1

NIEMChild Support &

Court CommunicationsFrom Concept to ActionFrom Concept to Action

CSE

Courts

2

The Child Support Enforcement Program

3

The Child Support Enforcement Program

• Federally Funded

• State Administered

• State or County Operated

Challenges....Cross Jurisdictional Program

4

Office of Child Support Enforcement Responsibilities

• Provide Policy Guidelines to States• Provide Funding• Provide Technical Assistance• Ensure Compliance• Operate the Federal Parent Locator

System (FPLS) & Federal Income Tax Refund Offset

5

State Responsibilities

• Administer the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Program

• Deliver Program Services

• Operate State Parent Locator Service (SPLS)

6

State Functions

• Locate Non-Custodial Parents• Establish Paternity• Establish Orders Using State Guidelines• Enforce Orders• Review and Adjust Orders• Monitor and Distribute Collections• Cooperate in Interstate Enforcement

7

• Numerous jurisdictions• Various operating modes – judicial,

administrative• Numerous systems• Common business need to exchange data

The National Community

Challenges....A need for automation

8

The Child Support Enforcement Process

EnforcementCollections/DistributionEstablishmentLocateCase

Initiation

Tools AreUsed ToEnsurePayments

Funds AreReceivedAndDistributed

Paternity IsEstablishedAnd/OrFinancialObligations

Are Set

The CaseBegins

Missing Data Is Sought To Locate The Non-CustodialParent AndHis/HerAssets

9

OCSE is committed to ensuring that information and communication is:

CSE & Courts - Business NeedsImproving Communications

CSE

Courts

Consistent

Timely

Accurate

Actionable

Consistent

Timely

AccurateAccurate

Actionable

10

CSE & Courts - Social Needs

Speed improves support to children

Faster orders results in increased

collections

Builds on the strength of NIEM

CSE

Courts

11

How we Did it!

• Goals of the OCSE Initiative

• OCSE’s Role

• State Initiatives

• The Future

CSE

Courts

12

Bridging the World of Child Support and Courts

Speed up the Message:

• Identify communications need

• Identify the content

• Identify common terms

• Harmonize data

• Construct schemas

CSE

Courts

13

OCSE Data Standards Program

• Began in 2000• Data Governance

– Steering Committee– Oversight Board

• Metadata repository• Workgroup consensus building practices• Data harmonization practices• Naming & definition conventions• We do forms & documents too!

CSE

Courts

14

OCSE Data Standards

NIEM XML Data Model (Global JXDM)

Workgroup

XML Schema

CSECSECommunitiesCommunities

CourtCourt2. Collaborative Review 2. Collaborative Review and Vettingand Vetting

Request for Remedy Order

3. Create Message 3. Create Message ExchangeExchange

1. Gather Requirements1. Gather Requirements

Creation of CSE/Court Data Standards

CSE

Courts

15

Inclusion in NIEM

Overview The inaugural content for the Family Services Domain—part of NIEM 2.1’s release in September 2009—was extracted from extension schema specifying national reference models for six data exchanges between courts and child-support enforcement agencies and between courts and child welfare agencies. The purpose of this domain is to support timely, complete, accurate, and efficient information sharing among the partners that can help improve outcomes for children whose circumstances make them particularly vulnerable.

16

ImplementationColorado

• Data Information Sharing (DISH) Project

• 3 year grant from Federal Office of Child Support between Courts and Child Support Enforcement (CSE) to exchange data

• Both CSE and Courts face similar constraints on money, time and technology resources

• Both agencies understand the social need to get support to kids fast

17

Goals of DISH Project

• Faster child support

• Reduce redundant data entry

• Improve data

• Shorten filing and processing time

• Eliminate paper

• Improved Efficiency in Workflow

18

DISH Project Approach

• Took lessons learned• Joint Chartering Session to develop elevator

statement and goals of project-• Formed Steering Committee including decision

makers• Built strong joint user groups of representatives

from across the state• Joint project management team with frequent

communication• Detailed Case Flows were diagramed

19

Architecture

20

The Hard Work Pays Off

• Statewide rollout complete November 2009• Integrated with few changes to legacy systems• Significant cost savings • Increased accuracy of data• Trust and respect between agencies • Increased automation • Strong foundation for additional data exchanges

and e-forms

CSE

Courts

21

Lessons Learned

• Language and Definitions are Key• Marketing project• Build consensus • Joint Training• Joint Testing

CSE

Courts

22

Lessons Learned

• Planning which included the formation of numerous teams and groups comprised of staff at all levels, statement of work and elevator statement

• Automated Data Exchange where data in XML format, in real time, using the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM), was utilized

• Two county sites were used as pilot sites before Statewide implementation

• A day long Statewide training including separate sessions for Judicial and CSE staff in the morning and joint session in the afternoon which involved a live demonstration

CSE

Courts

23

Lessons Learned• Allow time for an extensive planning phase. CSE and Judicial spent 20

months on a planning process that involved numerous meetings of personnel from both agencies at all levels of the organizational chart: administrators, business planners, technical staff, and end users.

• Find a shared goal and identify joint benefits. CSE and Judicial moved forward when they realized that they shared the common, real-world goals of reducing workload and errors, speeding up case processing, and generating orders and payments in a more timely fashion.

• Get feedback from a broad range of end users. Taking the time to hear from users and crafting the solution that they needed meant that the end product was responsive to real needs. It also ensured buy-in by end users and gave personnel in both agencies the opportunity to see what happens in the other agency.

• Recognize and deal with differences in agency styles, culture, goals, and terminology. Involving personnel at all levels from both agencies at every step of the planning, training, and implementation process was beneficial. A DISH dictionary was developed to help both sides speak the same language.

• Work through the flow process. It was extremely useful to document the APA process from beginning to end in order to identify places to improve it.

CSE

Courts

24

Conclusions

DISH was a highly successful project resulting in the creation, development, and statewide implementation of an electronic exchange of information between CSE and Judicial agencies in child support cases filed using APA.

The project was widely viewed to have reduced the workload associated with processing APA cases, cut the rate of errors in such cases, and sped up the process of filing child support cases and obtaining orders. The project was also viewed as having improved relationships between the child support agency and the court and led to a more uniform and efficient way of assigning docket and FSR numbers to new child support cases.

25

Long Term Benefits of NIEM

• NIEM is a catalyst for increasing Intra and Inter Agency Data Sharing

• Reduced costs by sharing schemas and IEPD’s

• Improved data quality

• Improved workflow

CSE

Courts

26

Challenges

CSE

Courts

Data Quality Privacy & SecurityPolicy Harmonization

GovernanceSyntax

27

Ongoing Work

CSE

Courts

Add family services data to NIEM. Include private organizations - employers

Collaborate with other agencies to establish family services domain (i.e. child welfare, SNAP, )

Knowledge Sharing

28

QUESTIONS?

Richard Ordowich

Administration for Children and Families

Office of Child Support Enforcement202-260-5495

Richard.ordowich@acf.hhs.gov

CSE

Courts