodial and
noncustodial parents with lived experience, who will share their
perspectives on how thoughtful, trauma-informed services and connections
to support lead to better outcomes for all parents and their children. The
day’s final plenary will feature a brief research presentation about the most
recent data on the prevalence of incarceration in the U.S. and, specifically,
arrests/convictions/periods of incarceration among noncustodial parents
that leads to difficulty meeting their obligations and engaging with child
support agencies. Author Sharmain Harris will share his lived experience
as a justice-involved father and take us on an inspirational ride through his
personal stories and work over the past six years to increase awareness of
father involvement and to implement strategies to be more engaging.
Policy Forum attendees will not want to miss the final Saturday morning
program. The day opens with a highly interactive plenary that explores
various state child support debt compromise policies. By diving into the
actual processes behind those programs—and their data—participants in
this plenary will gain a heightened appreciation for the burden of running
such programs, versus the amount of child support debt reduced.
The national child support program caseload dropped almost 1½ million
over the past five years. Despite this reduction, it still serves nearly 16
million children or about one in five children nationwide, and performance
on the federal performance measures continues to improve for those
children. The 2023 NCSEA Policy Forum will conclude with another not-tobe-missed
plenary where speakers discuss why caseloads are decreasing

and, more importantly, what can be done to turn this trend around so that
our services reach customers who need it the most.
We look forward to connecting with you in Washington, D.C., February 2-4,
2023, to continue the conversations from last year’s Policy Forum and to
start new ones!
Margot Bean is a Managing Director in Deloitte Consulting’s Human Services
Transformation Practice, focusing on helping child support programs improve their
outcomes by providing effective and efficient data driven customer-focused services.
She helps child support programs develop human centered case management systems
that streamline business processes, effectively analyze their caseloads, and allow case
managers to execute case strategies based on customer needs. Margot’s wide variety
of government experience prior to joining Deloitte provides her with deep understanding
and insight: Commissioner of the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, IV-D
Director of the New York State Child Support program, IV-D Director of the Guam Child
Support Program, and child support attorney. She is a current member of the NCSEA
Board of Directors
Connie M. Chesnik received both her undergraduate and law degrees from the
University of Wisconsin-Madison. As an attorney for the Wisconsin Department of
Workforce Development, Connie advised the child support program for many years and
has spoken frequently on Wisconsin’s child support guidelines and Wisconsin’s tribal IV-
D program. She is currently the Administrator of the Division of Family and Economic
Security in the Department of Children and Families where she oversees Wisconsin’s
child support, refugee and employment programs. Connie is a member of the State Bar
of Wisconsin, and the State and National Child Support Enforcement Associations. She
currently serves on the NCSEA Board of Directors.

Is NCSEA U For You?
NCSEA U was chartered in 2013 and currently has
more than 135 alumni. NCSEA U provides a unique
premier educational and professional development
opportunity. It is structured for learning leaders in the
child support community and it complements NCSEA’s
other educational initiatives and strategies. The
program is taught by nationally recognized child
support leaders, offering a variety of informative and
strategic topics. Classes are structured with an
emphasis on group discussions that include work/life balance and best practice initiatives
with real time work environment scenarios. And starting in February, 2023, NCSEA U @
Policy Forum offers participants training in policy, advocacy and outreach.
Whether for yourself or your staff, NCSEA U offers a transformative learning experience
and is a catalyst for networking opportunities. NCSEA U alumni would love for you to
become a part of this unique group. Because we are proud of NCSEA U, we will be
featuring Alumni in upcoming CSQ articles. Their stories will highlight why NCSEA U is for
you.
Meet Our NCSEA U Alumni
Liz Schriber, Class of 2022
Georgia Division of Child Support Services
Strategic Performance Planning Manager
What would you like others to know about NCSEA U? NCSEA U is an amazing opportunity to
learn from top-notch leaders and network with other child support professionals. It was very clear
that there is a lot of thought and preparation that goes into the materials for the sessions. NCSEA
U provides a unique experience for participants to share their experiences and perspectives on
program improvement.
NCSEA U @ Leadership Symposium focuses on the emerging and learning leader. How do
you define leadership? I define leadership as the ability to bring people together and
empowering the team to achieve a common goal.
Why would you recommend NCSEA U to others? NCSEA U provides an opportunity for you to
meet other child support professionals that share a passion for program improvement and
enhancing their leadership skills. It allows you to learn from other program perspectives and
expand your network of child support friends and community.

Emily Gregg, Class of 2022
Tennessee Child Support
Policy and Case Resolution Director
What is the most valuable aspect of the NCSEA U experience? Ideas, Ideas, Ideas!
Connections, connections, connections!
What would you like others to know about NCSEA U? NCSEA U is a wonderful experience.
The leaders provided great insight into their trials and errors throughout their child support journey.
The NCSEA U leaders (Erin, Wally, and Lisa) helped each one of us take an idea and form the
idea into an actual plan of action. Hearing from other states who have tried various initiatives also
assists with planning your own priorities and initiatives within your state, tribe, or county.
What is a key leadership attribute that you appreciate in others? I appreciate someone who
values others' input and who can lead by example. Someone who is not afraid to admit they may
not know the answer but is willing to do the digging to find out. Someone who is not afraid to jump
in and help out.
Van Nguyen, Class of 2022
Washington State Division of Child Support
Child Support Program Manager
What would you like others to know about NCSEA U? NCSEAU is educational, inspirational,
and is a supportive network.
Since attending NCSEA U, what opportunities (personal and professional) have you
experienced? Working with the Research, Data and Analysis Division on creating a survey for my
project.
What is a key leadership attribute that you appreciate in others? Some key attributes that I
appreciate in others include: honesty, integrity, excellence, accountability, emotional intelligence,
and respect. I believe a leader who embodies these values is able to gain/earn trust from the people
that they lead and nothing is impossible to achieve when you have people's trust.