You are on page 1of 254

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section

Page

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................. 3 II. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 11 III. STATUS OF SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS............................................. 21 A. Centralize processing of cases and call center functions ....................... 21 B. Measuring the success of the program though performance measures rather than policy adherence............................................... 26 C. Improve reporting by management .................................................... 29 D. Develop and adhere to a strategic plan ............................................... 31 E. Develop a document imaging system.................................................. 33 IV. INFORMATION ON ADDITIONAL SPECIFIED TOPICS ................................ 37 A. Strategic planning among the district attorneys of Nevada concerning the future funding for the enforcement of child support....... 37 B. Programs to enforce child support in other states with a distribution of population which is similar to the distribution in Nevada. .................. 45 C. Options for creating a regional structure in Nevada and the anticipated benefits to Nevadas Child Support Enforcement Program ........................................................................................... 48 D. Training programs that have been implemented for employees who assist in the collection of child support................................................ 53 E. An analysis of the benefits and detriments of using administrative hearing officers rather than masters in matters relating to the enforcement of child support. ............................................................ 56 F. Improvements in information technology including technology for case management to replace NOMADS ............................................... 65 V. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ........................................................................ 74 VI. LIST OF APPENDICES............................................................................. 78

Page 1 of 78

This page left blank on purpose.

Page 2 of 78

I.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report was prepared in response to Assembly Bill (AB) 536 from the 2007 session of the Nevada Legislature. The bill requires the Division of Welfare and Supportive Services (DWSS) to examine the December 22, 2006, Performance Audit of the State of Nevadas Enforcement and Collection of Child Support prepared by MAXIMUS and provide information on the status of the recommendations from the audit and any additional recommendations. NEVADAS CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE A significant factor leading up to Nevadas Legislature authorizing a performance audit of the Child Support Enforcement Program (CSEP) is the programs poor performance in the five federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) performance measures in comparison to other states. The measures are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Paternity Establishment Support Order Establishment Current Collections Arrearage Collection Cost-Effectiveness

In recent years, Nevadas CSEP has shown improvement in some of the performance measures as illustrated in the following table reflecting percentage change on a year over year basis.
2008 2007(Est.) (Target)
6.82% 3.01% 3.72% 0.41% 5.02% 3.77% 4.36% 6.30% 5.80% 7.12%

1 2 3 4 5

Measure - Paternity - Orders -Support - Arrears - Cost

2002
5.77% (4.69%) 2.61% 2.29% (11.42%)

2003
5.57% (11.42%) (12.96%) (1.33%) 8.71%

2004
8.04% 11.82% 24.95% (15.97%) 6.09%

2005
0.59% 4.40% (10.62%) (3.58%) (9.92%)

2006
15.46% 7.03% 0.52% 3.89% 12.09%

However, even though Nevada has shown improvement in the federal performance measures, other states have improved as well with Nevadas relative ranking remaining effectively unchanged as illustrated below.

Page 3 of 78

Measure 1 - Paternity 2 - Orders 3 - Support 4 - Arrears 5 - Cost Average

2000 25 39 35 19 51 33.80

2001 46 36 46 22 44 38.80

2002 49 45 48 18 45 41.00

2003 49 48 54 24 44 43.80

2004 48 46 46 46 45 46.20

2005 49 46 53 50 49 49.40

2006 49 44 54 48 48 48.60

2007 44 44 50 49 45 46.40

THE CONTEXT OF THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM IN NEVADA CSEP in Nevada has changed dramatically over the years since its inception in 1977. Prior to the enactment of the program pursuant to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, the various District Attorneys of the State of Nevada were responsible for child support enforcement services. Therefore, it was a natural transition for the new State CSEP program to contract with the District Attorneys who were performing those services. This permitted the District Attorneys to enhance their programs and there was continuity of service to the clients. At that time, there was a great deal of flexibility for program operation. Through the years, CSEP has evolved and the Federal requirements for administering the program have become more stringent. In 1996 the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) was passed by Congress. As part of this Act, performance measures were adopted for CSEP. These performance measures affected the amount of incentives a state could qualify for, indicated performance improvements that needed to be achieved and assessed penalties against the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant if there was a failure of a state to meet performance measures and data reliability requirements for two consecutive years. The developments in CSEP have made it much more challenging to operate a program through elected officials. Rather than being a program with inherent continuity, the stability of the CSEP program is dependent upon periodic contract negotiations with the participating District Attorneys and the change in elected District Attorneys. This creates structural instability in the program. It is believed this is one of the bases for the recommendation in the MAXIMUS audit that the program should be operated by counties or, ultimately, by the state. If the program was operated by the counties, it would be part of the county budgets and not dependent upon the changing philosophy of an elected official. If the program were operated by the State, there would be continuity state wide as there would be one operational entity. In addition, Nevadas public assistance programs are operated by the State rather than the counties, including TANF. The TANF child support cases, which are classified as PA cases, were historically handled by the participating District Attorney offices. These cases involve obtaining ongoing current support for

Page 4 of 78

families and recouping past due support which is assigned to the state. This recoupment is shared with the Federal agency. The portion retained by the state is what is referred to as state share of collections (SSC). The amounts recouped are not shared with the counties, but are the primary source of funds used to support the state program. Recently, there has been a shift in the caseload with a trend of District Attorneys returning the PA portion of the caseload to the state to service. These cases tend to be more difficult to work due to the fact that the client is required to cooperate with child support as a condition of receiving a TANF grant. Those classified as NPA cases have applied for the service and have an incentive to cooperate with the program. The ability to more aggressively pursue program enhancements and recommendations has been compromised by the transfer of these caseloads to DWSS which necessitates the use of SSC for staff and case management. Based upon the fact TANF is state administered and counties do not receive any benefit from SSC, neither the counties nor the District Attorneys have a vested interest in collecting for PA cases, whether a penalty is assessed against the TANF Block Grant, or insuring the state has sufficient funds to operate the program. Although passing on an assessed penalty to a responsible District Attorney is provided for in the contract, there is no incentive to avoid a possible TANF penalty. A significant barrier to maintaining consistency in services in CSEP is the structural diversity of the program. Since a significant financial obligation is provided by the participating counties, they understandably want to participate in any decision making regarding the program and any enhancements. If the program is able to focus on advancing performance statewide, it is believed having a fully funded program by the state, whether financed by the state through paying for a county operation or the state directly operating the program, would ease the discussions and allow for timely decisions and actions. Improved performance of the program both statistically and in national rankings will be difficult unless and until there is structural and fiscal stability in the program. PRINCIPAL RECOMMENDATION ESTABLISH A CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE It is imperative the Legislature address the direction, the responsibility for program success, stabilize funding sources, and optimize program structure in order to create a foundation for program advancement. To this end DWSS recommends that the Legislature establish a Child Support Enforcement Task Force to study the organizational and programmatic structure of CSEP and to

Page 5 of 78

provide recommendations. These recommendations should include: how to enhance service delivery, improve performance, increase efficiencies, and establish adequate funding mechanisms. The Task Force proposed would include representatives from the legislative branch, the executive branch, the judicial branch and the participating counties to provide recommendations on these complex issues. The legislature may want to consider introducing this bill. A proposed bill draft is included in Appendix G. STATUS OF SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS A. CENTRALIZE PROCESSING OF CASES AND CALL CENTER FUNCTIONS DWSS agrees with the fundamental concept of centralizing functions and activities that would allow caseworkers at county district attorney offices and DWSS program area offices (PAOs) to concentrate on achieving successful case outcomes. Full implementation of many of the recommendations to centralize certain functions is heavily dependent upon document imaging which is discussed in section III E. of this report. While document imaging is being developed, DWSS implemented several enhancements to centralized functions. See section III A. Centralization of other functions that were proposed is quantified but, due to limited program funding, will not be included in DWSSs Agency Request budget. B. MEASURING THE SUCCESS OF THE PROGRAM THROUGH PERFORMANCE MEASURES RATHER POLICY ADHERENCE In an effort to be responsive to the recommendation in the audit, DWSS has improved its management evaluation system by introducing review elements focusing on performance outcomes. If the management evaluation first indicates a case under review had a successful outcome, there will be no further review of the case. If a successful outcome was not achieved in a case under review, the policies designed to achieve the outcome will be reviewed to determine whether they were followed. C. IMPROVE REPORTING BY MANAGEMENT A Reports Workgroup was created and a thorough review of existing IV-D reports from Nevada Operations of Multi-Automated Data Systems (NOMADS) was conducted. The group concluded that the existing NOMADS reports were of limited value and recommended the development of a monthly report replicating the OCSE 157 annual data report which can drill down to the office, unit and worker level. This report was put into production in November 2007 and met all of the requirements identified in the design note created by the Reports Workgroup. The group will be considering query tools to extract other information from the database created for this report.

Page 6 of 78

D. DEVELOP AND ADHERE TO A STRATEGIC PLAN A strategic planning meeting was held on November 6-8, 2007. Participants included representatives from DWSS and all of the District Attorney Offices engaged in CSEP. As a result, a strategic plan for the State of Nevada Child Support Enforcement Program has been developed and is included as Appendix C. Progress toward achieving the goals of the strategic plan is being tracked using the spreadsheet contained in Appendix D. Compliance with the plan is reviewed periodically at IV-D Planning meetings where adjustments are made as necessary. E. DEVELOP A DOCUMENT IMAGING SYSTEM Document imaging is the cornerstone on which implementation of many of the audits recommendations, such as centralization, will be built. The success of this endeavor is vital to laying the groundwork for full deployment of a comprehensive and unified content management system for DWSS. INFORMATION ON ADDITIONAL SPECIFIED TOPICS A. STRATEGIC PLANNING CONCERNING FUTURE FUNDING OF THE PROGRAM At the March 18, 2008 IV-D Planning Meeting, a discussion on future funding for CSEP took place. All parties agreed that State general fund dollars will be necessary in order to implement most of the program enhancements recommended by MAXIMUS. It was suggested that the ultimate decision on funding and to what extent would be a topic for recommendation by the Child Support Enforcement Program Task Force. A copy of a proposed Bill Draft for the Task Force is contained in Appendix G. B. PROGRAMS TO ENFORCE CHILD SUPPORT IN OTHER STATES An analysis of the child support caseload in every state and jurisdiction was conducted. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia were selected based on characteristics similar to the State of Nevada. Details of these characteristics are contained in Appendix I, the highlights of which are as follows: The number of cases per FTE does not appear to be indicative of outstanding program performance. As discussed in Section IV E, states with administrative or mixed processes appear to perform better than those states with highly judicial or quasi-judicial processes. Virtually all of the states comparable to Nevada were state administered and state operated.

Page 7 of 78

Virtually all of the child support enforcement program automated systems were used exclusively to administer the child support program

C. OPTIONS FOR CREATING A REGIONAL STRUCTURE FOR CSEP IN NEVADA Given the revenue shortfalls currently being experienced and projected to continue at all levels of government in Nevada, DWSS has determined the three options proposed by MAXIMUS are not economically feasible. DWSS is pursuing a regional structure for the State operation within available resources. D. TRAINING PROGRAMS THAT HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED DWSS is focusing on developing core program curriculum a module at a time. Modules will be developed by utilizing training material from other states, private vendors, program specialists, and subject matter experts in the field offices. Ideally, the end product will be a training manual which incorporates program policy, procedures and systems task guides into one document. It is anticipated these modules will also be available on line for use by the various offices. Unfortunately, the progress of this endeavor has been slowed due to staff vacancies and budgetary constraints. E. AN ANALYSIS OF THE BENEFITS AND DETRIMENTS OF USING ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICERS RATHER THAN MASTERS DWSS agrees with MAXIMUSs recommendation for greater usage of administrative process and procedures. DWSS believes it is more cost effective and efficient to utilize administrative hearing officers with the opportunity to seek judicial review, rather than requiring all cases be reviewed by the Court. DWSS has proposed a bill draft which will assist in streamlining the existing Hearing Master system. However, DWSS believes it would be more beneficial to convert to an Administrative Law Judge system. Attached as Appendix N is a proposed bill draft should the legislature decide to pursue this option. F. IMPROVEMENTS IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INCLUDING TECHNOLOGY FOR CASE MANAGEMENT TO REPLACE NOMADS

Page 8 of 78

NOMADS is the mainframe system used to administer most aspects of the major public assistance programs of Food Stamps, TANF, and Medicaid Eligibility in addition to CSEP. Nevada is one of only a handful of states that have a child support enforcement system that is integrated with public assistance programs. The overall technical architecture of NOMADS has reached maturity and requires updating and/or replacement during the next several years to adequately and timely support future business needs. DWSS past system upgrade experience, and similar child support enforcement activities within other States, clearly indicates that the process of modernizing child support enforcement applications is a multiyear, multi-million dollar effort. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN In this report, DWSS has addressed the manner in which specific recommendations contained in the December 22, 2006 Performance Audit of the State of Nevadas Enforcement and Collection of Child Support prepared by MAXIMUS have been carried out. While much has been accomplished since the release of the audit, much remains to be done. In Section V and Appendix T of this report, the timetable for implementing recommendations that can be accomplished with existing resources as well as those requiring Legislative action is detailed. Also described are the challenges to implementing these recommendations. CONCLUSION The compilation of this report was a significant undertaking for the Division that provided a tremendous opportunity to review the strengths and weaknesses of its Child Support Enforcement Program and to initiate meaningful changes that will support its mission to enhance the well-being of children by assuring that assistance in obtaining support is available. While DWSS will continue to make improvements using existing resources, it is imperative the Legislature through the Child Support Enforcement Task Force address the direction, the responsibility for program success, stable funding sources, and optimal program structure if the program is to advance.

Page 9 of 78

This page left blank on purpose.

Page 10 of 78

II. BACKGROUND
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Nevada's Child Support Enforcement Program (CSEP) of the Division of Welfare and Supportive Services (DWSS) provides five basic services to clients. Clients include those who apply for CSEP services and recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The services provided are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Parent location; Establishing paternity for children born outside of marriage; Establishing financial and medical support orders; Enforcing financial and medical support orders; and Collecting and distributing support payments.

In providing these services, the birthrights of children are established, support is secured for children not in the custody of one or both parents, custodial parents are assisted through the collection of child support to become more selfsufficient, and the burden on Nevada taxpayers is reduced by offsetting the need for public assistance. Individuals applying for TANF or Medicaid are automatically served by the CSEP as a condition of eligibility. The CSEP outstations staff in DWSS field offices throughout the state to collect the necessary information to locate parents, establish paternity, establish child support and medical court orders, and collect child support. These actions are prior to or concurrent with the TANF or Medicaid application interview. In addition, any person having physical custody of a child who is in need of child support enforcement services or any non-custodial parent may apply for these services. There is no qualifying eligibility test to be met to obtain these services. The Division enters into intrastate inter-local contracts with district attorney offices in most Nevada counties for legal services, including representation in court actions, to facilitate eventual child support collection from non-custodial parents. The types of cases handled by a participating district attorney are set forth in each agreement. Federal Financial Participation (FFP) in the program is available at the rate of 66% for most necessary and appropriate expenditures. The state through the state share of collections of TANF and counties contribute 34% toward the cost of the program. CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LED TO THE AUDIT OF THE CSEP IN NEVADA Assembly Bill (AB) 580 of the 2005 Legislative session appropriated $150,000 of State General Fund (to be matched with approximately $291,000 of federal

Page 11 of 78

funds) to contract with a qualified independent consultant to conduct a performance audit of the enforcement and collection of child support by DWSS and the district attorneys of the State. The proposal originated in AB 386 sponsored by Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley who testified at a meeting of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary on April 1, 2005 that we are not doing enough to collect child support for custodial parents and that we need to take a fresh look at child support collection what is working and what is not working. What could we improve and what could we streamline so that we could do a better job? Assemblywoman Buckley went on to observe We have very good and dedicated people working in this arena and asked How can we maximize efforts? What resources do they need? What system improvements should be adopted? What further legislation should we consider to streamline the process? In a subsequent meeting of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means on May 2, 2005, Assemblywoman Buckley stated her interest in the subject stemmed from the fact that every time she spoke with constituents in Clark County, they spoke of not receiving child support. She added that the State was losing federal dollars because the collection system was so inadequate and advised that the more the State could show that it was doing a good job, the more incentive money it would receive from the federal government. Related to that, Ms. Buckley said the one thing she would like to see happen was that Nevada move from near the bottom to near the top of the national average regarding child support payments, and she believed the audit would help move the State in that direction. A description of the five performance measures used by the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) to evaluate each states CSEP is on page 17. AB 386 was approved by the Assembly but not by the Senate. However, the portion of the bill authorizing an audit of CSEP became a section of AB 580 which specified that: The audit conducted pursuant to this section must examine: a. The customer service operation of the Welfare Division and the district attorneys of this State established to assist with the enforcement and collection of orders for the support of children. b. The effectiveness of the operations of the Welfare Division and the district attorneys of this State in carrying out their duties pursuant to chapters 31A and 425 of NRS, including, without limitation: 1. Locating obligor parents; 2. Establishing paternity; and 3. Enforcing orders for support of a child.

Page 12 of 78

c. The identification of best practices from other states concerning methods for the efficient and expeditious enforcement and collection of orders for the support of children. AB 580, Section 2, 73rd Legislative Session, 2005. The Legislative Commission issued a Request for Information (RFI) to 22 potential consultants on August 17, 2005 after which a Request for Proposals (RFP) was sent to 14 consultants on October 24, 2005. Proposals were received from 4 vendors which were reviewed, scored and ranked by the Legislative Counsel Bureaus (LCB) Audit Division. The Legislative Commission met on February 22, 2006 and awarded a contract to perform the audit to MAXIMUS. The audit was delivered by MAXIMUS on December 22, 2006. DWSSs Agency Request budget for state fiscal years 2008 and 2009 had been submitted through the Department of Health and Human Services Directors Office to the Budget Office by September 1, 2006 and was well on its way to being finalized into the Governors Executive Budget when the audit was delivered. As a result, recommendations and findings from the audit were not addressed in the Executive Budget. In the 2007 Legislative session AB 536, as originally proposed by the Assembly Committee on Judiciary transferred all responsibility for CSEP to DWSS effective July 1, 2011 and required the counties to contribute to the funding of the new State-run program that included the establishment of three regional CSEP offices. In a meeting of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary held on April 4, 2007, the bill was amended to allow the State and local agencies a greater opportunity to review and develop strategies to implement the recommendations contained in the MAXIMUS audit due to the fact that it had been submitted just prior to the legislative session. The committee asked DWSS and the District Attorneys to examine the audit and to come back to them with information on the status of the recommendations from the audit and any additional recommendations. The committee also asked for forecasts of child support enforcement funding sources and future revenue shortfalls in anticipation of reduced federal reimbursement rates and generally declining state share of collections. AB 536 as enrolled specified that: 1. The District Attorney of Clark County shall prepare a report concerning the manner in which the recommendations have been carried out or the status of such recommendations that are contained in the July 2, 2003, report entitled Organizational Assessment of the Clark County, Nevada,

Page 13 of 78

District Attorneys Family Support Division, which submitted to the District Attorney by Policy Studies Inc.

was

2. The Division of Welfare and Supportive Services of the Department of Health and Human Services shall prepare a report providing the manner in which the recommendations contained in the December 22, 2006, Performance Audit of the State of Nevadas Enforcement and Collection of Child Support prepared by MAXIMUS have been carried out or the status of such recommendations. Each district attorney in this State shall cooperate with the Division and provide the necessary information to the Division for inclusion in the report. The report must include, without limitation, the status of, or the manner in which the Division and the district attorneys have carried out, specific recommendations to: a. b. Centralize processing of cases and call center functions; Measure the success of the Program for the Enforcement of Child Support through performance measures rather than policy adherence; Improve reporting by management; Develop and adhere to a strategic plan; and Develop a document imaging system.

c. d. e. 3.

The report prepared pursuant to subsection 2 must also include, without limitation, information concerning: a. Strategic planning among the district attorneys of this State concerning the future funding for the enforcement of child support in Nevada; Programs to enforce child support in other states with a distribution of population which is similar to the distribution in Nevada; Options for creating a regional structure in Nevada and whether such options would enhance efficiency and benefit the Program for the Enforcement of Child Support

b.

c.

Page 14 of 78

and the agencies involved in the collection of child support; d. e. Training programs that have been implemented for employees who assist in the collection of child support; An analysis of the benefits and detriments of using administrative hearing officers rather than masters in matters relating to the enforcement of child support; and The status of improvements in information technology, including, without limitation, technology for case management to replace the Nevada Operations of MultiAutomated Data Systems (NOMADS) currently used in the collection of child support.

f.

AB 536, 74th Legislative Session, 2007. FEDERAL CHILD SUPPORT PERFORMANCE MEASURES A significant factor leading up to Nevadas Legislature authorizing a performance audit of CSEP is the programs poor performance in the five OCSE performance measures. The measures are: 1. Paternity Establishment Performance Level - States have the choice of being evaluated on one of the following two measures for their paternity establishment percentage (commonly known as the PEP). a. The IV-D PEP, a ratio that is the total number of children in the IVD caseload in the fiscal year (or, at the option of the State, as of the end of the fiscal year) who have been born out-of-wedlock and for whom paternity has been established or acknowledged, bears to the total number of children in the IV-D caseload as of the end of the preceding fiscal year who were born out-of-wedlock. b. The Statewide PEP, a ratio that is the total number of minor children who have been born out-of-wedlock and for whom paternity has been established or acknowledged during the fiscal year, bears to the total number of children born out-of-wedlock during the preceding fiscal year. 2. Support Order Establishment Performance Level This measure requires the determination of whether or not there is a support order for each case. These support orders include all types of legally enforceable orders, such as court, default and administrative. Since the measure is a case count at a point-in-time, modifications to an order do not affect the count. The measure is a percentage calculated by dividing the number of IV-D

Page 15 of 78

cases with support orders during the fiscal year by the total number of IVD cases during the fiscal year. 3. Current Collections Performance Level Current support is money applied to current support obligations and does not include payment plans for payment towards arrears. This measure is computed monthly and the total of all months is reported at the end of the year. The measure is a percentage calculated by dividing the dollars collected for current support in IV-D cases by the total dollars owed for current support in IV-D cases. 4. Arrearage Collection Performance Level This measure includes those cases where all of the past-due support was disbursed to the family or retained by the State because the support was assigned to the State. The measure is a percentage calculated by dividing the total number of eligible IV-D cases paying toward arrears by the total number of IV-D cases with arrears due. 5. Cost-Effectiveness Performance Level This measure is expressed as a ratio of the total IV-D dollars collected divided by the total IV-D dollars expended. The higher the number, the more efficient the program. In recent years, Nevadas CSEP has shown improvement in some of the performance measures as illustrated in the following table.
TABLE 1 - NEVADA CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE FFY 2001 - 2008
90% $5.00

80% $4.50

70% Measures 1 - 4 by percentage

$4.00 50%

40% $3.50 30%

20%

$3.00

10%

0%

2001 53.19% 63.32% 45.80% 60.65% $3.24

2002 56.25% 60.35% 46.99% 62.03% $2.87

2003 59.39% 53.46% 40.90% 61.21% $3.12

2004 64.16% 59.78% 51.11% 51.44% $3.31

2005 64.54% 62.41% 45.68% 49.60% $2.98

2006 74.52% 66.80% 45.92% 51.53% $3.34

2007 (Est.) 79.60% 68.81% 47.63% 51.74% $3.51

2008 (Target) 82.60% 71.81% 50.63% 54.74% $3.76

$2.50

1 - Paternity 2 - Orders 3 -Support 4 - Arrears 5 - Cost

Page 16 of 78

Measure # 5 in dollars

60%

Even though Nevada has shown improvement in the federal performance measures, other states have improved as well with Nevadas relative ranking remaining effectively unchanged as illustrated in the following table.
TABLE 3 - NEVADA'S RANK IN CHILD SUPPORT PERFORMANCE MEASURES FFY 2001 - 2007

0 5 10 15 20
RANK

25 30 35 40 45 50 55
2000 25 39 35 19 51 2001 46 36 46 22 44 2002 49 45 48 18 45 2003 49 48 54 24 44 2004 48 46 46 46 45 2005 49 46 53 50 49 2006 49 44 54 48 48 2007 44 44 50 49 45

1 - Paternity 2 - Orders 3 - Support 4 - Arrears 5 - Cost

In their audit, MAXIMUS projected the impact to the performance measures if Nevada were to implement their top ten recommendations as illustrated in the following table:

Nevada Performance

FY05 Top 10 Recs. Implemented

Performance Impact of Top Ten Recommendations* Paternities Orders Current Established % Established % Support Collected % 66.30 62.41 45.68 85.82 80.19 56.20

Paying Arrears Cases % 49.61 60.81

CostEffectiveness 2.98 3.68

MAXIMUS Performance Audit, Executive Summary, page 17.

Page 17 of 78

NEVADA OPERATIONS OF MULTI-AUTOMATED DATA SYSTEMS (NOMADS) As part of the Family Support Act of 1988 and continued by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996, the federal government mandated that all states must have a statewide automated data processing and information retrieval child support enforcement system. This federal mandate, along with recommendations from a feasibility study conducted for Nevada by an outside vendor, led to a decision to develop a single system to administer the major public assistance programs of Food Stamps, TANF, Medicaid Eligibility, Employment and Training in addition to CSEP. The system was named the Nevada Operations of Multi-Automated Data Systems or NOMADS for short. Nevada is one of only a handful of states that have a child support enforcement system that is integrated with public assistance programs. Processing CSE cases results in numerous business transactions and activities per year. Using automated systems that adhere to stringent federal and state processing requirements, DWSS CSEP collects and distributes child support payments for all of the State of Nevada, and facilitates child support collections for other jurisdictions outside of the State of Nevada. Dependence on reliable integrated systems, capable of processing hundreds of thousands of transactions each week, is mission critical to DWSS CSEPs current and future business success. Since the time NOMADS was federally certified on May 10th, 2001, the system has been modified and patched multiple times in order to accommodate changing business rules in support of Federal and State mandates. Over 750 code enhancements and system discrepancies have been identified and applied to the CSEP portion of NOMADS alone, with a current backlog of over 300 pending requests for CSEP related issues, requiring an estimated 67,000 hours of application development time. More recently major components, such as Ledgers on the WEB (LOTW) and Nevada Automated Worksheet Calculator (NAWC), have been added on separate platforms to provide better services to State of Nevada employees, county district attorneys (DA) offices and clients. Although these changes offered significant and immediate business benefit, the overall technical architecture of NOMADS has reached maturity and requires modernization and/or replacement during the next several years to adequately and timely support future business needs. Users, including the county DAs, continue to request more functionality, ease of use, WEB enabled/ interactivity capabilities, and ease in adding new code. The cost and complexity to maintain and enhance the child support enforcement systems to comply with business and legislative changes and reporting requirements are increasing. In the case of the child support enforcement

Page 18 of 78

application, the need for changes and system redesign has reached a critical point. Maintenance and operational costs for underlying programming language software, Cross System Product (CSP), is being paid exclusively by DWSS at an excess of $135,360 per year alone. Of greater concern is the fact that CSP is no longer supported by the vendor and, as the main frame operating system is upgraded, may not operate. Ongoing operational costs, including facility charges, are estimated at $2,498,860 per year to run the child support enforcement portion of the NOMADS software application. The demand for improved services continues to increase requiring adjunct supporting applications to be added to the overall architecture. Data integration and control is beginning to suffer as add-on components contain more and more critical data elements external to the core applications; reporting and data integrity issues become of greater concern. DWSS past system upgrade experience, and similar child support enforcement activities within other States, clearly indicates that the process of modernizing child support enforcement applications is a multi-year multi-million dollar effort. There are many federal requirements that must be met in order to secure federal participation in the endeavor. Modernization of Nevadas child support enforcement systems is expected to require a four (4) to six (6) year period and cost in the tens of millions of dollars.

Page 19 of 78

This page left blank on purpose.

Page 20 of 78

III. STATUS OF SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS


A. Centralize processing of cases and call center functions
WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED? Coupled with the regionalization of the program, the state should centralize certain functions that lend themselves to mass rather than individual caseprocessing. While Nevada and its counties do not under-fund the program compared to other programs, the resources are not shared equally around the state or between the state and the counties. Clark and some of the rural counties have caseloads per FTE (Full Time Equivalent staff) that are fairly high. As Clark goes, so goes the state, as seven out of ten IV-D parents rely on the services of its DA's Office. To lessen the burden on these counties, it makes sense to limit the caseworkers time to core functions that will allow them to concentrate on moving the case to the next step successfully determining paternity (if needed), establishing or modifying an order and enforcing the amounts owed. Certain tasks can be centralized that are supplemental, secondary or supportive of these basic goals. The following functions should be centralized, or if already centralized, enhanced: (Summarized for brevitys sake.) Call or contact center Lien registry Employer database maintenance unit Robust State Parent Locator Service (SPLS) and Interstate Central Registry (ICR) Centralized mail room and imaging unit Centralized enforcement unit These centralized functions should result in economies of scale, procedural uniformity, extensive expertise and improved customer service. These proposed changes will increase efficiency and collections. When coupled with freed-up case manager time, the benefits of the centralized functions double. The key is to use automation to conduct mass case-processing and to design an exceptionsprocessing protocol for cases that need individual attention.
MAXIMUS Performance Audit, Executive Summary, pages 10-11.

THE MANNER IN WHICH DWSS ADDRESSED THIS RECOMMENDATION DWSS agrees with the fundamental concept of centralizing functions and activities that would allow caseworkers at county district attorney offices and DWSS program area offices (PAOs) to concentrate on achieving successful case outcomes. Full implementation of many of the recommendations to centralize functions such as the Call Center, the Lien Registry and the Financial Institution Page 21 of 78

Data Match (FIDM), is heavily dependent upon document imaging which is discussed in section III E. of this report. While document imaging is being developed, DWSS has implemented several enhancements to centralized functions. Call or Contact Center Another approach to improving customers access to information with currently available resources is to create a Customer Service Website using the data tables from the Voice Response Unit (VRU). The Systems Requirements Document (SRD) for DWSS Customer Services Unit (CSU) on the Web has been completed. The project is currently in technical requirements. The website will contain the same information that is available on the VRU; therefore, additional resources are not needed for the completion of the website. It is designed to provide basic information about Nevadas CSEP, including the child support debit card website (www.myaccount.chase.com). The customer will be able to obtain their individual payment information by entering their case number and PIN into the CSU website. In order to expand the websites functionality, additional resources may be needed. Additionally, a Load Balancing strategy was developed and implemented in the Call Center as of January 2008, which did not require additional resources. Load balancing allows calls to be transferred automatically between the two customer service units when certain thresholds are met. The average number of calls per day processed between July through December was 3,626. After the changes were in place, CSU processed an average of 4,444 calls per day (from January through April). The average wait time went from 10:06 minutes (SeptemberDecember 2007) to 7:28 minutes (January-May 2008). In an effort to further increase the number of calls processed, beginning in April, 2008, all Child Support calls have been routed to the Las Vegas CSU Call Center. Each call is assigned a first, second and third program priority which is used to process the calls. If the call agent does not have a first priority program call, then they will respond to their second program priority call. Child Support Enforcement has 5 FTE with a first program priority, 2 FTE as second program priority and 1 FTE as the third program priority. The data for May does not show any significant change. CSU will continue to monitor the data on a monthly basis with a more in depth analysis at the third and sixth month. MAXIMUS recommended that a statewide Child Support Customer Service Call Center be implemented. DWSS currently maintains a Call Center and a VRU that services all public assistance programs administered by the Division and CSEP. A detailed analysis of the resources that would be necessary to establish a CSEP-only call center along with a proposed organizational chart is included as a Page 22 of 78

budgetary decision unit in Appendix A that is not, due to limited program funding, included in DWSSs Agency Request budget. In this scenario, it is recommended that the four CSEP positions currently assigned to the call center be augmented with three Administrative Assistant I positions and a Family Services Supervisor I position. These positions would be adequate to serve as dedicated CSEP customer service agents. [Level 1.] Upon the implementation of document imaging, four additional Administrative Assistant II positions and one Administrative Assistant III position are recommended to create a tiered staffing structure. The higher level staff, when added, will allow the customer service center to become a change center to make case entries on matters that do not require case manager intervention. [Level 2.] For example, address changes, changes in employment, or other updated information. It is envisioned that Level 1 staff would respond to inquiries concerning payments, hearing dates, reporting address changes and/or employment changes, and requests for case status. Level 2 staff would handle calls for more specific information and required changes. They would be trained in providing more detailed information and taking more specific actions. Due to the instability of and long-term projected diminishment of State Share of Collections (SSC) revenue, this proposal would require General Fund Appropriations to fund the 34% match required to access federal funds. A summary of the proposed decision unit is contained in the following table.
REVENUE BA 3238 3238 3238 G.L. # DESCRIPTION 2501 GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION 3533 FED CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM 4261 STATE SHARE OF COLLECTIONS TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE REVENUE PROGRAM ALLOCATION 34.00% 66.00% $ FY10 50,954 98,910 149,864 $ FY11 293,585 569,901 863,487 FUTURE BIENNIA COSTS 359,644 698,132 $ 1,057,776

EXPENDITURES BA 3238 3238 3238 3238 3238 CAT DESCRIPTION 01 PERSONNEL 04 OPERATING 04 NON-STATE OWNED BUILDING RENT 05 EQUIPMENT 26 INFORMATION SERVICES TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE EXPENDITURES $ FY10 102,188 8,472 16,920 12,400 9,883 149,864 $ FY11 355,523 17,193 50,760 365,000 75,011 863,487

FUTURE BIENNIA COSTS $ 823,851 43,986 101,520 88,419 $ 1,057,776

Centralization of Supplemental Functions DWSS has moved ahead with plans to utilize insurance settlement match information provided by the OCSE. In addition, a DWSS Information Systems work item to expand the number and type of address fields maintained in NOMADS for CSEP is anticipated to be completed in the second quarter of SFY 2009. When completed, the address types in NOMADS will include: Page 23 of 78

Primary Address Site Address(s) Income Withholding Address Payroll Address Employment Verification Address Service of Process Address National Medical Support Notice Address Unemployment Insurance Benefit Address Workers Compensation Address

In addition, a fully functional document imaging system and additional staffing resources will be necessary in order to fully implement the MAXIMUS recommendations to centralize the lien registry, the employer database maintenance unit, the SPLS, the ICR and the centralized enforcement unit. DWSS recommends augmenting CSEP Central Office staff with three Family Services Specialist II positions (grade 32), one Administrative Assistant IV (grade 29) and two Administrative Assistant III positions (grade 27). The fiscal impact of these additional resources is detailed as a budgetary decision unit in Appendix B that is not, due to limited program funding, included in DWSSs Agency Request budget.
REVENUE BA G.L. # DESCRIPTION 3238 2501 GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION 3238 3533 FED CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM 3238 4261 STATE SHARE OF COLLECTIONS TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE REVENUE PROGRAM FY10 ALLOCATION 34.00% $ 147,940 66.00% 287,178 $ 435,118 FY11 $ 170,017 330,034 $ 500,051 FUTURE BIENNIA ONGOING COSTS $ 337,844 655,814 $ 993,658

EXPENDITURES BA CAT DESCRIPTION 3238 01 PERSONNEL 3238 04 OPERATING 3238 04 NON-STATE OWNED BUILDING RENT 3238 05 EQUIPMENT 3238 26 INFORMATION SERVICES TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE EXPENDITURES FY10 $ 303,361 13,004 84,600 18,000 16,153 $ 435,118 FY11 $ 368,342 15,566 112,800 3,343 $ 500,051

FUTURE BIENNIA ONGOING COSTS $ 736,684 24,687 225,600 6,687 $ 993,658

COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMENTS Elko County -- The State wants the Call Centers to be able to make changes such as addresses. To protect the integrity of child support records, Elko still would like to see a signed, written request. The Call Center currently does not put all contact entries into alerts so the case workers know what they have done. This creates unnecessary delays and upset customers. The State is considering statewide centralization of FIDM. Elko County adheres to a policy to initiate FIDM cases, which hopefully balances the needs of all the Page 24 of 78

non-custodians families. If the State centralizes FIDM, Elko County will not provide legal support for that function. DWSS RESPONSE TO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMENTS The ability of the Call Centers to make changes such as addresses is anticipated to occur in the future, funding permitting. These activities would be performed by higher level employees than currently staff the Call Centers. The procedure for how changes would be accomplished would be developed with the input from the various participants in CSEP. The centralization of FIDM will provide for a uniform, timely, process for collections from financial institutions. This is a collection tool that is available if there are arrearages in child support. A procedure has been developed on the handling of any hearing requests and is in policy.

Page 25 of 78

B. Measuring the success of the program though performance measures rather than policy adherence
WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED? Nevada must plan to improve performance before it can implement the necessary changes to improve performance. This begins with measuring workers, units and offices by their performance levels. The adage that what gets measured gets done applies here. Measuring workers by policy adherence and not by performance goes against the principles for which a modern child support program stands. The goal of welfare agencies to ensure grant applications are processed accurately is an inappropriate yardstick in child support, and Nevada has used a secondary measure as its primary measure for the past year by focusing on policy at the expense of performance. Policy is a means to an end, and every state child support leader interviewed said that the state must focus on performance. Not only are federal incentives distributed based on performance, high performance leads to children receiving their financial and medical support. This is not to say that the local offices should avoid policy adherence; it is to say that producing successful outcomes is more important than following policy dictates. While some performance improvement may occur by strict policy adherence, measuring by policy compliance is a limited, inefficacious approach to maximizing help to the families. Emphasizing performance is as important as any of the recommendations, because it will have a large impact on caseprocessing approach and worker focus. By requiring every caseworker to be accountable for his or her performance, one can measure progress made.

MAXIMUS Performance Audit, Executive Summary, pages 12-13.

THE MANNER IN WHICH DWSS ADDRESSED THIS RECOMMENDATION DWSS made several comments regarding this recommendation that were incorporated into the MAXIMUS report. One comment was the audit failed to recognize that through policy adherence, the program maximizes its opportunity to achieve outcomes. Another comment was that certain conclusions were drawn by MAXIMUS regarding the concept of policy adherence without having the data or exploratory analysis done to reach those conclusions. It was also noted by DWSS that the audit did not provide a definition of policy adherence. Nevada defined policy adherence as a means to ensure every case is processed timely and accurately, ensuring equitable treatment of all customers, thereby maximizing the opportunity to achieve desired outcomes. Additionally, it includes adherence to timeframes mandated by Federal regulations and State

Page 26 of 78

law. DWSS continues to conduct mandated annual Federal Self Assessment Reviews for each county and PAO operation focusing on the following outcomes: Case closure; Paternity and support order establishment; Enforcement of orders; Disbursement of collections (State Collection and Disbursement Unit only); Securing and enforcing medical support orders; Review and adjustment of orders; Interstate services; and Expedited process.

State policy adherence serves as a blueprint for achieving federal performance outcomes. Both state policy adherence and federal performance outcomes are measured annually. In early 2006, DWSS adopted a process of management evaluations which included ensuring policy adherence. Since this process has been in effect, preliminary data indicates performance outcomes have improved, particularly in the area of paternity establishment, which has been a challenge for Nevada the past several years as illustrated in the following table. It also shows the year-to-year percentage changes in performance measures and illustrates the tremendous improvements achieved in the two most recent years when policy adherence was in effect.
2008 (Target) 3.77% 4.36% 6.30% 5.80% 7.12%

Measure 1 - Paternity 2 - Orders 3 -Support 4 - Arrears 5 - Cost

2002 5.77% (4.69%) 2.61% 2.29% (11.42%)

2003 5.57% (11.42%) (12.96%) (1.33%) 8.71%

2004 8.04% 11.82% 24.95% (15.97%) 6.09%

2005 0.59% 4.40% (10.62%) (3.58%) (9.92%)

2006 15.46% 7.03% 0.52% 3.89% 12.09%

2007(Est.) 6.82% 3.01% 3.72% 0.41% 5.02%

In an effort to be responsive to the recommendation in the audit, DWSS has improved its management evaluation system by introducing review elements focusing on performance outcomes. If the management evaluation first indicates a case under review had a successful outcome, there will be no further review of the case. If a successful outcome was not achieved in a case under review, the policies designed to achieve the outcome will be reviewed to determine whether they were followed. The annual management evaluation is subject to re-review if a participating office fails to achieve 95% adherence based on outcomes or policy compliance. This re-review is conducted after the participating office has entered into a corrective action plan and been given an opportunity to implement those corrective actions.

Page 27 of 78

COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMENTS Washoe County We also agree with the recommendation of MAXIMUS that measuring success of CSEP should be through performance measures rather than policy adherence. We are hopeful that the new Management Evaluation system proposed by DWSS will begin to focus on performance measures and will only look behind at the policy compliance if the desired outcome was not achieved. We believe that DWSS should have greater involvement in any necessary corrective action plan, such as providing reports to the Counties at the case level such that case managers can proactively work their cases. Lyon County January 1, 2005 the new contract with the District Attorneys Offices emphasized the States authority over the program. While the Federal Self Assessment Review is focused on federal compliance and performance the ME Reviews focused on State Policy adherence. Measuring workers by policy adherence and not by performance goes against the principles for which child support stands. Elko County We agree with MAXIMUS statement that Measuring workers by policy adherence and not by performance goes against the principles for which a modern child support program stands. The State keeps eroding the discretion of the District Attorneys Office through policy pronouncements. In that regard, Child Support should be a state function. DWSS RESPONSE TO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMENTS The concerns expressed by the District Attorneys offices are being addressed through the new focus of the Management Evaluation system on outcomes first. If the outcome is achieved in an area, that is the end of the inquiry. If an outcome is not achieved, policy will be reviewed to determine whether appropriate actions were taken in the case. DWSS concurs that CSEP should be a state function.

Page 28 of 78

C. Improve reporting by management


WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED? Through sophisticated applications that can mine data, Nevada can note trends at a statewide, office, unit and individual level to take the appropriate steps to reverse negative trends, and to replicate the positive ones. It is the constant review and recalibration that will improve performance step by step. The state needs to coordinate state and local efforts to provide effective strategic planning, training, and quality assurance. Management reports from extracted NOMADS data will supply the child support leadership with the knowledge they need to be successful.
MAXIMUS Performance Audit, Executive Summary, page 13.

It is recommended that DWSS create a Reports Workgroup with a clear list of goals and objectives. All of the NOMADS reports currently produced should be re-visited and all of the reports that are useless or report inaccurate data be suppressed. The Reports Matrix that was created would be an excellent tool to kick-off this process. The workgroup members should begin the identification of what types of data and information they would want out of a new system that would help them better manage their caseloads.
MAXIMUS Performance Audit, Section D, page 84.

THE MANNER IN WHICH DWSS ADDRESSED THIS RECOMMENDATION As suggested by MAXIMUS, a Reports Workgroup was created and a thorough review of existing IV-D reports from NOMADS was conducted. The group concluded that the existing NOMADS reports were of limited value and recommended the development of a monthly report replicating the OCSE 157 annual data report which can drill down to the office, unit and worker level. This report was put into production in November 2007 and met all of the requirements identified in the design note created by the Reports Workgroup. The group will be considering query tools to extract other information from the database created for this report. In addition, the Reports Work Group identified the following seven reports that should be developed to improve program performance: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Monthly Incentive Measures Payment Delinquency Medical Support Early Intervention No Arrears Payment Paternity Establishment Drivers License Suspension Page 29 of 78

Systems requirements for each of these reports are being developed by the group in the order listed above and have been completed for the first one, the Monthly Incentive Measures Report. Once the system requirements document is approved by all users, the design phase will commence. COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMENTS Washoe County We are concerned with the monthly report replicating the OCSE 157 annual data report. At this time, the monthly report does not drill down the information on a case specific basis. Accordingly, although the statistical information is there, it does not give the workers the ability to pull a file to correct any performance issues, thereby not enhancing our States opportunity for future success. It should be noted at page 30, that the public assistance cases will not be turned over to DWSS until September 1, 2008 as opposed to July 1, 2008 as stated in the Draft Report. Elko County The report (OCSE 157) cited by DWSS is not quite as functional as hyped in the draft report. Clark County actually extrapolates Elko Countys information from the report and sends it to our office monthly. DWSS RESPONSE TO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMENTS As stated above, the OCSE 157 report was developed as designed and requested by the collaborative effort between the counties and the State. Both the counties and the State signed off on the design note. At the time of development of requirements, those participating indicated they would be able to mine the data behind the report. As stated above, the Reports Work Group is developing query tools to augment the functionality of the report to permit additional drill down capability. The public assistance cases in Washoe County were actually turned over to the State on July 1, 2008 however, DWSS contracted back with the Washoe County DAs office through the period ending August 31, 2008 with the State reimbursing the county for salary and fringe benefits of the employees handling the public assistance cases.

Page 30 of 78

D. Develop and adhere to a strategic plan


WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED? DWSS is starting a formal strategic planning process, which we commend. It is important to include the District Attorneys and their designees from all offices as well as stakeholders to obtain a plan that addresses common goals and objectives. A strategic plan focuses workers from top to bottom on the direction of the program. It is vital to ensure that the state and local casework approach is consonant with those goals and objectives.
MAXIMUS Performance Audit, Executive Summary, page 13.

THE MANNER IN WHICH DWSS ADDRESSED THIS RECOMMENDATION Barbara Siegel, Policy Analyst, with the North Dakota Department of Human Services, Child Support Enforcement Program, facilitated a strategic planning meeting in Las Vegas on November 6-8, 2007. Participants included representatives from DWSS and all of the District Attorney Offices engaged in the Child Support Program. As a result, a strategic plan for the State of Nevada Child Support Enforcement Program has been developed and is included as Appendix C. According to the strategic plan, the purpose of the Nevada Child Support Enforcement Program is to promote the well-being of children, strengthen families, and reduce the demand on public treasuries by securing financial and medical support from legally responsible parents. The major goals and objectives identified in the strategic plan include: 1. All children in IV-D cases have established paternity o Increase Paternity Establishment Percentage (PEP) a minimum of 3% annually. 2. All children in IV-D cases have support orders o Increase the percent of IV-D cases with support orders by a minimum of 3% annually. o Increase the percent of support orders established though stipulation. 3. All children in IV-D cases receive financial support from parents as ordered o Increase the percent of current support collected by 3% annually. o Increase the percent of cases with an eligible arrears collection by 3% annually. o Implement remedies that avoid the accumulation of arrears, eliminate un-collectible debts, and write-off debts to ensure the Page 31 of 78

principal balance owing on June 30 2008, is not exceeded in subsequent years. 4. All children in IV-D cases have medical support o Increase the percent of cases with medical support orders. o Increase the percent of cases in which medical coverage is provided. 5. The IV-D program will be efficient, consistent, and responsive in its operations o Increase the programs cost effectiveness by 25 cents in the next three years by ensuring technology is used to enhance efficiency; increasing the quality and availability of staff support and resources; and addressing case processing issues. o Pass data reliability audit for FFY 2008. Progress towards achieving the goals of the strategic plan is being tracked using the spreadsheet contained in Appendix D. Compliance with the plan is reviewed periodically at IV-D Planning meetings where adjustments are made as necessary. The strategic plan is revised annually. COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMENTS No DA comments received

Page 32 of 78

E. Develop a document imaging system


WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED? By scanning/imaging incoming documents, and linking them through bar coding to cases, a case manager can call up a case with accompanying documents anywhere in the state at any time. No longer will the case manager have to go to the file room or ask a fellow worker if he or she has seen the file the electronic version will be instantly available. This should save time and space. While it may be a while before all offices are paperless, it is appropriate to begin the process now.
MAXIMUS Performance Audit, Executive Summary, page 14.

Due to the problems currently encountered with the timely flow of documents from the PA (Public Assistance) District Office to the PAOs, as well as the timely flow of interstate documents from the Central Registry to the appropriate DA office or PAO, we recommend the more immediate implementation of an imaging system. DWSS currently operates an imaging system in the Southern State Collection and Disbursement Unit (SCaDU) in Las Vegas where payments are imaged on a daily basis, prior to receipting. We recommend DWSS explore and take steps to implement imaging in all of the PA District Offices, as well as Central Office. We understand that document imaging potentially could be a part of the FileNet CDMS solution. Implementing document imaging statewide will minimize the potential of documents being lost, sent to the incorrect office or not received timely. Imaging does not rely upon the creation of Regional Offices and should be paced on a fast path implementation schedule. DWSS will need to develop a Desk Guide that will be used in local offices and Central Office to ensure standardization of the imaging process.
MAXIMUS Performance Audit, Section D, page 81.

THE MANNER IN WHICH DWSS ADDRESSED THIS RECOMMENDATION Document imaging is the cornerstone on which implementation of many of the audits recommendations, such as centralization, will be built. Centralization of non-core functions will allow local caseworkers to concentrate on essential tasks, will eliminate duplicative efforts and reclaim valuable resources. However, before centralization can occur, document imaging must be implemented to allow centrally located staff access to all case information currently contained at the local level. A work program requesting budget authority for the first phase of the design and implementation of a document imaging and content management system was approved at the January 24, 2008 meeting of the Interim Finance Committee Page 33 of 78

(IFC). The work program included funding for one full-time equivalent (FTE) position (an IT Professional IV, grade 41) to oversee and manage the design, development and implementation of this system. A Technology Investment Request (TIR) for this initial phase of document imaging was approved by Nevadas Department of Information Technology (DoIT) and is included as Appendix E. The purpose of this TIR is to analyze DWSS, and DWSS business partners, including the district attorneys offices supporting CSEP, paper forms, files, faxes, and other types of documentation related to case management and consumer support, index these documents, analyze any associated workflow associated with these documents, and create a document index/imaging strategy for DWSS using FileNet as the content management system. The solution requires a phased approach, and the incumbent to be hired in this new position, along with two Master Service Agreement (MSA) consultants and DoIT personnel, will spearhead the efforts for information gathering, team selection and training, and basic system design which comprise the first phase of the project. As of June 13, 2008 DWSS began recruiting for the new positions and anticipates that the positions will be filled shortly. The success of this endeavor is vital, laying the groundwork for full deployment of a comprehensive and unified content management system for DWSS. The incumbent will be responsible for development of a TIR and a business plan for subsequent phases of the CSEP content management project. The scope of the second and subsequent phases will be determined at the conclusion of the first phase. The document imaging system will use the FileNet P8 Enterprise Content Management (ECM) system which is a content/imaging/workflow management tool that DWSS already owns substantial licensing for and is currently deployed in support of the State Collection and Disbursement Unit (SCaDU) as well as integrated into other DWSS applications. FileNet Enterprise Content and Business Process Management solutions enable companies and government agencies to streamline and automate business processes, access and manage all forms of content and automate records management to help meet compliance needs. It is one of only two products approved for State of Nevada document imaging projects by DoIT. COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMENTS Clark County The second most important recommendation is implementation of a robust document imaging and management system. Steps have already been taken, as Page 34 of 78

you know, to implement this recommendation as well as address significant shortcomings in our current forms software. Complete implementation of this recommendation is a necessary predicate to other MAXIMUS recommendations, e.g., a centralized call center and a centralized mail center, both of which are designed to shift non-essential work from case managers to a central office and thereby creating more time for case managers to establish paternity and support orders, as well as enforce orders for current and past due child support. Elko County The draft report spends a lot of time discussing FileNet. Elko County fully supports a document imaging system, but nowhere in the report does it discuss working with the Supreme Court and the district courts to make sure the scanned documents will be admissible in court. There is a movement in the courts statewide for document imaging. Child support should be fully integrated with the courts in that regard. DWSS RESPONSE TO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMENTS DWSS is moving forward with Phase I of the document imaging and workflow processes. Phase I is designed to define the requirements and scope of the project. There is currently no identified funding available to support Phase II design and implementation. The ability to more aggressively pursue these endeavors has been compromised by the transfer of additional caseloads to DWSS which has necessitated the use of State Share of Collections for staff and case management rather than IT endeavors. As the process moves forward, the court system will be included in discussions to insure the admissibility and filing capability of all documents.

Page 35 of 78

This page left blank on purpose.

Page 36 of 78

IV. INFORMATION ON ADDITIONAL SPECIFIED TOPICS


A. Strategic planning among the district attorneys of Nevada concerning the future funding for the enforcement of child support.
WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED? Regarding funding, we recommend that the counties fund their share of the program while their offices are run locally by their District Attorney Office or consolidated Regional Office. The funding for the state IV-D related activities should be based on TANF retained collections routinely supplemented with an appropriate amount of general revenue funding. The supplemental amount will ensure that the program, with its heightened state responsibilities and uneven TANF retained collection history has sufficient funding to enact the recommendations and improve performance. If a study concludes that in the long-term it makes sense to convert the program to a completely state-operated program, we recommend that the legislature consider the most appropriate funding options to transfer the fiscal responsibilities for the program entirely to the state. Not only would the state funding of the program increase and the county funding commensurately decrease, staff would be phased in as state employees as well.
MAXIMUS Performance Audit, Executive Summary, page 15.

Additionally, testimony in April 4, 2007 meeting of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary by Assemblywoman Susan Gerhardt regarding AB 536 indicated the committee desired DWSS and the District Attorneys to forecast funding sources and identify possible revenue shortfalls in anticipation of reduced federal reimbursement rates and generally declining TANF reimbursements. THE MANNER IN WHICH DWSS ADDRESSED THIS RECOMMENDATION At the March 18, 2008 IV-D Planning Meeting, a discussion on future funding for the Child Support Enforcement Program took place. Prior to the meeting, DWSS identified several critical issues regarding future funding of the program that were discussed at the meeting. Issues raised, suggestions made and conclusions reached follow each issue.

Page 37 of 78

In the meeting, the following chart was distributed for discussion purposes.

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING

Millions $60

$50

$40

$30

$20

$10

$Incentives County FFP County Admin County Fees State FFP State GF State Share State Fees Total

2005 19,105,070 9,842,006 94,006 10,790,861 2,925,367 2,169,749 509,858 45,436,917

2006 19,809,755 10,502,030 95,379 9,693,033 2,549,607 2,369,481 562,347 45,581,632

2007 76,048 19,607,302 9,877,061 102,144 10,759,935 2,865,933 2,591,441 705,563 46,585,426

2008 (Projected) 3,511,651 21,066,784 10,852,586 107,078 10,510,791 2,635,201 2,929,866 1,452,493 53,066,450

Incentives from 2005 and 2006 were either spent in advance and paid back or deferred into the future.

Issue #1 Will the 34% county match required to draw the federal financial participation (FFP) to fund the ongoing operations of the district attorneys offices continue at historic levels and will it be sufficient? Suggestions and Conclusions Regarding Issue #1 Due to the recent downturn in the economy, several of the counties as well as the State are experiencing budget shortfalls. In some cases, child support operations are being required to participate in budget reductions. In recent years, White Pine County and Carson City have ended their participation in the program and the Churchill County District Attorneys Office Page 38 of 78

has opted out of case management responsibilities for the public assistance child support enforcement cases via contract renegotiation. In addition, effective July 1, 2008, in excess of 5,000 public assistance child support enforcement cases in Washoe County were turned over to the State due to budget constraints. Issue #2 As a result of the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA), the federal government no longer provides an FFP match to federal incentives awards spent after October 1, 2007. 45 CFR 305.35 requires incentives to be utilized to supplement and not supplant other funds making them an appropriate source of funding for program enhancements. How should incentives be distributed to maximize supplementation of the program and how do the counties intend to utilize any current and future distributions of incentive awards to enhance the program? Suggestions and Conclusions Regarding Issue #2 A discussion on acceptable uses of incentive awards from the perspective of the OCSE took place. Key points included that incentives cannot be used to supplant state or county general fund and that they must be used specifically to enhance CSEP as opposed to funding ongoing operations. The most recently distributed incentive award was for FFY 2005 in the amount of approximately $1.8 million. However, the counties collectively have an unspent balance of incentive funds from previous years of approximately $1.5 million. FFY2006 incentive awards of approximately $2.1 million are available for distribution. Subsequent to the March IV-D Planning Meeting, clarification was received from OCSE that resulted in DWSS issuing an Informational Memorandum (IM) regarding incentive disbursement procedures. This IM is included as Appendix F. Nancy K. Ford suggested that because, as previously mentioned, the State has assumed responsibility for the child support program in additional counties, the State will be entitled to a greater portion of incentives. She also suggested that a portion of future incentives should be used by the State to fund enhancements to the entire program. Effective July 1, 2008 the contracts between the State and the counties stipulate that 25% of future incentive awards will be used for statewide enhancements to CSEP with a state/county partnership being formed to identify those enhancements. Issue #3 The MAXIMUS audit recommended that funding for the state IV-D related activities should be based on TANF retained collections (a.k.a. SSC) routinely supplemented with an appropriate amount of general revenue funding. The Page 39 of 78

supplemental amount will ensure that the program, with its heightened state responsibilities and uneven TANF retained collection history has sufficient funding to enact the recommendations and improve performance. What strategies should be used to continue and possibly increase general fund support of the program? Suggestions and Conclusions Regarding Issue #3 Currently, CSEP operated at the state level is funded through TANF retained collections, or what DWSS refers to as state share of collections. This is the amount DWSS is permitted to retain out of child support collections reimbursing TANF benefits paid out. For each dollar of TANF collected, a portion is returned to the Federal Government and a portion is retained by the State and able to be used as general fund. This proportion is based upon the applicable Federal Medical Assistance Percentage [FMAP]. The amount of state share of collections can fluctuate from year to year based upon the TANF caseload and the FMAP. In SFY 2000, there was inadequate state share of collections to support the program, so CSEP had to eliminate 47 out of 137 state CSEP positions and transferred the public assistance child support caseload to the Clark County District Attorneys Office. As evidenced, state share of collections is not a stable funding source for CSEP. Beyond the statement quoted above, the MAXIMUS audit contained very few recommendations regarding how CSEP should be funded. All parties agreed that State general fund dollars will be necessary in order to implement most of the program enhancements recommended by MAXIMUS. It was suggested that the ultimate decision on funding and to what extent would be the subject of negotiations between the various county commissioners and the Legislature. DWSS has provided a proposed Bill Draft to establish a task force to study the organizational and programmatic structure of the Child Support Enforcement Program to provide recommendations on how to enhance service delivery; improve performance; increase efficiencies; study the funding mechanisms of the Child Support Enforcement Program; and provide recommendations on the method of funding the program in the future. The Task Force proposed would include representatives from the legislative branch, the executive branch, the judicial branch and the participating counties to provide recommendations on these complex issues. The legislature may want to consider introducing this bill. A copy of this proposed Bill Draft is contained in Appendix G. Issue #4 Will the State Share of Collections (SSC) required to draw the FFP to fund both Page 40 of 78

the ongoing and strategic state operations continue at historic levels and will it be sufficient? Suggestions and Conclusions Regarding Issue #4 SSC has historically vacillated to the point of being unreliable. As previously mentioned, in 2000 when the TANF caseload reached its historic low, SSC dropped so much that the State had to eliminate 34% of the positions in CSEP budget account. Nancy K. Ford suggested that consideration should be given by the Legislature to provide stability to CSEP with general fund dollars and use SSC for program enhancements with the understanding that a portion of SSC would be reverted to the general fund if certain circumstances exist. Projections for the SSC through the next biennium are illustrated in the following chart. The projected decrease in the carry forward in the coming biennium reflects the impact of the State taking responsibility for all Carson City cases and the public assistance cases in Washoe County.
STATE SHARE OF COLLECTIONS
AS OF 06/30/2008

$7

$6

$5

IN MILLIONS

$4

$3

$2

$1

$0 SSC FROM PRIOR YEAR SSC IN CURRENT YEAR Total

2003 796,951 1,792,033 2,588,984

2004* 272,849 2,908,269 3,181,118

2005* 545,911 3,265,087 3,810,998

2006* 750,000 2,572,315 3,322,315

2007* 750,000 3,948,677 4,698,677

2008* 1,964,927 4,025,140 5,815,851

2009 (EST) 2010 (EST) 2011 (EST) 2,877,779 3,917,584 6,362,376 1,823,100 3,930,065 5,832,341 1,271,394 3,915,526 5,278,010

* From 2004 to 2007, carry forward was capped at $750,000

Page 41 of 78

Issue #5 What other funding options are both available and recommended to meet program needs not adequately meet by the current funding sources? Suggestions and Conclusions Regarding Issue #5 Any fees charged in CSEP are regarded as program income. As program income, the Federal agency is entitled to 66% of any fee and the state is entitled to 34% of the fee. Though this may appear to be inequitable, the state can rematch the 34% with federal dollars in CSEP and reap the benefit of 100% of the collection. One alternative source of funding would be an increase in the federally mandated application fee for non-assistance cases. Nevada currently uses SSC to pay 66% of $0.01 per non-assistance case. Federal regulations allow for a fee of up to $25 but in the most recent quarter, Nevada only paid the federal agency $14. Increasing the fee to $25 would generate approximately $210,000 per year. Another possible fee would be to charge either party for a request to modify an order. Similar to the modification fee, it was suggested that a fee be charged for objections. A review of alternative sources of funding in states similar in size to Nevada indicates that three states in particular charge fees for a variety of different services. A listing of these charges is contained in Appendix H. COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMENTS Clark County Clark County recognizes the funding issue which looms on the horizon for the child support program and endorses the concept that general fund revenues must be utilized at the State level. It should be pointed out that Clark County currently supports 34% of the cost of the child support program in Clark County out of local revenue. The remaining 66% is fully funded by federal financial participation so that, in terms of cost, the child support program in Clark County has no fiscal impact on the State budget. On the other hand, Clark County is responsible for the recovery from non-custodial parents of public assistance monies paid out to support children. We estimate that the actual cost to Clark County of servicing the TANF caseload is approximately $3,500,000 (non-federal money). Our efforts resulted in the collection of over $5,053,000 TANF dollars which were returned to the State. After federal payback, the net income to the State was slightly more than $2,324,000. This money could be used as the States 34% match to draw down additional money from the federal government. The total positive impact on the State portion of the child support from Clark County is approximately $6,900,000 (if these monies were dedicated to child support and not used to supplement the State general fund). Additionally, the Page 42 of 78

counties have agreed, by interlocal agreement, to set aside a minimum of 25% of any federal incentive dollars earned as a result of performance for enhancement of the State-wide child support system. Elko County The report talks about the potential to convert to a state-operated program and appropriate funding options. The State qualifies for 66% reimbursement and incentive money. The State can reduce costs by not having to spend countless hours negotiating the county contracts and having state-wide meetings. Policy compliance should increase because there will not be two chains of command for the county offices. The State should include in the report that it is taking the Counties incentive monies for 07 when the new contract starts in state fiscal year 08. The State talks about increasing user fees to fund the child support system. This is just taking money away from the people that need it the most. Rather than talking about more money is needed to have a successful program, we need to increase productivity with the resources the program already has. The State has eroded the trust between the State and the Counties with its recent actions regarding incentive money. Without trust, the performance indicators will suffer. DWSS RESPONSE TO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMENTS Appropriate sources of funding for county and state activities need to be addressed by the legislature. Relying solely on state share of collections which may arguably belong to the participating counties at some level, due to their public assistance collection efforts, lacks stability and equitability from a strategic perspective. The other options presented for funding the program is indicative of what other states are doing and is provided for consideration by the Legislature. DWSS has not taken a position on the advisability of charging additional fees. In October 2007 the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement added a new data element to the OCSE 396 Report. This data element required the reporting of where incentives were spent. As a result of this new reporting requirement, DWSS reviewed the process utilized for distributing incentives. It was discovered that the method of distribution previously used was without legal authority and potentially in violation of several sections of the Code of Federal Regulations. Due to this discovery, DWSS has changed the method of distribution of incentives in order to be in compliance with federal requirements. The various Page 43 of 78

participating District Attorneys Offices were advised of this change through an Informational Memorandum, a copy which is attached in Appendix F.

Page 44 of 78

B. Programs to enforce child support in other states with a distribution of population which is similar to the distribution in Nevada.
WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED? This requirement from AB 536 was a continuation of a provision of AB 580 from the 2005 Legislative session which authorized the performance audit of CSEP. It specified that the audit must examine the identification of best practices from other states concerning methods for the efficient and expeditious enforcement and collection of orders for the support of children. THE MANNER IN WHICH DWSS ADDRESSED THIS RECOMMENDATION An analysis of the child support caseload in every state and jurisdiction was conducted. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia were selected based on characteristics similar to the State of Nevada. Details of these characteristics are contained in Appendix I, the highlights of which are as follows: Their rankings in each of the five federally mandated performance measures. The number of full time equivalent (FTEs) positions working in the child support enforcement program. A categorization as to whether the jurisdiction uses an administrative process versus a judicial process in their child support program. Please refer to Section IV E for a detailed analysis of this issue. The governmental entity that administers the child support enforcement program in each jurisdiction and the governmental entity that operates the program. Whether the jurisdictions automated child support enforcement system was exclusively designed and operated for the child support enforcement program or whether it also was used to administer other public assistance programs.

Details of these characteristics are contained in Appendix I, the highlights of which are as follows: The number of cases per FTE does not appear to be indicative of outstanding program performance. As discussed in Section IV E, states with administrative or mixed processes appear to perform better than those states with highly judicial or quasi-judicial processes. Virtually all of the states comparable to Nevada were state administered and state operated. Page 45 of 78

Virtually all of the child support enforcement program automated systems were used exclusively to administer the child support program

COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMENTS Clark County DWSS was tasked with the identification of best practices from other states concerning methods for the efficient and expeditious enforcement and collection of orders for the support of children, (Section 2, AB 580). DWSS conducted an analysis to compare Nevada to 18 jurisdictions (i.e. 17 States and the District of Columbia). The comparison considers caseload and several other factors: Ranking in each of the performance measures Number of full time equivalent positions Process (administrative or judicial) used Government entity administering and supervising CSEP Scope of the automated system (CSE program only or all public assistance programs)

There does not appear to be any significant correlation between any of the variables identified in the report. We do not know why these 18 jurisdictions were chosen for review, especially given the mandate that the comparison focus on states with a population distribution similar to Nevadas. We are not sure that there is any meaningful statistical comparison that can be made among these jurisdictions. Quite frankly, given the fact that statistical information is generated at the federal level and is based upon state reporting (rather than more unique factors such as extent of urbanization, frequency of change of address or employment of child support obligors), it may be impossible to generate any valid statistical comparison and then look for best practices which may account for any statistical difference in performance. DWSS notes that virtually all of the states comparable to Nevada were state administered and state operated but doesnt indicate what factors the conclusion of comparable were based on. Indeed, a review of Appendix I raises more questions than it answers. For example, Kansas is identified as a state administered and operated administrative system with an automated system that combines public assistance and CSEP in one operating system. It generally ranks in the middle performance level. Nebraska, on the other hand, is a highly judicial, statecounty administered and operated program that has a separate CSEP automated system. It, too, generally ranks in the middle performance level. It doesnt appear that any conclusions can be drawn regarding which factor, if any, contributed to success of CSEP.

Page 46 of 78

DWSS RESPONSE TO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMENTS The eighteen jurisdictions were selected primarily based upon the similarities of their CSEP caseloads to Nevadas CSEP caseload. Although the populations of these jurisdictions are not exactly proportional to their CSEP caseloads, they are reasonably close for the purposes of identifying states with a distribution of population similar to Nevada. Appendix I has been modified to include the population of the 18 jurisdictions and their percentage relative to Nevadas population. DWSS agrees with Clark Countys observation that it may be impossible to generate any valid statistical comparison and then look for best practices which may account for any statistical difference in performance. It is the experience of the DWSS CSEP Chief that the most beneficial sources of information regarding best practices are the work groups sponsored by the federal OCSE as well as national associations such as the National Council of Child Support Directors (NCCSD) and the National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA). For example, OCSE sponsored a Large Urban Jurisdiction Forum in May 2008 in which two Clark County District Attorney, Office of Family Support (DAFS) representatives and the CSEP Chief participated. States shared best practices with forum participants over a two-day period. Each participating state and jurisdiction was required to develop an action plan for their jurisdiction. Clark County DAFS representatives embraced best practices from Tennessee, Massachusetts and Missouri as part of their action plan to improve the enforcement of collections through early intervention and case stratification. As a follow-up to the forum, OCSE sponsors periodic conference calls for states to share the details of how specific action plans were implemented and the performance outcomes.

Page 47 of 78

C. Options for creating a regional structure in Nevada and the anticipated benefits to Nevadas Child Support Enforcement Program
WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED? Our (MAXIMUS) report recommends that the legislature authorize the merger of the Washoe County DA's Office and the Reno PAO, and then invite geographically-proximate county DA offices to be part of the region. The counties would pool their resources and a governing board of the county designees would select a Regional Office Manager (ROM). The state would appoint a Regional Administrator (RA) to be the on-site state liaison and to oversee the program's performance. The RA would be assisted by a state trainer and quality assurance specialist. For eight to 12 years, the employees would be county employees. Eight to 12 years from now, if a study recommends that the state should take over the staffing and funding of the program from the counties, the state would gradually take over the program and the employees would convert to state employment. A similar configuration should occur in the northern and eastern part of the state, with Elko serving as the regional office after the Elko DA Office and the Elko PAO merge. A RA and a ROM would oversee the operations, and the state would gradually take over operations if the study suggests it is in the best interest of the state. Clark County DA Office would become its own regional office, with a RA and ROM. In addition the RA would have a quality assurance supervisor to oversee a data analyst and all the IV-D staff co-located at the DOs for public assistance intake to ensure that the child support data needed to process a TANF case are secured as soon as the case is established.
MAXIMUS Performance Audit, Executive Summary, page 8.

The state will support the core functions of the regional office through staff that work in the regional offices as well as centrally. The state staff in the regional office will include the Regional Administrator (RA), who has primary responsibility for carrying out the state performance goals at the regional level. The RA should be assisted by a state Quality Assurance (QA) Specialist and a state Trainer. The QA Specialist will constantly monitor performance and provide data mining analysis about the regional office's strengths and weaknesses at the office, unit and individual levels. The Trainer will offer onsite training for all new employees and for existing employees who need to refresh their knowledge in various areas. In Carson City, the state should have additional support for the IV-D director. The director should have three deputies to assist with the oversight of Page 48 of 78

the regions and central operations, policy and QA/reporting and program financials.
MAXIMUS Performance Audit, Section B, page 17.

THE MANNER IN WHICH DWSS ADDRESSED THIS RECOMMENDATION Given the revenue shortfalls currently being experienced and projected to continue at all levels of government in Nevada, DWSS has determined the three options proposed by MAXIMUS are not immediately economically feasible. Prior to manifestation of the revenue shortfalls, a comparison of the estimated costs to create a Regional Child Support Office in Elko versus continuing the operations of the Elko, Humboldt and Pershing County District Attorney offices as is was done. The following tables depict how the two alternatives would be funded:
ESTIMA TED CO ST F O R DW SS TO C REA TE A CSEP REG IO NA L O FF ICE IN ELKO G.L . # BA D ESCRIP TION ALL OCATION % 3533 3238 FED CH ILD SUP PORT PROG RAM 66.00% 4261 3238 ST ATE SH ARE OF COLL ECT IONS 34.00% TOT AL FE DE RAL/ STAT E R EVEN UE EX PEN DI TURES CAT BA 01 3238 02 3238 03 3238 04 3238 04 3238 05 3238 26 3238 TOT AL FE DE RAL/ STAT E FY 10 69 1,233 35 6,090 $ 1,047,322 FY11 645,8 06 332,6 88 978 ,493 FUTU RE BI ENN IA 1,291,611 665,375 $ 1,9 56,9 87

D ESCRIP TION PE RSON NEL OU T OF STAT E TRAVEL IN -ST AT E TRAVEL OPE RATIN G N ON-ST ATE OWN ED B UILD ING RE NT E QUIPM EN T IN FORMAT ION SE RVI CE S E XP END IT URES

FY 10 81 2,185 1 8,208 3 5,458 9 0,804 4 2,800 4 7,868 $ 1,047,322

FY11 833,7 42 18,2 08 27,9 40 90,8 04 7,8 00 978 ,493

FUTU RE BI ENN IA $ 1,667,484 36,416 55,879 181,608 15,599 $ 1,9 56,9 87

PROJECTED COST TO CONTINUE "AS IS" IN ELKO, HUMBOLDT AND PERSHING COUNTIES ALLOCATION % G.L. # BA DESCRIPTION FY10 3533 3239 FED CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM 66.00% 692,933 XXXX N/A COUNTY CONTRIBUTION 34.00% 356,965 $ 1,049,898 EXPENDITURES BA CAT N/A 3239 N/A 3239 N/A 3239 N/A 3239 N/A 3239 N/A 3239 N/A 3239

FY11 707,092 364,259 $1,071,351

FUTURE BIENNIA 1,414,183 728,519 $ 2,142,702

DESCRIPTION PERSONNEL OUT OF STATE TRAVEL IN-STATE TRAVEL OPERATING NON-STATE OWNED BUILDING RENT EQUIPMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

FY10 855,593 750 17,002 64,377 105,107 2,432 4,637 $ 1,049,898

FY11 875,287 750 17,002 64,377 106,867 2,432 4,637 $1,071,351

FUTURE BIENNIA $ 1,750,573 1,500 34,003 128,754 213,733 4,863 9,274 $ 2,142,702

The bottom line is that it would cost approximately 8.7% less to create a state run regional office in Elko but 34% of the costs would shift from the counties to the State. A summary of the shifts in funding sources that would result is contained in the following table:

Page 49 of 78

REVENUE VARIANCE DESCRIPTION G.L. # BA 3533 3239 FED CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM 4261 3238 STATE SHARE OF COLLECTIONS COUNTY CONTRIBUTION XXXX N/A

ALLOCATION % 66.00% 34.00% 34.00%

FY10 (1,700) 356,090 (356,965)

FUTURE BIENNIA FY11 (61,286) (122,572) 332,688 665,375 (364,259) (728,519)

A similar analysis was done to evaluate the costs of creating a regional office in Reno versus continuing the operations of the Washoe, Churchill, Douglas, Lyon, Mineral and Nye County District Attorneys offices. The following tables depict how the two alternatives would be funded:
ESTIMATED COST FOR DWSS TO CREATE A CSEP REGIONAL OFFICE IN RENO BA DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION % FY10 G.L. # 3533 3238 FED CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM 66.00% 5,208,463 4261 3238 STATE SHARE OF COLLECTIONS 34.00% 2,683,148 TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE REVENUE $ 7,891,611 EXPENDITURES BA DESCRIPTION FY10 CAT 01 3238 PERSONNEL $ 6,525,244 02 3238 OUT OF STATE TRAVEL 2,347 03 3238 IN-STATE TRAVEL 14,360 04 3238 OPERATING 225,410 04 3238 NON-STATE OWNED BUILDING RENT 577,254 05 3238 EQUIPMENT 273,400 26 3238 INFORMATION SERVICES 273,597 TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE EXPENDITURES $ 7,891,611 PROJECTED COST TO CONTINUE "AS IS" IN WASHOE, CHURCHILL, DOUGLAS, LYON, MINERAL ALLOCATION % G.L. # BA DESCRIPTION FY10 3533 3239 FED CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM 66.00% 5,219,770 XXXX N/A COUNTY CONTRIBUTION 34.00% 2,688,972 $ 7,908,742 EXPENDITURES BA CAT N/A 3239 N/A 3239 N/A 3239 N/A 3239 N/A 3239 N/A 3239 N/A 3239 FY11 4,966,042 2,558,264 $ 7,524,306 FUTURE BIENNIA 9,932,085 5,116,528 $ 15,048,613

FY11 FUTURE BIENNIA 6,703,145 $ 13,406,290 2,347 4,694 14,360 28,720 177,617 355,233 577,254 1,154,508 49,584 99,167 $ 7,524,306 $ 15,048,613 AND NYE COUNTIES FUTURE BIENNIA FY11 5,367,129 10,734,257 2,764,884 5,529,769 $ 8,132,013 $ 16,264,026 $

DESCRIPTION PERSONNEL OUT OF STATE TRAVEL IN-STATE TRAVEL OPERATING NON-STATE OWNED BUILDING RENT EQUIPMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

FY10 6,673,587 1,174 22,201 266,771 833,947 27,844 83,218 $ 7,908,742

FY11 6,873,795 1,174 22,201 266,771 857,010 27,844 83,218 $ 8,132,013

FUTURE BIENNIA $ 13,747,589 2,347 44,403 533,543 1,714,021 55,687 166,436 $ 16,264,026

In this case, the bottom line is that it would cost approximately 7.4% less to create a state run regional office in Reno but 34% of the costs would shift from the counties to the State. A summary of the shifts in funding sources that would result is contained in the following table:
REVENUE VARIANCE G.L. # BA DESCRIPTION 3533 3239 FED CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM 4261 3238 STATE SHARE OF COLLECTIONS XXXX N/A COUNTY CONTRIBUTION ALLOCATION % 66.00% 34.00% 34.00% FY10 (1,700) 356,090 (356,965) FUTURE BIENNIA FY11 (61,286) (122,572) 332,688 665,375 (364,259) (728,519)

Detailed spreadsheets supporting the summary tables above are in Appendix J. In response to the MAXIMUS proposal to structure the CSEP Central Office, DWSS made several organizational changes to elevate CSE programs position in the Division. The most significant change was making the CSEP Chief a direct report to the Division Administrator as opposed to reporting to the Deputy Administrator for Program and Field Operations. Page 50 of 78

DWSS reviewed the other Central Office restructuring recommendations by MAXIMUS that included the creation of a Deputy Administrator for CSEP along with three Chiefs to assist with the oversight of the regions and central operations, policy and QA/reporting and program financials and determined that the intended outcomes could be achieved with fewer positions than recommended by MAXIMUS. Included in Appendix J is a series of four organizational charts depicting the DWSS CSEP Central Office in the following situations: 1. 2. 3. 4. Prior to the MAXIMUS audit. As of June 1, 2008. With changes recommended by DWSS for future consideration. With changes as proposed by MAXIMUS.

Appendix J also includes detailed calculations of the projected costs for the changes recommended by DWSS for future consideration versus the changes proposed by MAXIMUS. COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMENTS Lyon County The Child Support Program seeks good relations with both parents. Good customer service helps reduce strains between parents and offers resources to overcome interpersonal barriers. The child support programs mission is to support and strengthen those families in which the parents are not living together. Lyon County has a hands on approach with their clients which enables them to develop good relationships and communication to promote the goal of assuring that there is assistance in obtaining support, including financial and medical, is available to children through locating parents, establishing paternity, establishing support obligations and monitoring and enforcing those obligations. Rural child support offices are necessary in providing services to meet the socioeconomic situations which sometimes hinder clients in their ability to access programs. Currently the District Attorneys Offices and the Attorney Generals Office are responsible for providing Child Support Services as a public service. This is beneficial to the clients as the District Attorneys Offices and the Attorneys General Office have the greatest experience and familiarity with child support issues both factual and legal. The District Attorneys Office give each party the right to be heard before a judicial office, a right to discovery, a right to examine evidence, and a right to appeal. The parties have the right to appeal in order to exercise their due process rights. These rights cannot simply be ignored in an attempt to simplify a program. Rural Child Support Offices have been made Page 51 of 78

accessible to clients and families to promote the well-being of children, strengthen families, and reduce the demand on public treasuries by securing financial and medical support from legally responsible parents. The ability of families to have access to rural child support office services with an on hands interaction is an asset to promote service to the citizens of the State of Nevada. DWSS RESPONSE TO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMENTS Attached to this report as Attachment G is a proposed bill draft to create a task force that could address this issue and make recommendations as to the future structure of the Child Support Enforcement Program. In the meantime, DWSS is partially implementing the recommendation from the MAXIMUS audit to create regional offices in Reno, Elko and Las Vegas to the extent staffing and resources permit.

Page 52 of 78

D. Training programs that have been implemented employees who assist in the collection of child support.
WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED?

for

While training is provided intermittently at the state level, and in some counties, notably Clark, it appears most knowledge is gained on the job or through informal group discussions. It is important to keep workers educated in general child support and specific program changes through regular training offerings for experienced as well as new staff. Training will improve productivity as fewer errors will be made that need correcting, and individual consultation about how to address problems will be reduced. Training on meeting performance goals will heighten the success rate of the program.
MAXIMUS Performance Audit, Executive Summary, page 13.

It is recommended that the state develop an IV-D Training Academy that will incorporate the goals and agenda of the DWSS Training Plan. The Training Manager/Officer responsible for development of IV-D training should solicit input from all staff, both from the PAOs and DA offices, in identifying what the training needs are. The IV-D Training Plan should incorporate and support the DWSS Strategic Plan, as well as provide new case managers with the proper tools and adequate information and skills in order for them to make the correct decisions on how to work their cases. It is recommended that with the development of a IV-D Training Academy, the Training Manager/Officer should work closely with his/her PA counterparts in scheduling training and arrange for accessibility to training rooms and equipment needed to conduct the training, and develop meaningful cross-training for both PA and IV-D staff. The development of the Training Academy should encompass the following subject areas: New Worker Training PA/IV-D Cross Training Customer Service Training

The IV-D Training Academy should be established to the PA Training Academy Program, with separate modules including: Receiving and Processing PA Referrals How to conduct a successful Case Assessment Locate and Skip Tracing Techniques In-Hospital Paternity Acknowledgment and Voluntary Paternity Acknowledgments Genetic Testing Child Support Guidelines and Income Considerations and Factors Review and Adjustment Page 53 of 78

Medical Support and the National Medical Support Notice Income Withholding General and Military Default Orders Conducting Financial Audits Long Arm Enforcement Techniques Interstate Case Processing Case Transfers Case Closure

The state should continuously assess the effectiveness and impact of training on performance measurements to ensure that staff are receiving effective training.
MAXIMUS Performance Audit, Section D, page 93-94.

THE MANNER IN WHICH DWSS ADDRESSED THIS RECOMMENDATION DWSS issued a recruitment in the Elko area for a position that would serve as a Training Officer in the rural areas. Unfortunately, there was a lack of qualified candidates that applied for the position. Concurrent with that recruitment, the State developed a budget crisis. Therefore, the ability to pursue this endeavor is curtailed until the economy recovers. In the development of statewide training, DWSS is focusing on developing core program curriculum a module at a time. Modules will be developed by utilizing training material from other states, private vendors, program specialists, and subject matter experts in the field offices. Ideally, the end product will be a training manual which incorporates program policy, procedures and systems task guides into one document. It is anticipated these modules will also be available on line for use by the various offices. Unfortunately, the progress of this endeavor has been slowed due to staff vacancies and budgetary constraints. COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMENTS Lyon County In order to lift the program to new levels it is imperative that both the state and local offices are held accountable for the success of the program. By requiring every caseworker to be accountable for his or her performance one can increase progress made. There needs to be more training through the program to incorporate formal curriculum to train new staff. While DWSS is contractually responsible for providing training including written materials related to the use of NOMADS or State Policy as requested by the County. The program does not have formal New Worker training available to DWSS staff. Elko County The State acknowledged the training manual is not completed. Again, if the goal is to increase child support collections then use the resources the program Page 54 of 78

currently has. Perhaps the training manual priority should be elevated. Using the resources more efficiently will increase collections which will increase performance percentages, thus increase incentive payments. DWSS RESPONSE TO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMENTS DWSS concurs that training is one of the critical components towards improving performance. Each County District Attorneys Office has different procedures, formats, and processes that currently must be addressed by the training program and impedes uniform statewide training of case management staff. Training is one of the priorities and will continue to be addressed as staffing and resources permit. This is one of the items the Task Force proposed in attachment G should address.

Page 55 of 78

E. An analysis of the benefits and detriments of using administrative hearing officers rather than masters in matters relating to the enforcement of child support.
WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED? Administrative procedures are used by just about every state and administrative process by about one-third of the states. Administrative procedures allow for actions to be taken in cases to advance them to the collection stage, such as sending out administrative subpoenas and liens. Administrative process allows for administrative adjudication, which should save time and money without sacrificing fairness. Every party should have a right to elect that a court hears the case instead of an administrative hearing officer. Every party should have a right to a court appeal, on the record.
MAXIMUS Performance Audit, Executive Summary, page 14.

THE MANNER IN WHICH DWSS ADDRESSED THIS RECOMMENDATION MAXIMUS referenced a study conducted by the Lewin Group entitled "Administrative and Judicial Processes for Establishing Child Support Orders which indicated that while administrative and judicial states are both meeting expedited timeframe requirements, among the nine states studied in depth, administrative process states appeared to do particularly well on costeffectiveness measures. DWSS conducted further analysis of the performance of each state in the five federal incentive performance measures in federal fiscal year (FFY) 2006 which is described in the Statistical Analysis section below. MAXIMUS also cited a report issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, which stated "child support respondents report more fully administrative methods generally allow their agencies greater procedural control, more closely comply with Federal standards, and are easier for child support agency staff to facilitate than primarily judicial procedures. Fully administrative procedures appear to be particularly useful when both parents mutually consent to establish paternity, either without or following genetic testing. Staff with primarily administrative procedures also report they value their authority to complete the paternity process independently, and believe most cases can be resolved more quickly with routine administrative procedures than by subjective court judgments. It was noted by MAXIMUS that Policy Studies, Inc. also had similar findings in the review of the Clark County District Attorneys Family Support (DAFS) organizational structure. "In Clark County, it does not appear that the current balance (between attorneys and program staff) is serving the long term interests of the County. Some procedures appear to be overly legalistic and complex." Page 56 of 78

MAXIMUS observed that the same holds true for the more judicial-based rather than administrative-based processes in Washoe County. MAXIMUS recommended that the Legislature pass a statutory change that allows for the use of an Administrative Process for the establishment of paternity and child support obligations through the use of Administrative Hearing Officers. These positions should be granted with the same authority to hear child support enforcement paternity and order establishment cases as currently are provided the Hearing Masters. The responsibility of the Administrative Hearing Officers would be to hear and make legally-binding decisions regarding issues that are currently brought before the Hearing Masters. The decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer would carry the same weight as a court order established through the judicial process and appeals based on the Administrative Hearing Officer's decision could be accomplished through the judicial system. Consistent standards can be established for these Administrative Hearing Officers statewide upon which their performance is measured. In addition Administrative Hearing Officers would provide enforcement of orders. MAXIMUS opined that the use of the administrative process still affords the parties due process as currently exists for judicial hearings. In Nevada, individuals subject to the administrative process for establishment of paternity and child support obligations would still be afforded the right to 1) Proper service of notice; 2) an opportunity to be heard before the Administrative Hearing Officer, and; 3) the ability to file an appeal of an Administrative Hearing Officer's decision through the judicial system. MAXIMUS concluded that the allowance for and use of the administrative process for paternity and child support establishment in those instances where both parties are agreeable would serve to enhance and expedite the number of paternities and child support orders established. This method would facilitate these actions outside of the judicial process and would certainly cut back on the size of the Hearing Master court dockets. The use of the Administrative Process could also limit attorney involvement and allow attorneys to be used only in those instances where the issues are complex and certified to be heard before a District Court, file or respond to an appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer's decision, and for those more difficult and challenging cases where the IV-D agency may elect to take the case through the judicial process rather than the administrative process. Statistical Analysis DWSS conducted further analysis of the performance of each state in the five federal incentive performance measures in federal fiscal year (FFY) 2006 in comparison to the Lewin Groups categorization of each state on the judicial to Page 57 of 78

administrative continuum. Each state was grouped into one of five categories by DWSS as follows: Highly Administrative Administrative Mixed Quasi Judicial (Nevada is in this category) Highly Judicial

The five federal incentive performance measures are: 1. Paternity establishment Percentage of children that were born out of wedlock and had paternity established or acknowledged. 2. Support order Percentage of total open cases that have support orders established. 3. Collections on current support Total amount of current support distributed. 4. Collections on arrears Total number of support payments collected for past-due support. 5. Cost effectiveness Total child support dollars collected divided by total dollars expended. DWSSs analysis is summarized in the following table and shows that states categorized as Highly Judicial and Quasi Judicial did not perform as well in FFY 2006 as states categorized as Administrative, Mixed or Highly Administrative. The rankings are numbered 1 to 5 with 1 being the best and 5 being the worst.

Types of Process and Procedures Highly Administrative Administrative Mixed Quasi Judicial Highly Judicial

#1 3 1 2 4 5

#2 1 2 3 4 5

#3 2 3 1 4 5

#4 4 1 2 3 5

#5 1 4 3 5 2

Details of how the states are categorized and how they were ranked in each performance measure are contained in Appendix K. It should be noted that this issue is far too complex to rely solely on statistical comparisons of past performance to assume future outcomes. In their report, the Lewin Group acknowledged that it may be very difficult to meaningfully categorize states as administrative or judicial and ascribe program performance to these categories.

Page 58 of 78

Funding In making their recommendation on this matter, MAXIMUS used the term Administrative Hearing Officers. After researching the alternatives within the State of Nevada, Department of Personnel classification system, DWSS determined that the appropriate job title for the proposed duties is an Administrative Law Judge [ALJ], an unclassified position. An analysis of the costs of making ALJs the primary path for resolution of child support enforcement issues rather than Hearing Masters suggests that there would be a modest increase of approximately $21,000 a year in federal financial participation (FFP). The funding for the ALJs by the State will be partially offset by the reduced funding of the Hearing Masters by the State. Support staff for the Hearing Masters has been primarily funded by the counties and will be significantly reduced. The net result will be a shift in funding from the counties to the State of approximately $220,000 a year. A spreadsheet summarizing these costs accompanied by detailed calculations is included as Appendix L. The fiscal analysis assumes that even after the addition of ALJs, the District Court may determine there is a continued need for Hearing Masters to modify child support orders or divorce judgments issued by the judiciary with their administrative support staff continuing at some percentage of the historic cost. This is because administrative programs have no authority to amend orders issued by the judiciary. Therefore, an administrative program must co-exist with the judicial system. Administrative child support programs, after exhausting all administrative remedies, tend to hand their complex cases and appeals over to the court system. Currently, 11% of the caseload is in support establishment and 63% of the caseload is in enforcement, which are the areas of the caseload contemplated to be handled by the administrative process. Therefore, 25% of the cost of the Hearing Masters is retained in the fiscal analysis. Although the proposed change will require the use of additional SSC, DWSS is advocating for the change to make the process more effective and efficient. Analysis of Issues In October, 2007, DWSS distributed an analysis of the benefits and detriments of using ALJs and requested input from Hearing Masters, District Court Judges and District Attorneys, several of whom responded. There appeared to be general opposition to the administrative process. Their input was compiled and responded to by DWSS in March, 2008. A copy of this analysis, the countys responses, as well as the DWSS response is contained in Appendix M. The following characteristics of an administrative process as opposed to the current quasi-judicial process currently in place in Nevada favor implementation of MAXIMUSs recommendation. Page 59 of 78

1. Title IV-D of the Social Security Act requires the states to administer the Child Support Enforcement Program. 42 USC 651 et seq. The State is required to have a Child Support Enforcement Program as a condition of receiving the TANF block grant. 42 USC 602(a)(2). The State is required to provide an expedited process in child support matters and federally mandated timeframes apply to those processes. See 42 USC 666(a) (2) & (c), 45 CFR 303.101. With ALJs, DWSS will be better situated to meet the Federal requirements and adjust quickly when those requirements change. 2. There are functional and structural reasons why making the ALJs the primary path for resolving child support enforcement issues would benefit the program. These benefits include but are not limited to the following: Functionally, the use of ALJs would allow: o Statewide authority to hear cases; o Consistent application of laws and regulations; o Consistent case flow processing and regulations; o Consistent training; o Readily available substitute hearing authority should one be unavailable; o Ability to conduct hearings through use of technology; Structurally, the use of ALJs would allow: o Executive branch oversight of Federally required expedited processing and/or other requirements as enacted; o Obviate the need for 9 separate contracts with nine judicial districts; o Consistent ALJ employment policies; o Consistent ALJ payment of wages, expense reimbursement and per-diem policies. 3. Hearing Masters must hold court in the county seat or where designated by the county commission. This requirement results in greater travel time for professionals and participants in the case and limits flexibility to hear cases in other places and by other means. The goal of the program as well as the expedited case processing requirements of the federal regulation requires the ability to be flexible in expediting hearings. 4. The ALJs ability to use teleconference, video conference, or conduct inperson hearings is readily available in promoting expedited hearings. This flexibility reduces cost of travel, increases flexibility.

Page 60 of 78

5. Hearing Masters and District Courts use the same court space and a hearing by one obviously prevents the other from using the court room. Therefore, scheduling hearings are more difficult with Masters due to availability of court rooms, bailiffs, court clerks, etc. 6. Administrative Law Judges would provide a pool of hearing officers trained and experienced in the subject matter that could handle hearings anywhere at anytime. 7. The Judge must wait 10 days after service of the Hearing Masters recommendations on the parties before he has the authority to sign an order. If service is by mail, the minimum time delay from hearing to a signed enforceable court order is 13 days. If the signed order is not received by the program until the end of the month the enforcement of the order can take more than 30 days from the date of hearing. This means another month without child support for the custodian and interest plus penalties assessed against the non-custodian. Quite often, it is several months before a judge signs the order, thereby creating additional delays in collection. 8. There is no consistency in procedures between judicial districts which complicates the ability to proceed expeditiously as staff must insure they are complying with the particular district courts rules. 9. States that use a judicial process to establish child support orders tend to require personal appearances in court that creates hardships on the parties and causes delays in scheduling critical actions in the case; the scheduling of a court appearance or case conference; at least one court appearance if not more and several signatures of members of the judiciary before the entire process is complete. Each of these tasks enumerated above may take several months. Therefore, it takes a significant amount of time anywhere from five to seven months after parents have applied for services before the clients receive child support. Administrative states can clearly accomplish this task in half the amount of time. 10. Administrative orders can be automatically updated based on changed circumstances unless the parties request a hearing. The flexibility of automatically adjusting the administrative order benefits both parties by adjusting the order in a timely manner and reflects the most current earning/child support amount owed by the non-custodial parent. This is important if the non-custodial parent is laid off or otherwise has a downgraded earning capacity or experiences increased earnings.

Page 61 of 78

11. Administrative law Judges orders are final when signed, subject to appeal through judicial review. There is no time delay in obtaining and enforcing an administrative order. This expedites the process. Legislation The DWSS has suggested a bill draft that would assist in expediting the current Hearing Master system which will address some of the concerns until an ALJ process can be implemented. A proposed Bill Draft that covers the statutory changes necessary to implement the recommended ALJ course of action is included as Appendix N should the legislature decide to pursue this course. Conclusion DWSS agrees with MAXIMUSs recommendation for greater usage of administrative process and procedures. Currently, Nevada has the ability to administratively serve subpoenas and liens. It also has a quasi-judicial process that requires Hearing Masters to make recommendations. The order is not final until reviewed and approved by a District Court Judge. It is believed it would be more cost effective and efficient to utilize administrative hearing officers with the opportunity to seek judicial review, rather than requiring all cases be reviewed by the Court. A limited Hearing Master system may wish to be retained by the Courts to hear cases involving modification of existing court orders or contempt. It is the intention of DWSS to follow two fronts: the use of ALJs as the primary resource for enforcing orders and establishing orders; and, the use of Hearing Masters to amend existing court orders and to utilize contempt procedures. COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMENTS Clark County Finally, the DWSS report recommends adoption of an administrative process for establishment of paternity and support orders and enforcement of the orders. The conclusion that administrative hearing officers are necessarily more efficient and timely than the current quasi-judicial process does not appear to be supported by the evidence. Indeed, in 2003, Florida changed from a quasijudicial to an administrative process. The Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA), a special unit of the Florida Legislature, conducted an evaluation of the statewide implementation of the administrative process, and found that all expected benefits had not been met. The expected benefits included a significant reduction in time and cost establishing orders, an increase in the number of orders established, and a limit in the use of the judicial process to complex cases. Comparing the cost, timeliness, and compliance rates of support orders established through the administrative and judicial processes, OPPAGA found that, since its implementation in 2003, fewer support orders were Page 62 of 78

being established through the administrative process than was anticipated; the administrative process took an average of 25 fewer days to establish support orders than through the courts (227 vs. 252 days), but took over seven months to complete; compliance rates were similar (66% vs. 68%); and [based on a comparison of hearing-related costs of the two processes] administrative hearings were more costly than judicial hearings (OPPAGA, Report No. 06-03, September 2006). DWSS recognizes that there would be a transitional increase in the overall cost of the program but states that this cost increase would be reduced over time. The DWSS analysis recognizes a continued need for judicial involvement (only the court can modify court orders) but transfers this cost from the State to the Counties, thereby reducing the State cost of the program but not the overall cost (State and County) of the program. We recognize that the current 10 day objection period inherent in the hearing master / judicial model could be eliminated in an administrative model, but believe that this delay could be reduced or minimized legislatively, by court rule or by CSEP policy changes. There is an additional current delay in enforcement of child support orders through wage withholding caused by bad employer/address data in NOMADS, forms generation in NOMADS, mailing and compliance time frames by employers. These time delays could be minimized, and our business partners could process and respond to our wage withholding notices more efficiently, by implementation of electronic wage withholding notices. Clark County believes that these system enhancements for all cases are a better approach to issues of timeliness and efficiency than creating another layer of bureaucracy, at a higher cost, which will only impact a significantly smaller percentage of cases. Washoe County We strongly disagree with the recommendation of DWSS to provide for the overall use of Administrative processes and ALJs rather than judicial officers. We do believe that such actions as wage withholdings and drivers license suspension could be provided for administratively, much the same way that tax intercepts are handled at this time. However, we do not believe that moving to an Administrative process should be the priority focus. At this time, the court system is not CSEPs greatest weakness. We would note that our Court Master in Washoe County regularly conducts hearings via teleconference. It should also be stated that Washoe County has been attempting to create video conferencing with DWSS for purposes of State IV-D child support planning meetings and to date; DWSS has been unable to accommodate such request. We are concerned that the same would be met with respect to the Administrative process. Additionally, we are concerned about the utter lack of security in these oft times highly contested and highly emotional matters. Elko County The Elko County Court Master already allows telephone testimony. Elko County Justice Court has a video conference connection to the Washoe County Crime Page 63 of 78

Lab. With some work and compatible technology and careful scheduling, it should be available for the Court Master. In general the Court Master works very well in Elko County. Our caseworkers get into Court quickly and the orders are entered quickly. We do not support a part-time administrative law judge coming to Elko a few days a month. That would erode the excellent service we provide our customers. In addition, the Elko County Court Master hears the juvenile delinquent, 432B cases, and restraining orders. The Court Master knows the families well because there is a large cross-over between those cases and the child support cases. DWSS RESPONSE TO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMENTS The benefits of an Administrative Law Judge system are outlined above. As indicated by some of the comments, many of the enforcement tools do not require court intervention. The utilization of an administrative process coexisting with a judicial process will expedite the availability of these administrative tools. The court system should be reserved for the more complex cases and situations. Although the Nevada Supreme Court is considering allowing technology to hold hearings, the law (NRS 3.100) currently requires hearings to be held in the County Seat or other location as designated by the County Commission. This hampers the ability to hold hearings at places convenient to the parties and the adjudicator. Although some Judicial Districts are able to perform expeditiously, there is a lack of uniformity among judicial districts. Each Judicial District has different rules, different formats, different processes that currently must be addressed by the program and impedes uniform training for the hearing masters. A statewide administrative process will facilitate the ability to have uniform procedures, and hold hearings more expeditiously, conveniently and timely than the current judicial process can. In addition, the Administrative Law Judges will be consistently trained.

Page 64 of 78

F. Improvements in information technology including technology for case management to replace NOMADS
There were several recommendations made for improvements in information technology throughout the MAXIMUS report. In addition, several technological improvements were subsequently identified in the development of the CSEP Strategic Plan discussed in Section III. D. The recommendations for improvements to information technology addressed in this section are as follows: 1. Replacement of the IV-D components of NOMADS 2. Streamline mail handling to include bar coding and enhance NOMADS to update records. 3. Enhance Central offices web site for case participants and employers to allow customer input of information and availability of forms. 4. Ease employer burden via internet, VRU and toll-free phone. 5. Automation enhancements to improve the enforcement process. 6. Clean-up of the employer database. 7. Update Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) information for auto generated license suspensions. 8. Develop management reports for data reliability. WHAT WAS RECOMMENDATION #1? MAXIMUS recommended replacement of the IV-D components of NOMADS This recommendation may be the one most clamored for by the case managers around the state replace the statewide child support case management system NOMADS. Since NOMADS won't be cost effective until next year, we delay this recommendation until the state can plan appropriately for the next generation of automation, case data cleanup and conversion. The financial case data in NOMADS are notoriously unreliable, causing individual financial audits for each case before a hearing. Two subsystems work in unison with NOMADS to overcome its limitations. The workarounds used by case managers are elaborate, and the number of system fixes reflected in work tickets is high. The inefficiency of what is already a clearly out-dated system hurts productivity as much as any other case-processing deficiency. The good news is that replacement systems are cheaper and easier to implement than the legacy systems. Cognitive models using artificial intelligence will lead to predictive actions by the new system based on its own case data analysis. Replacing NOMADS would still be a very large undertaking, and should be done in conjunction with the regionalization and centralization, and if the state chooses, the statization of the program.
MAXIMUS Performance Audit, Executive Summary, page 15.

Page 65 of 78

THE MANNER IN WHICH DWSS ADDRESSED RECOMMENDATION #1 As mentioned in Section II. Background, NOMADS is the mainframe system used to administer most aspects of the major public assistance programs of Food Stamps, TANF, and Medicaid Eligibility in addition to CSEP. Nevada is one of only a handful of states that have a child support enforcement system that is integrated with public assistance programs. The overall technical architecture of NOMADS has reached maturity and requires updating and/or replacement during the next several years to adequately and timely support future business needs. CSEP users, including the county DAs, continue to request more functionality, ease of use, web enabled interactivity capabilities, and ease in adding new code. DWSS established a high level IV-D requirements definition task force to identify CSEP system functionality so possible alternatives can be evaluated. Participants in the task force included DWSS CSEP and Information Systems staff as well as representatives from Clark, Washoe, Elko and Churchill County District Attorneys Offices. Appendix O contains the final Project Report. Information from this report was used to prepare a Technology Investment Request (TIR) which was submitted to DoIT for inclusion in the DWSS Agency Request budget. The scope of the TIR is to: Comprehensively review the ability of the NOMADS software application to perform business responsibilities required by federal and state laws, regulations and policy. Examine the ability of the IV-D specific application modules within NOMADS to promote business efficiencies and cost-effective case management. Determine the long-term viability of the IV-D specific application modules within NOMADS to provide continued support of Divisional responsibilities and to integrate into DoITs global information technology plan. Analyze the cost-effectiveness and functionality of the IV-D specific application modules within NOMADS in comparison to other software applications used by other state or county governments engaged in similar business activities. Identify best practice software support options utilized by other states to promote business efficiencies and cost-effective operations. Recommend software application improvement or replacement options using provided high level system requirements, to include a preliminary cost analysis and implementation plan(s) and timelines of these options.

At the conclusion of the project, DWSS anticipates the following achievements: Identification of overall CSEP modernization requirements and scope; A Cost Benefit Analysis of modernization requirements and alternatives; Page 66 of 78

Assessment and selection of appropriate CSEP modernization alternatives; Documented CSEP high level business and technical system requirements; Master schedule and approach for modernizing or replacing the CSEP applications; Master plan for funding CSEP modernization.

A decision unit for this project has been prepared and may be submitted in DWSSs Agency Request budget. The estimated cost for the project is $826,612 in SFY 2010 and $221,433 in SFY 2011 for a total of $1,048,045. 66% of the costs will be funded with federal child support enforcement funds ($544,237 and $144,819) respectively and the balance will be funded with State Share of Collections ($280,365 and $74,603 respectively). Appendix P contains a copy of the TIR as well as the decision unit. DWSS past system upgrade experience, and similar child support enforcement activities within other States, clearly indicates that the process of modernizing child support enforcement applications is a multi-year multi-million dollar effort. There are many Federal requirements that must be met in order to secure federal participation in the endeavor. Modernization of Nevadas child support enforcement systems is expected to require a four (4) to six (6) year period and cost in the tens of millions of dollars. It should be noted here and throughout the other recommendations that DWSS application development resources are limited. Due to the recent spate of budget cuts and the bleak financial outlook projected for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, DWSS has prioritized the Information Systems (IS) workload to help offset some of the negative consequences associated with the budget reductions by focusing IS resources on employee efficiency and productivity enhancing initiatives for all programs administered by DWSS. All of the IS issues related with CSEP as outlined in CSEP Strategic Plan are documented and included in the DWSS IS Strategic Plan. While some of these issues, including document imaging, are currently in the implementation process, many of the identified issues are not deemed critical at this point in time as compared to other IS related endeavors within DWSS. Therefore, barring a complete reprioritization of the IS Strategic Plan to include all CSEP Strategic Plan initiatives as priority issues at the expense of other DWSS mission critical initiatives, additional MSA Contract services would be required to address many of the IS related issues in the 2010 2011 biennium. WHAT WAS RECOMMENDATION #2? MAXIMUS recommended CSEP streamline mail handling to include bar coding and enhance NOMADS to update records. A central mail room, expanding the Page 67 of 78

one used for the State Collection and Disbursement Unit (SCaDU) today, will sort all of the mail statewide and image the mail to provide the beginning of a paperless office approach, keeping hard copies of very small percentage of incoming mail and forwarding them to one of the three regional offices. The imaged documents can be called up at the state or Regional Offices without the need for physical transfer.
MAXIMUS Performance Audit, Executive Summary, page 11.

THE MANNER IN WHICH DWSS ADDRESSED RECOMMENDATION #2 As previously mentioned in Section III A., the establishment of a central mail room is dependent upon the implementation of document imaging which is discussed in section III E. of this report. Prior to the implementation of document imaging, DWSS Information Systems staff estimates it will require 1,500 hours of programming in order to bar code CSEP documents generated by NOMADS. It is assumed this programming would be done under a Master Services Agreement (MSA) at a rate of $93/hour resulting in an unbudgeted cost of $139,500. Please refer to Appendix R for a summary of information technology recommendations and initiatives. WHAT WAS RECOMMENDATION #3? Enhance the DWSS website MAXIMUS addressed website issues in Section C.7 of their audit and made several recommendations which are paraphrased as follows: We recommend DWSS consider enhancing the state's Web site to provide options for case participants to access case-specific information, to provide information on-line and to allow electronic completion and submittal of an application for child support services, request a debit card and sign up for direct deposit. In addition, we recommend DWSS consider enhancing the state's Web site to provide additional options specifically for employers.
MAXIMUS Performance Audit, Section C, pages 42 - 44.

THE MANNER IN WHICH DWSS ADDRESSED RECOMMENDATION #3 As previously mentioned in Section III A., a Customer Service Website is being created using the data tables from the VRU. DWSS Customer Service and Information Systems staff is finalizing the design requirements and functionality. The website will contain the same information that is available on the VRU; therefore, additional resources are not needed for the completion of the website. However, in order to expand the websites functionality as recommended by MAXIMUS, additional resources will be needed. DWSS Information Systems Development staff estimates the need for 3,000 hours of programming under a Master Services Agreement (MSA) at a projected rate of Page 68 of 78

$93/hour resulting in an unbudgeted cost of $279,000. Please refer to Appendix R for a summary of information technology recommendations and initiatives. WHAT WAS RECOMMENDATION #4? MAXIMUS recommended CSEP ease employer burden via internet, VRU and tollfree phone. An improved Voice Response Unit (VRU) would be able to resolve inquiries that have automated answers, such as whether a payment has been received recently or the balance of the arrearages owing Another component will be the ability to conduct outbound sequenced calling or emailing, whichever the parent prefers, to provide proactive notice of an important case event or date.
MAXIMUS Performance Audit, Executive Summary, page 10.

THE MANNER IN WHICH DWSS ADDRESSED RECOMMENDATION #4 Goal 3 of the CSEP Strategic Plan (see Appendix D) is that all children in IV-D cases receive financial support from parents as ordered. The first objective of this goal is to increase the percent of current support collected by 3% annually. Expanding auto-dialer options was an early intervention strategy to encourage noncustodial parents to provide timely current support payments intended to achieve this goal and objective. As previously mentioned in Section III A., improvements to the routing, logic and flow of the Voice Response Unit (VRU) that can be accomplished with existing resources have been identified and are being pursued. A model of the VRU with the proposed routing and flow has been developed and is being tested using staff from the field. A draft script has also been created. Once the model has incorporated changes and been approved for implementation, the system will need to be re-recorded in English and Spanish. These improvements are planned to be completed in SFY 2009 using existing resources. To fully implement the other VRU improvements, a web application must be developed which is estimated to require 1,600 hours of programming. Also, 240 hours of programming are estimated to be required to develop an interface file of employer data for the VRU. In addition, 240 hours of programming are estimated to develop the recommended auto-dialer options. These projects combined require 2,080 hours of programming under a Master Services Agreement (MSA) at a rate of $93/hour resulting in an unbudgeted cost of $193,440. Please refer to Appendix R for a summary of information technology recommendations and initiatives.

Page 69 of 78

WHAT WAS RECOMMENDATION #5? A number of enhancements to improve the enforcement process were identified in the MAXIMUS audit as well as in the CSEP Strategic Plan that included the following: (a) Interface with Department of Defense (DoD) for electronic income withholding order. (b) Elimination of duplicate income withholding orders. (c) Automation of the Unemployment Insurance (UIB) Benefit Intercept Process. (d) Initiate an automatic withdrawal process for NCP payments. (e) Participate in the Query Interstate Cases for Kids (QUICK) system. (f) Alternate simplified ledger for dissemination to parties, other states. THE MANNER IN WHICH DWSS ADDRESSED RECOMMENDATION #5 To fully implement these recommendations, DWSS Information Systems Development staff estimates the need for 2,080 hours of programming under a Master Services Agreement (MSA) at a projected rate of $93/hour resulting in an unbudgeted cost of $193,440. Please refer to Appendix R for an itemization of the number of programming hours estimated for each of these enhancements as well as a summary of information technology recommendations and initiatives. WHAT WAS RECOMMENDATION #6? MAXIMUS recommended the clean-up of the employer database Based on our findings, we recommend the State undertake an effort to review and correct the employer database. This will be a massive task and clearly cannot be performed by the Help Desk which is currently tasked with adding/updating employer information in the Employer Table. Based on the cursory review conducted of the employer records contained within the Employer Table and the number of duplicate records discovered, we place a high priority on the clean-up of this Employer Table as new records are being added continuously, further increasing the likelihood of an increased number of duplicate records.
MAXIMUS Performance Audit, Section D, page 54.

THE MANNER IN WHICH DWSS ADDRESSED RECOMMENDATION #6 DWSS Information Services Development staff prepared a Planning Document (see Appendix Q) in which several obstacles and complications were identified. Existing Information Services resources are currently allocated to other CSEP and Division priorities so resolution of this issue requires additional funding. The cost to programmatically clean-up the employer database is estimated to be an unbudgeted amount of $854,220. Page 70 of 78

In light of the complexity in addressing the employer data base issues, DWSS is exploring the possibility of outsourcing this particular function. There are vendors that maintain employer databases, handle income withholding notices and medical support notices, and provide customer service to employers. If outsourcing this function appears to be cost effective, DWSS will pursue a request for interest and a subsequent request for proposals. WHAT WAS RECOMMENDATION #7? Goal 3 of the CSEP Strategic Plan (see Appendix D) is that all children in IV-D cases receive financial support from parents as ordered. The third objective of this goal is to implement remedies that avoid the accumulation of arrears, eliminate uncollectible debts, and write-off debts to ensure the principal balance owing on June 30 2008, are not exceeded in subsequent years. Enhancing the interface between Nevadas DMV and CSEP so that license suspensions are automated was an action step intended to achieve this goal and objective. THE MANNER IN WHICH DWSS ADDRESSED RECOMMENDATION #7 Existing Information Services resources are currently allocated to other CSEP and Division priorities so resolution of this issue requires additional funding. To fully implement these recommendations, DWSS Information Systems Development staff estimates the need for 500 hours of programming under a Master Services Agreement (MSA) at a projected rate of $93/hour resulting in an unbudgeted cost of $46,500. Corresponding costs to the DMV have not been identified. Please refer to Appendix R for a summary of information technology recommendations and initiatives. In addition, DWSS is reviewing the status of arrearages to determine whether there is aging debt that should be compromised. WHAT WAS RECOMMENDATION #8? Goal 5 of the CSEP Strategic Plan is to increase the programs cost effectiveness (i.e. the ratio of total IV-D dollars collected divided by the total IV-D dollars expended) by 25 cents (from $3.51 to $3.76) in the next three years by ensuring technology is used to enhance efficiency; increasing the quality and availability of staff support and resources; and addressing case processing issues. The second objective of this goal is to pass the data reliability audit for FFY 2008. One of the tactics to achieve this goal and objective is to develop management reports for data reliability.

Page 71 of 78

THE MANNER IN WHICH DWSS ADDRESSED RECOMMENDATION #8 Existing Information Services resources are currently allocated to other CSEP and Division priorities so resolution of this issue requires additional funding. To fully implement this recommendation, DWSS Information Systems Development staff estimates the need for 1,784 hours of programming under a Master Services Agreement (MSA) at a projected rate of $93/hour resulting in an unbudgeted cost of $165,912. Please refer to Appendix R for a summary of information technology recommendations and initiatives. COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMENTS Clark County Review of the MAXIMUS recommendations did, however, cause the program to critically analyze areas in need of improvement. The section of the report addressing the need to modernize our automated case management system (NOMADS) is of overwhelming significance (Appendix O) and if any one recommendation is to be implemented, this undoubtedly will have the most significant impact on future performance, both in terms of adding additional functionality and efficiency to the system as well as moving Nevada to the forefront of high performance States (it should be clearly stated that failure to modernize our 1st generation automated system will, by inertia, cause Nevada to fall further behind our sister states, most of whom are implementing 2nd and 3rd generation automated systems). Washoe County Systemically, we agree that the ground work for many recommended changes lies with the replacement of NOMADS and document imaging. The Counties have agreed, via Interlocal Contract, to commit at least 25% of their Federal incentive dollars beginning with the year 2007 to fund Statewide program enhancements, recognizing the need for future funding of IT endeavors. However, we must also be provided a voice in the process. With respect to the replacement of NOMADS, we participated in the high level IV-D requirements task force to identify necessary system functionality to perform at a high level. While acknowledging that this is a multi-year multimillion dollar effort, it is the cornerstone of the future of this program and must be seriously considered. While funding clearly will remain an issue, without it CSEP will continue to be handicapped by its current technology. Lyon County There needs to be an attempt to upgrade the current computer system which the child support services rely on. The current NOMADS system is outdated.

Page 72 of 78

Elko County The State acknowledged that the number of work order tickets is high for NOMADS fixes. Once again, the State spent the time to calculate how expensive it would to be fix some-things, rather than spend the money on fixing it. The state needs to make IV-D work order tickets a higher priority then what has been given to the IV-D program in the past years. DWSS RESPONSE TO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMENTS DWSS concurs with the various District Attorney responses. The reconfiguration of NOMADS, whether replaced or enhanced, and the other critical information technology endeavors require substantial fiscal and technological support. These items cannot be effectively implemented without adequate fiscal and technological support. DWSS is appreciative of the collaborative decision to reserve 25% of incentive funds for statewide endeavors. This will assist in moving our technology forward. It must be kept in mind that at this time incentive funds cannot be matched with federal funds, so the utilization of the dollars is more limited. In order to insure participating county involvement in determining the use of the 25% of incentive funds, a work group has been developed which will recommend the use of those dollars.

Page 73 of 78

V.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
In this report, DWSS has addressed the manner in which specific recommendations contained in the December 22, 2006 Performance Audit of the State of Nevadas Enforcement and Collection of Child Support prepared by MAXIMUS have been carried out. While much has been accomplished since the release of the audit, much remains to be done. BACKGROUND CSEP in Nevada has changed dramatically over the years since its inception in 1977. Prior to the enactment of the program pursuant to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, the various District Attorneys of the State of Nevada were responsible for child support enforcement services. Therefore, it was a natural transition for the new State CSEP program to contract with the District Attorneys who were performing those services. This permitted the District Attorneys to enhance their programs and there was continuity of service to the clients. At that time, there was a great deal of flexibility for program operations. Through the years, CSEP has evolved and the Federal requirements for administering the program have become more stringent. The Federal laws require states to have various statutes on their books; See e.g. 42 U.S.C. 654 (20) and 42 U.S.C 666. In 1996 the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) was passed by Congress. As part of this Act, performance measures were adopted for CSEP. These performance measures affected the amount of incentives a state could qualify for, indicated performance improvements that needed to be achieved and assessed penalties against the TANF Block Grant if there was a failure of a state to meet performance measures and data reliability requirements for two consecutive years. See Public Law 104-193, August 22, 1996. Additional regulations were adopted by the Federal agency to address these new requirements. The developments in CSEP have made it much more challenging to operate a program through elected officials. Rather than being a program with inherent continuity, the stability of CSEP is dependent upon periodic contract negotiations with the participating District Attorneys and the change in elected District Attorneys. This creates structural instability in the program. It is believed this is one of the bases for the recommendation in the MAXIMUS audit that the program should be operated by counties or, ultimately, by the state. If the program was operated by the counties, it would be part of the county budgets and not dependent upon the changing philosophy of an elected official. If the program were operated by the State, there would be continuity statewide as there would be one operational entity. Page 74 of 78

In addition, Nevadas PA programs are operated by the State rather than the counties, including TANF. The TANF child support cases, which are classified as PA cases, were historically handled by the participating District Attorney offices. These cases involve obtaining ongoing current support for families and recouping past due support which is assigned to the state. This recoupment is shared with the Federal agency. The portion retained by the state is what is referred to as SSC. The amounts recouped are not shared with the counties, but are the primary source of funds used to support the state program. Recently, there has been a shift in the caseload with a trend of District Attorneys returning the public assistance portion of the caseload to the state to service. These cases tend to be more difficult to work due to the fact that the client is required to cooperate with child support as a condition of receiving a TANF grant. Those classified as NPA cases have applied for the service and have an incentive to cooperate with the program. Based upon the fact TANF is state administered and counties do not receive any benefit from SSC, neither the counties nor the District Attorneys have a vested interest in collecting for PA cases, whether a penalty is assessed against the TANF Block Grant for failure to meet child support performance criteria or insuring the state has sufficient funds to operate the program. Although passing on an assessed penalty to a responsible District Attorney is provided for in the contract, there is no financial incentive to avoid a possible TANF penalty. A significant barrier to maintaining consistency in services in CSEP is the structural diversity of the program. Since a significant financial obligation is provided by the participating counties, they understandably, want to participate in any decision making regarding the program and any enhancements. If the program is to focus on advancing performance statewide, it is believed having a fully funded program by the state, whether financed by the state through paying for a county operation or the state directly operating the program, would ease the discussions and allow for timely decisions and actions. Improved performance of the program both statistically and in national rankings will be difficult unless and until there is structural and fiscal stability in the program. It is imperative the Legislature address the direction, the responsibility for program success, stable funding sources, and optimal program structure if the program is to advance. To this end DWSS recommends that the Legislature establish a Child Support Enforcement Task Force to study the organizational and programmatic structure of the child support enforcement program to provide recommendations on how to enhance service delivery, improve performance, and increase efficiencies and study the funding mechanisms of the child support enforcement program, and provide recommendations on the method of funding the program in the future. The proposed Task Force would include Page 75 of 78

representatives from the legislative branch, the executive branch, the judicial branch and the participating counties to provide recommendations on these complex issues. The legislature may want to consider introducing this bill. A proposed bill draft is included in Appendix G. IMPLEMENTATION TIMETABLE Recommendations that are currently being addressed as well as ones that are dependant upon approvals or actions by entities outside of DWSS are described and categorized into three groups as listed below. Please refer to page 1 of Appendix T for a Gantt chart depicting the estimated time frames for implementation of these recommendations. 1. Recommendations that can be accomplished with existing resources. 1.A. Improve management reporting through the IV-D Reports Workgroup using existing NOMADS functionality and resources. 1.B. Complete phase 1 of the document imaging project to include the architectural design and preparation of a Technology Investment Request (TIR). 1.C. Centralize various case processing and call center functions with existing resources. 1.D. Identify current training needs and use existing resources to develop course material and deliver training. 2. Recommendations dependant upon the establishment and implementation of a Child Support Enforcement Task Force. 2.A. Create and implement a CSEP Task Force in effect through the 2011 session. 2.B. Conduct strategic planning for the future planning of CSEP. 2.C. Consider funding options for improving performance and increasing efficiencies that require additional resources. 2.D. Implement performance improvements and efficiencies if funding is approved. 2.E. Consider creation of a State controlled and directed regional structure. 2.F. Implement a State controlled and directed regional structure as envisioned by the Task Force and approved by the Legislature. 2.G. Identify training needs and deliver training associated with a State controlled regional structure. 3. Recommendations dependant upon entities outside of DWSS. 3.A. Present options for the replacement of NOMADS to the 2009 Legislature.

Page 76 of 78

3.B. 3.C. 3.D. 3.E. 3.F. 3.G.

Conduct an assessment of the viability of replacing NOMADS, if approved. Seek federal and legislative approval to conduct a feasibility study to replace NOMADS. Initiate a feasibility study for the replacement of NOMADS. Consider funding options for phase 2 of document imaging. Implement phase 2 of document imaging if funding is approved. Analyze and report on using administrative processes vs. hearing masters.

IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES On page 2 of Appendix T, there is a matrix indicating the challenges to the implementation of each of the recommendations. The challenges are defined as follows: State Share of Collections (SSC) This source of funding has historically vacillated to the point of being unreliable. Relying on it for program expansion is risky, at best. State General Fund The State portion of CSEP budget account has historically been funded exclusively with SSC and it is uncertain as to whether general fund revenue will be available in the changing economic climate. Legislative Direction Recommendations requiring authorization of additional resources (staff, equipment, program funding) must be approved through Nevadas biennial legislative sessions. Federal Approval The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) has specific rules and regulations regarding automated system requirements, cost effectiveness and program performance measures. Competing Resources Because DWSS administers a variety of federally mandated public assistance programs, program and technical staff are often challenged with having to choose between competing priorities. Statutory Authority Certain aspects of CSEP are addressed in statute. Strategic Consensus Because CSEP is administered by the State through interlocal agreements with county District Attorneys, there are often competing interests that must be resolved.

Page 77 of 78

APPENDIX A
DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES B/A 3238 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT CALL CENTER CENTRALIZATION AND ENHANCEMENT

SUMMARY REVENUE BA 3238 3238 3238 G.L. # DESCRIPTION 2501 GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION 3533 FED CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM 4261 STATE SHARE OF COLLECTIONS TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE REVENUE PROGRAM ALLOCATION 34.00% 66.00% $ FY10 50,954 98,910 149,864 $ FY11 293,585 569,901 863,487 FUTURE BIENNIA COSTS 359,644 698,132 $ 1,057,776

EXPENDITURES BA 3238 3238 3238 3238 3238 CAT DESCRIPTION 01 PERSONNEL 04 OPERATING 04 NON-STATE OWNED BUILDING RENT 05 EQUIPMENT 26 INFORMATION SERVICES TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE EXPENDITURES FY10 102,188 8,472 16,920 12,400 9,883 149,864 FY11 355,523 17,193 50,760 365,000 75,011 863,487 FUTURE BIENNIA COSTS $ 823,851 43,986 101,520 88,419 $ 1,057,776

DETAIL PERSONNEL - CATEGORY 01 MONTH GRADE FILLED STEP TITLE FY10 Oct-09 34-01 FAMILY SERVICES SUPERVISOR I Oct-09 23-01 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I TOTAL NEW FY10 NO. OF POSITIONS/FTE = FY11 Oct-11 27-01 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III Oct-11 25-01 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II TOTAL NEW FY11 NO. OF POSITIONS/FTE = TOTAL FY11 POSITIONS/FTE = NOTE: PERSONNEL COSTS PROJECTED Months Remaining to End of FY 9 9 FY10 COST PER POS $ 44,819 30,477 FY11 COST PER POS $ 61,350 41,655 FY11 Sal & Ben Cost $ 61,350 124,965 186,316 FUTURE BIENNIA COSTS $ 122,701 249,931 372,632

# POSITION 1 3 4

FTE 0.75 2.25 3.00

FY10 COST $ 33,614 68,574 102,188

1 4 5 9

0.75 3.00 3.75

9 9

$ 102,188

47,632 44,494

35,724 133,483 169,207 $ 355,523 $

95,265 355,955 451,220 823,851

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 53 appendixes\Appendix A - Call center dec unit

CALL CENTER DETAIL

1 of 4

APPENDIX A
DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES B/A 3238 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT CALL CENTER CENTRALIZATION AND ENHANCEMENT

GRAND TOTAL POSITIONS/FTE FY10 GRAND TOTAL POSITIONS/FTE FY11

POS 4 9

FTE 3.00 7.00

OPERATING - CATEGORY 04 Costs obtained from SFY06 Actuals divided by the average number of FTEs employed Operating ANNUAL FY 06 FTE COST PER FTE FY10 FTE OR POS FY10 COST 69 $ 117.82 3.00 $ 353 69 110.08 3.00 330 69 24.01 3.00 72 69 29.35 3.00 88 N/A 3.11 4.00 12 N/A 96.20 4.00 385 62.50 4.00 250 16,920 N/A 4,546 79,498 12,267 1,077 69 69 69 69 66.24 1,158.36 178.74 15.69 85 199 3,475 536 47 FY11 FTE OR POS FY11 COST 7.00 $ 825 7.00 771 7.00 168 7.00 205 9.00 28 9.00 866 5.00 313 50,760 254 464 8,108 1,251 110 FUTURE BIENNIA COSTS $ 2,121 1,981 432 528 56 1,732 101,520 508 1,533 26,808 4,137 363

CAT 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04

G/L 7020 7040 7044 7045 7050 7054 7060 7071 7110 7255 7280 7285 7290 7296

OPERATING SUPPLIES PRINTING AND COPYING PRINTING AND COPYING PRINTING & COPYING - STATE PRINTING INSURANCE EXPENSE - EMPLOYEE BOND INSURANCE EXPENSE - AG TORT ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR HARDWARE MAINTENANCE (Netversant) NONSTATE OWNED BUILDING RENT 235 Sq. ft X 9 @ $2.00 per sq ft (full service lease) B&G 1/2% OF NON-STATE OWNED RENT N/A POSTAGE POSTAGE PAID TO STATE MAIL ROOM TELEPHONE DoIT LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHARGES

FY06 COST $ 8,086 7,555 1,648 2,014 N/A N/A

3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00

04 7299 04 7460 04 7980 TOTAL OPERATING - CAT Equipment CAT 05 05 GL 8241 8291

DoIT TELEPHONE AND DATA WIRING EQUIPMENT UNDER $1,000 (Telephone sets) COPIER LEASES 04

N/A N/A 11,232

N/A N/A 69

200.00 337.00 163.66

4.00 4.00 3.00 $

800 1,348 491 25,392

5.00 5.00 7.00 $

1,000 1,685 1,146 67,953

3,788 145,506

ITEM Supervisor's Modular Unit Professional's Modular Unit TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT

FY10 POS COST $ 3,400 $ 3,000 (Per quote by Centurion forwarded from Travis Miles)

FY10 COST FY11 POS 1 3,400 3 9,000

FY11 COST 5 15,000 350,000 $ 365,000

FUTURE BIENNIA COSTS

TOTAL EQUIPMENT - CAT 05

12,400

Information Svcs

Cost obtained from NEBS Equipment Schedule ANNUAL FY 06 FTE COST PER FTE FY10 FTE OR POS FY10 COST 69 23.55 3.00 71 FY11 FTE OR POS FY11 COST 7.00 165 20,000 4.00 400 FUTURE BIENNIA COSTS $ 545

CAT 26

GL 7021 7060 7073

ITEM OPERATING SUPPLIES - TONER CONTRACTS - TELEPHONE TRAINING SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE Novelle Suite

FY06 COST 1,616

100

1,800 2 of 4

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 53 appendixes\Appendix A - Call center dec unit

CALL CENTER DETAIL

APPENDIX A
DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES B/A 3238 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT CALL CENTER CENTRALIZATION AND ENHANCEMENT

26 26 26 26

7074 7299 7533 7771

Hummingbird Norton AV TOTAL SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE TELEPHONE MAINTENANCE DoIT TELEPHONE AND DATA WIRING DoIT E-MAIL CHARGES SOFTWARE (FOR NEW POSITIONS) PC Suite - Norton AV PC Suite - Hummingbird PC Suite - Microsoft Office XP PC Suite - Novell TOTAL SOFTWARE (FOR NEW POSITIONS) HARDWARE (FOR NEW POSITIONS) Desktop PC* Surge Protector w/ Battery Backup

25 20 $ 145 (Per quote by Centurion forwarded from Travis Miles) N/A 200.00 N/A N/A 70.20 N/A

4.00 4.00

100 80 42,000 1,000 351

450 360 84,000 1,264

4.00 4.00

800 281

5.00 5.00

44 216 315 250 825

4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

176 864 1,260 1,000

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

220 1,080 1,575 1,250

26

8371 8371 8371

1,283 75 1,358

4.00 4.00 $ $

5,132 300 9,883 149,864

5.00 5.00 $ $

6,415 375 75,011 863,487 $ $ 88,419 1,057,776

TOTAL IS - CAT 26 TOTAL EXPENDITURES

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 53 appendixes\Appendix A - Call center dec unit

CALL CENTER DETAIL

3 of 4

APPENDIX A IV-D CALL CENTER AS PROPOSED BY MAXIMUS

IV-D CALL CENTER SUP

LEVEL 1 CUSTOMER SERVICE STAFF

FAMILY SERVICES SUPERVISOR I 34

LEVEL 2 CUSTOMER SERVICE STAFF

The 5 level 2 positions would be added in FY2011 after the implementation of document imaging

CALL CENTER LEAD ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III 27

CALL CENTER LEAD ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III 27

CALL CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I 23

CALL CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I 23

CALL CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II 25

CALL CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II 25

CALL CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I 23

CALL CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I 23

CALL CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II 25

CALL CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II 25

CALL CENTER LEAD ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III 27

CALL CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I 23

EXISTING POSITIONS FY 2010 NEW POSITIONS FY 2011 NEW POSITIONS

FUNCTION STATE JOB TITLE STATE GRADE

NOTE - THIS ORGANIZATIONAL CHART IS INTENDED TO DEPICT CUSTOMER SERVICE POSITIONS AND FUNCTIONS COMPARABLE TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN THE MAXIMUS AUDIT

LEVEL 1 STAFF WOULD RESPOND TO INQUIRIES CONCERNING PAYMENTS, HEARING DATES, REPORTING ADDRESS CHANGES AND/OR EMPLOYMENT CHANGES AND REQUESTS FOR CASE STATUS.

LEVEL 2 STAFF WOULD HANDLE CALLS FOR MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION. THEY WOULD BE TRAINED IN PROVIDING MORE DETAILED INFORMATION AND TAKING MORE SPECIFIC ACTIONS.

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 53 appendixes\Appendix A - Call center dec unit

Page 4 of 4

Revised on 05/15/2008 Printed on 8/29/2008 at 11:16 AM

APPENDIX B DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES B/A 3238 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT MAXIMUS RECOMMENDATION #2 - CENTRALIZE SUPPORT FUNCTIONS CENTRALIZED SUPPORT POSITIONS AS PROPOSED BY DWSS

SUMMARY REVENUE G.L. # DESCRIPTION BA 3238 2501 GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION 3238 3533 FED CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM 3238 4261 STATE SHARE OF COLLECTIONS TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE REVENUE PROGRAM FY10 ALLOCATION 34.00% $ 147,940 66.00% 287,178 $ 435,118 FY11 $ 170,017 330,034 $ 500,051 FUTURE BIENNIA ONGOING COSTS $ 337,844 655,814 $ 993,658

EXPENDITURES BA CAT DESCRIPTION 3238 01 PERSONNEL 3238 04 OPERATING 3238 04 NON-STATE OWNED BUILDING RENT 3238 05 EQUIPMENT 3238 26 INFORMATION SERVICES TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE EXPENDITURES FY10 $ 303,361 13,004 84,600 18,000 16,153 $ 435,118 FY11 $ 368,342 15,566 112,800 3,343 $ 500,051

FUTURE BIENNIA ONGOING COSTS $ 736,684 24,687 225,600 6,687 $ 993,658

DETAIL PERSONNEL - CATEGORY 01 MONTH FILLED FY10 Oct-09 Oct-09 Oct-09 NOTE: PERSONNEL COSTS PROJECTED Months Remaining to End of FY 9 9 9 FY10 COST PER POS $ 53,549 49,835 46,440 FY11 COST PER FY10 COST POS 160,647 49,835 92,880 $ 59,199 80,837 54,955 FY11 Sal & Ben Cost 177,596 80,837 109,909 FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING COSTS) $ 355,192 161,673 219,819

GRADE - STEP 31-01 29-01 27-01

TITLE FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST II ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT IV ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III

# POSITION 3 1 2

FTE 2.25 0.75 1.50

TOTAL NEW FY10 NO. OF POSITIONS/FTE = TOTAL FY10 NO. OF POSITIONS/FTE = TOTAL FY11 POSITIONS/FTE =

6 6 6 POS 6 6

4.50 4.50 6.00 FTE 4.50 6.00 $

303,361 303,361 0 $

368,342 368,342 $

736,684 736,684

GRAND TOTAL POSITIONS/FTE FY10 GRAND TOTAL POSITIONS/FTE FY11

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 53 appendixes\Appendix B - Centralization dec unit

1 OF 4

APPENDIX B DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES B/A 3238 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT MAXIMUS RECOMMENDATION #2 - CENTRALIZE SUPPORT FUNCTIONS CENTRALIZED SUPPORT POSITIONS AS PROPOSED BY DWSS

OPERATING - CATEGORY 04 Costs obtained from SFY06 Actuals divided by the average number of FTEs employed Operating CAT 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 TOTAL OPERATING Equipment CAT 05 GL 8241 ITEM Supervisor's Modular Unit Professional's Modular Unit COST 3,400 3,000 G/L 7020 7040 7044 7045 7050 7054 7060 7071 7110 7255 7280 7285 7290 7296 7299 7460 7980 - CAT 04 FY06 COST OPERATING SUPPLIES $ 8,086 PRINTING AND COPYING 7,555 PRINTING AND COPYING 1,648 PRINTING & COPYING - STATE PRINTIN 2,014 INSURANCE EXPENSE - EMPLOYEE BOND N/A INSURANCE EXPENSE - AG TORT N/A ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR HARDWARE MAINTENANCE (Netversant) NONSTATE OWNED BUILDING RENT 235 Sq. ft X 9 @ $2.00 per sq ft (full service lease) B&G 1/2% OF NON-STATE OWNED RENT N/A POSTAGE 4,546 POSTAGE PAID TO STATE MAIL ROOM 79,498 TELEPHONE 12,267 1,077 DoIT LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHARGES DoIT TELEPHONE AND DATA WIRING N/A EQUIPMENT UNDER $1,000 (Telephone s N/A COPIER LEASES FY 06 FTE 69 69 69 69 N/A N/A

ANNUAL COST PER FTE $ 117.82 110.08 24.01 29.35 3.11 96.20 62.50

FY10 FTE OR POS FY10 COST 4.50 $ 530 4.50 495 4.50 108 4.50 132 6.00 19 6.00 577 6.00 375 84,600

FY11 FTE OR POS FY11 COST 6.00 $ 707 6.00 660 6.00 144 6.00 176 6.00 19 6.00 577

FUTURE BIENNIA (FTE ONGOING COSTS) $ 1,414 $ 1,321 $ 288 $ 352 $ 37 $ 1,154 225,600 1,128 795 13,900 2,145 188

112,800 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6 6 6.00 $ 564 397 6,950 1,072 94 1,200 2,022 982 128,366

N/A 69 69 69 69 N/A N/A

66.24 1,158.36 178.74 15.69 200.00 337.00 163.66

4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 6.00 6.00 4.50 $

423 298 5,213 804 71 1,200 2,022 736 97,604

11,232

69

1,964 250,287

FY10 POS

$ $

FY10 COST FY11 POS 6 18,000 $ 18,000

FY11 COST $ -

FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING COSTS)

TOTAL EQUIPMENT - CAT 05 Information Svcs CAT 26 GL 7021 7073 Cost obtained from NEBS Equipment Schedule ITEM OPERATING SUPPLIES - TONER SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE Novelle Suite Hummingbird FY06 COST 1,616 FY 06 FTE 69 1,625

ANNUAL COST PER FTE 23.55 $ 100 25

FY10 FTE OR POS FY10 COST 4.50 106 -

FY11 FTE OR POS FY11 COST 6.00 141 6.00 6.00 600 150

FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING COSTS) $ 283 1,200 300 2 OF 4

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 53 appendixes\Appendix B - Centralization dec unit

APPENDIX B DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES B/A 3238 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT MAXIMUS RECOMMENDATION #2 - CENTRALIZE SUPPORT FUNCTIONS CENTRALIZED SUPPORT POSITIONS AS PROPOSED BY DWSS

Norton AV TOTAL SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 26 26 26 26 7299 7392 7533 7771 DoIT TELEPHONE AND DATA WIRING DoIT Assessments DoIT E-MAIL CHARGES N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

20 145 200.00 318.50 70.20 44 216 315 250 825 1,283 75 1,358 6.00 4.50 4.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00

1,200 1,433 316 264 1,296 1,890 1,500

6.00

120 1,911 421 -

240

6.00 6.00

3,822 842

SOFTWARE (FOR NEW POSITIONS) PC Suite - Norton AV PC Suite - Hummingbird PC Suite - Microsoft Office XP PC Suite - Novell TOTAL SOFTWARE (FOR NEW POSITIONS) HARDWARE (FOR NEW POSITIONS) Desktop PC* Surge Protector w/ Battery Backup

26

8371 8371 8371

6.00 6.00 $ $

7,698 450 16,153 435,118 $ $

3,343 500,051 $ $ 6,687 993,658

TOTAL IS - CAT 26 TOTAL EXPENDITURES

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 53 appendixes\Appendix B - Centralization dec unit

3 OF 4

FFY 2006 OCSE RANKINGS

APPENDIX I CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS OF STATES SIMILAR TO NEVADA CASES AND COLLECTIONS PER FTE

1 = GOOD PERFORMER, 2 = AVERAGE PERFORMER, 3 = POOR PERFORMER

CURRENT COLLECTIONS PER FTE RANK

FULL TIME EQUIVALENT POSITIONS (FTE's)

SUPPORT ORDER ESTABLISHMENT

PERCENT OF NEVADA'S CASELOAD

ARREARS COLLECTED PER FTE RANK

TOTAL COLLECTIONS PER FTE RANK

CURRENT COLLECTIONS PER FTE

ARREARS PAYING PER FTE RANK

ADMIN $ SPENT PER FTE RANK

% OF NEVADA'S POPULATION

PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT

ARREARS COLLECTED PER FTE

TOTAL COLLECTIONS PER FTE

ARREARS PAYING PER FTE

ARREARAGE COLLECTION

CURRENT COLLECTIONS

2006 COMPOSITE RANK

COST EFFECTIVENESS

ADMIN $ SPENT PER FTE

CASES PER FTE RANK

STATES SOUTH DAKOTA IOWA UTAH WEST VIRGINIA COLORADO ARKANSAS MAINE NEBRASKA IDAHO KANSAS RHODE ISLAND DELAWARE CONNECTICUT ARIZONA HAWAII OKLAHOMA NEW MEXICO NEVADA DIST. OF COL.

7 14 4 3 21 18 16 31 27 12 33 41 17 22 40 52 51 49 53

1 10 6 12 9 16 7 28 27 35 49 33 39 30 50 40 47 44 54

4 10 19 15 28 29 24 8 33 36 27 25 38 52 31 46 44 54 47

6 12 7 27 10 23 42 16 44 22 35 25 37 41 54 30 20 48 53

3 15 35 23 42 39 38 45 20 47 27 49 46 34 24 41 51 48 50

1 5 7 12 18 22 23 24 32 34 40 41 42 43 46 47 48 53 54

41%

796,214

31%

109 613 559 522 702 803 290 434 162 605 120 223 503 1,082 205 650 371 462 205

457,976 369,403 215,177 248,559 271,183 159,551 242,022 312,091 592,357 169,479 367,554 253,894 344,401 168,779 326,290 216,484 139,931 222,701 195,955

5 13 45 38 34 50 40 24 2 48 15 37 20 49 22 44 52 43 46

564,067 486,523 281,940 334,850 358,745 207,969 348,660 380,386 749,899 260,695 459,996 312,795 473,914 262,019 426,841 314,657 200,571 274,773 236,262

6 12 44 38 31 51 36 26 2 48 17 41 13 47 22 40 52 45 49

420 300 140 217 202 153 231 242 680 216 485 255 402 195 498 268 184 241 379

49 32 1 17 12 2 19 24 52 16 50 26 48 10 51 29 9 22 45

149,884 139,354 75,336 97,296 133,550 61,026 120,186 106,056 229,982 88,180 121,571 94,332 159,958 91,943 117,103 126,522 71,508 81,401 70,493

9 13 47 36 15 51 21 32 3 43 20 39 6 40 24 17 49 46 50

193 161 89 108 124 83 101 107 255 101 142 105 151 77 109 119 65 87 65

4 7 43 35 23 47 40 36 2 39 11 37 9 49 33 27 51 44 52

76,026 88,131 70,394 71,369 102,764 56,005 88,457 106,764 153,284 87,477 106,136 130,120 136,388 68,307 91,271 86,533 95,870 99,609 105,521

13 24 10 11 38 3 25 44 54 22 43 51 53 9 28 21 34 37 42

14 17 32 29 26 34 30 31 19 36 26 39 25 34 30 30 41 40 47

1 166% 1 70%

2,988,046 116% 2,645,330 103% 1,812,035 71%

1 102% 2 128% 2 110% 2 2 2 60% 94% 99%

4,861,515 190% 2,834,797 111% 1,317,207 1,774,571 1,499,402 51% 69% 58%

2 118% 2 3 52% 51%

2,775,997 108% 1,057,832 864,764 41% 34%

3 182% 3 190% 3 92%

3,502,309 137% 6,338,755 247% 1,283,388 50%

3 156% 3 61%

3,617,316 141% 1,969,915 77%

3 100% 3 70%

2,565,382 100% 588,292 23%

RANKED BETWEEN 1 - 15 RANKED BETWEEN 16 - 39 RANKED GREATER THAN 39

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 53 appendixes\Appendix I - Comparable states 08-13-08

Page 1 of 2

Printed on 8/29/2008 at 9:46 AM

COMPOSITE RANK 44 45 24 21 48 53 35 9 5 47 37 42 49 51 34 25 1 43 32

CASES PER FTE

POPULATION

AVG RANK

FFY 2006 OCSE RANKINGS

APPENDIX I CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM IN STATES SIMILAR TO NEVADA ADMINISTRATION CHARACTERISTICS

1 = GOOD PERFORMER, 2 = AVERAGE PERFORMER, 3 = POOR PERFORMER

SUPPORT ORDER ESTABLISHMENT

PERCENT OF NEVADA'S CASELOAD

PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT

ARREARAGE COLLECTION

CURRENT COLLECTIONS

2006 COMPOSITE RANK

COST EFFECTIVENESS

LEWIN GROUP ADMIN VS JUDICIAL RATING

STATES SOUTH DAKOTA IOWA UTAH WEST VIRGINIA COLORADO ARKANSAS MAINE NEBRASKA IDAHO KANSAS RHODE ISLAND DELAWARE CONNECTICUT ARIZONA HAWAII OKLAHOMA NEW MEXICO NEVADA DIST. OF COL.

LEWIN GROUP ADMIN VS JUDICIAL DESCRIPTION

CSEP PROGRAM ADMINISTE RED BY: State State State State State State State

CSEP PROGRAM OPERATED BY: State State State State County State State

IS THE CSEP IV-D ONLY OR COMBINED WITH OTHER PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS? IV-D IV-D IV-D IV-D IV-D IV-D IV-D IV-D IV-D COMBO IV-D IV-D IV-D IV-D IV-D IV-D IV-D COMBO N/A

7 14 4 3 21 18 16 31 27 12 33 41 17 22 40 52 51 49 53

1 10 6 12 9 16 7 28 27 35 49 33 39 30 50 40 47 44 54

4 10 19 15 28 29 24 8 33 36 27 25 38 52 31 46 44 54 47

6 12 7 27 10 23 42 16 44 22 35 25 37 41 54 30 20 48 53

3 15 35 23 42 39 38 45 20 47 27 49 46 34 24 41 51 48 50

1 5 7 12 18 22 23 24 32 34 40 41 42 43 46 47 48 53 54

1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

41% 166% 70% 102% 128% 110% 60% 94% 99% 118% 52% 51% 182% 190% 92% 156% 61% 100% 70%

9 Administrative 11 Mixed 8 Administrative 12 Mixed 9 Administrative 9 Administrative 5 Highly Administrative 15 Highly Judicial 16 Highly Judicial 10 Administrative 12 Mixed 13 Quasi-Judicial 13 Quasi-Judicial 16 Highly Judicial 12 Mixed 11 Mixed 14 Quasi-Judicial 14 Quasi-Judicial 16 Highly Judicial

Combination Combination State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State, County & private contractor State State State County State

RANKED BETWEEN 1 - 15 RANKED BETWEEN 16 - 39 RANKED GREATER THAN 39


K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 53 appendixes\Appendix I - Comparable states 08-13-08 Page 2 of 2 Printed on 8/29/2008 at 9:46 AM

APPENDIX H CHILD SUPPORT FEES IN ARKANSAS, IDAHO AND SOUTH DAKOTA Arkansas $18 for base cost which includes overhead costs and activities other than legal services; $80 for the initiation of court action which is assessed when a complaint, motion or petition with summons, order and citation, affidavit and arrest warrant or notice/order of hearing is prepared and forwarded to the clerk for processing in all cases; $100 for an Out-of-Court Settlement assessed when the initiated court action is resolved prior to court appearance in all cases; $150 for an In-Court Settlement assessed when the initiated court action is resolved at the court appearance without trial; $250 for trial assessed when the initiated court action is resolved by the court after a hearing is held; $100 per hour assessed to reflect legal preparation such as research, interviewing witnesses, preparation of extraordinary pleadings or legal briefs, preliminary appearances (pre-trial conference arraignment) or pre-trial discovery (interrogatories, requests, depositions). Idaho $210 for a temporary support order; $270 for a Support order by default; $450 for a support order established by stipulation and/or acknowledgment; $525 for a support order established, resulting from trial; $450 for a modification order by stipulation; $525 for a modification order by trial; $270 for a modification order by default; $450 for a contempt action by stipulation; $525 for a contempt action by trial; $120 for a subsequent contempt action; $240 for a paternity complaint- alleged father excluded; $270 for a fatherhood and/or support order by default; $450 for a fatherhood and support establishment by agreement and/or acknowledgment prior to trial; $525 for a fatherhood and support establishment by trial; $625 for appeals to local District Court; $100 per hour for legal services involving an attorney; $50 per hour for legal services involving a paralegal; $25 for each federal tax offset; $25 for each state tax offset; $25 Federal Collection fee charged to the CP. South Dakota $5 application fee for IV-D services; $20 fee for locate only; $50 ($54 if no SSN) for child custody or parental kidnapping; $25 for wage withholding only.

APPENDIX G
TASK FORCE TO STUDY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SERVICES PROVISION

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE. The Division of Welfare and Supportive Services shall convene a child support enforcement task force that includes: 1. One member of the Assembly appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly; 2. One member of the Senate appointed by the Majority Leader of the Senate; 3. One member from the Directors Office of the Department of Health and Human Services appointed by the Director who shall serve as chairperson; 4. Four representatives from the Division appointed by the Administrator; 5. Three representatives from the District Attorneys Offices that participate in the child support enforcement program appointed by the District Attorneys Association; and 6. One representative of the judiciary appointed by the Nevada Supreme Court. The task force shall study the organizational and programmatic structure of the child support enforcement program to provide recommendations on how to enhance service delivery, improve performance, and increase efficiencies and study the funding mechanisms of the child support enforcement program, and provide recommendations on the method of funding the program in the future. The study must consider the impact on customers and the fiscal effect of legislation required to implement the recommendations. The report providing analysis and recommendations must be presented by the Division to the 2011 Legislative Session.

STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES


JIM GIBBONS Governor

Child Support Enforcement Program 1470 College Parkway Carson City, Nevada 89706-7924 (775) 684-0704 Fax (775) 684-0702

MICHAEL J. WILLDEN Director NANCY KATHRYN FORD Administrator

May 29, 2008 CSEP IM #31-08 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: IV-D DISTRIBUTION LIST LOUISE BUSH, CHIEF, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM INCENTIVE DISBURSEMENT PROCEDURE

MEMO APPLIES TO: ALL STAFF LISTED ABOVE ACTION REQUESTED: [X] YES [ ] NO

As outlined in CSEP IM 61-07, the State must now report all expenditures using incentive funds on the quarterly OCSE-396A CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURE REPORT. As a result, DWSS began a review process on how incentive awards were distributed to counties. Based on the research conducted and guidance provided by the Administration for Childrens and Families Office of Child Support Enforcement, it is necessary to modify the procedure of distributing incentive payments to counties. 45 CFR 92.20(a) (7) Cash management requires States to have procedures for minimizing the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the U.S. Treasury and disbursement by grantees (states) and sub grantees (counties) whenever advance payment procedures are used. Consequently, the state must draw funds from the U.S. Treasury based on immediate disbursement needs. 45 CFR 92.21 defines interest earned on advance payments. Interest earned on advances is not considered program income (45 CFR 92.25) and must be promptly returned to the granting federal agency (at least quarterly). Counties may retain up to $100 per year for administration. Based on the foregoing information, counties are directed to expend prior years incentive funds before receiving FFY 06 incentive awards. At such time a county is seeking to expend FFY 06 incentive award funds, the following procedures will apply: 1) Submit proof of how funds will be expended to the Chief in the form of a county purchase order, invoice or a county/vendor contract specifying payment terms; 2) The State will draw the funds from the federal government (approximately 3-4 days to process), and 3) The State will promptly process the disbursement (approximately an additional 7-10 days) and distribute the funds to the county. Additionally, the full amount of interest earned on interest bearing accounts in which federal incentive funds were deposited must be remitted to the State of Nevada, Child Support Enforcement Working for the Welfare of ALL Nevadans

CSEP IM #31-08 Page 2 of 2

Program (CSEP) by June 30, 2008. CSEP will return these funds to the Office of Child Support Enforcement as required. Any future interest earned may be remitted quarterly as long as the funds remain in an interest-bearing account or until the principle is exhausted through re-investment into the program. If there are further questions, jxalexander@dwss.nv.gov. please contact John Alexander at 684-0693 or

[SPECIFY AGENCY ACRONYM...] [SPECIFY PROJECT TITLE...] TIR BUSINESS CASE

APPENDIX E
TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT REQUEST (TIR) COVER PAGE

PROJECT TITLE Imaging Implementation Phase One DEPARTMENT NAME Department of Health and Human Services AGENCY NAME Division of Welfare and Support Services (DWSS)

SUBMITTAL DATE 9/17/2007 BUDGET NUMBER 3238 DECISION UNIT

PROJECT SUMMARY [PURPOSE & DESCRIPTION]

The Division of Welfare and Supportive Services (DWSS) is seeking to replace its existing manually intensive, error prone, multi-copy filing system with state of the art Enterprise Content Management (ECM) system, FileNet, in order to provide reduced cost, eliminate duplication of effort, for both the State of Nevada employees and our clients, to increase accuracy of records management and comply with the intent of satisfying recommendations made by. the Maximus Performance Audit of the State of Nevada's Enforcement and Collection of Child Support pursuant to Section 2 of Assembly Bill 580, and in support of Assembly Bill 536. The purpose of this Technology Investment Request (TIR) is to analyze DWSS, and DWSS business partners, including the District Attorneys Offices supporting the Child Support Enforcement program, paper forms, files, Faxes, and other types of documentation related to case management and consumer support, index these documents, analyze any associated workflow associated with these documents, and create a document index/imaging strategy for DWSS using FileNet as the content management system.

FileNet, an IBM product, is a content/imaging/workflow management tool that DWSS already owns substantial licensing for. FileNet Enterprise Content and Business Process Management solutions enable companies and government agencies to streamline and automate business processes, access and manage all forms of content and automate records management to help meet compliance needs. For a complete description of the FileNet software please use this URL: http://www.filenet.com/English/Products/index.asp

Page 1 of 22122Appendix E - TIR for Imaging

Page 1

[SPECIFY AGENCY ACRONYM...] [SPECIFY PROJECT TITLE...] TIR BUSINESS CASE

This TIR is for phase one of the imaging implementation project. Phase one is the requirements, training and design phase. In many cases during this TIR, DWSS will answer questions with reference to Phase 2. Due to the complexity of Content Management and the high rate of failure during aborted implementations nationwide, DWSS has previously engaged a FileNet Solutions Architect from the MSA vendor HCL to provide a high level overview for FileNet/Imaging implementation within DWSS and its business partners. DWSS reviewed HCLs recommendations and these recommendations are the basis of this TIR. This document is included in this TIR as Appendix 3. Following HCLs recommendations, DWSS has concluded that a phased approach for the imaging implementation project is required. The first phase will be one of information gathering, team selection, project definition and training. As stated elsewhere in this TIR, upon completion of this phase DWSS will have the knowledge, project timeline, implementation plan and team available to make the necessary decisions to put together a TIR for phase two, actual implementation, with correct information and a high probability of a very successful implementation within budget and on time. During Phase One DWSS will: 1) Procure funding for, recruit, hire and train its team members in FileNet Administration, application design and programming techniques. A related work program is seeking funding for one new full time employee who will be responsible for this program from design to continuing operations, as outlined in the work program. 2) Hire 3 MSA contractors for a total of approximately 1425 hours. Two MSA's with expertise in FileNet architecture, design and implementation and one whose expertise is in Network architecture and design as related to FileNet in order to assess the States ability to support the projected additional network capacity required to support this imaging endeavor. 3) Identify and classify all documents and records to be included in this imaging project. 4) Review and document all of the paper handling processes. 5) Design a governance structure that would enforce the standard filing schema across the different governmental programs and units of Welfare. 6) Identify and document what hardware will be best suited for our environments and make recommendations. 7) Review and document all current FileNet and related software and licenses to insure compliance and make recommendations. 8) Identify and document all call centers and mail centers and collect information on the volume of their activities in support of AB 536. 9) Review and document all of DWSS current intranetworking capabilities by location. 10) Review and document other available FileNet software, (such as Records Management) its capabilities and its cost benefits to DWSS to ensure compliance with State record arPage 2 of 22222Appendix E - TIR for Imaging Page 2

[SPECIFY AGENCY ACRONYM...] [SPECIFY PROJECT TITLE...] TIR BUSINESS CASE

chive requirements. 11) Design how DWSS will process, store, index, and retrieve documents; recommend any and all network upgrades to both minimum and ideal standards with implementation guidelines. Recommend all required additional hardware, if any, identify any software short falls and recommend remedies, and make recommendations on call center and mail center consolidations, locations and hardware requirements. 12) The above will then be used as input to write the project plan for phase 2. 13) This information will also be used to write the TIR for phase 2 which will be the actual implementation of the above. As stated in 1 above, an associated work program seeking funding for one additional position, an IT professional 4, grade 41, is required to support the Imaging Implementation project. The costs for this position are included in the work program and is not part of this TIR.

TIME / BIENNIAL COST: PHASE IMPLEMENTATION COST MAINTENANCE / SUPPORT COST * ALL MAINTENANCE /SUPPORT COST ARE CURRENTLY PAID BY OTHER PROJECTS PHASE 2 WILL INCURE SOME AS ADDITIONAL SOFTWARE LICENSING, AND HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS ARE IDENTIFIED. TOTAL BIENNIAL COST Phase 1 $366,796

$0.00*

$366,796

Page 3 of 22322Appendix E - TIR for Imaging

Page 3

[SPECIFY AGENCY ACRONYM...] [SPECIFY PROJECT TITLE...] TIR BUSINESS CASE

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

OUTSIDE REFERENCES Performance Audit of the State of Nevada's Enforcement and Collection of Child Support http://www.leg.state.nv.us/lcb/research/library/perfor manceAudit/ Assembly Bill 580 - 2005 Session http://www.leg.state.nv.us/68th/95bills/AB580.TXT Assembly Bill 536 2007 Session http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Bills/AB/AB536_E N.pdf http://www.filenet.com/English/Products/index.asp

Appendix 1: TIR Cost Worksheet

Appendix 2: Supporting Cost Details Appendix 3: Enterprise Content Management Strategy

Page 4 of 22422Appendix E - TIR for Imaging

Page 4

[SPECIFY AGENCY ACRONYM...] [SPECIFY PROJECT TITLE...] TIR BUSINESS CASE

PROJECT CONTACTS / AUTHORITY PROJECT ROLE CONTACT Gary Stagliano, Deputy Administrator, Program/Field Operations Welfare and Support Services Nancy Ford, Administrator, Welfare and Support Services Michael Willden, Director, HSS David Stewart, Deputy Administrator, IS Welfare and Support Services Steve Fisher, Manager, Application Development, Welfare and Support Services PHONE / FAX E-MAIL

Sponsor

775-684-0570

gstagliano@dwss.nv.gov

Agency Administrator Department Director Agency IT

775-684-0504 775-684-0614 775-684-4000

NA m.willden@dhss.nv.gov

775-684-0767

dnstewart@dwss.nv.gov

Project Manager

775-684-0549

shfisher@dwss.nv.gov

EXTERNAL CONTACT S (FOR DEPENDENCIES, LINKED PROJECTS, EXTERNAL PARTNERS, ETC.) EXTERNAL PROJECT/DEPENDENCY CHURCHILL COUNTY CLARK CO. DA DOUGLAS COUNTY DA ELKO COUNTY HUMBOLDT CO LYON COUNTY DA MINERAL COUNTY DA CONTACT Rita Hanifen Teuton, Robert, Assistant District Attorney Connie Wenner Carolyn Smith Jenny Wegener Patricia Peacher Brenda Stinson PHONE / FAX (775) 423-8423 (702) 671-9200 (775) 782-9881 (775) 738-3474 775-623-6362 775-463-6530 775-945-0707 E-MAIL rhanifen@churchillda.org teutonr@co.clark.nv.us cwenner@douglas.nv.gov csmith@elkocountynv.net hccs-jenny@hcnv.us ppeacher@lyoncounty.org bstinson@mineralcountyn v.org

Page 5 of 22522Appendix E - TIR for Imaging

Page 5

[SPECIFY AGENCY ACRONYM...] [SPECIFY PROJECT TITLE...] TIR BUSINESS CASE

EXTERNAL CONTACT S (FOR DEPENDENCIES, LINKED PROJECTS, EXTERNAL PARTNERS, ETC.) EXTERNAL PROJECT/DEPENDENCY NYE COUNTY DA WASHOE COUNTY DA Vital Statistics CONTACT Rhonda McLaughlinPope Susan Hallahan Alex Haartz, Administrator PHONE / FAX 775-482-8117 775-789-7100 775.684.4200 E-MAIL rmclaughln@co.nye.nv.us shallaha@da.washoecounty.us ahaartz@health.nv.gov

Note: Signatures are not required at initial TIR submission, only names, titles and other identifying information. Signatures are to be submitted after final review as part of the review closure process (see TIR Instruction Guide for further details on TIR submission

Page 6 of 22622Appendix E - TIR for Imaging

Page 6

[SPECIFY AGENCY ACRONYM...] [SPECIFY PROJECT TITLE...] TIR BUSINESS CASE

BUSINESS CASE AND CONTEXT BUSINESS REASON BUSINESS PROBLEM / OPPORTUNITY: Currently all records are maintained in paper form in file folders by the various DWSS programs by office. The paper file concept causes duplication of many records and effort by the DWSS program staff, such as copies of birth certificates, proof of legal residence etc, required for each program to determine eligibility and proof of citizenship. In addition, there is duplication of staff efforts such as the mailing and handling of requests for proof of employment and other verifications as required by each program. The cost of creating the paper files and manpower used to maintain them and additionally, the cost of physical storage space for both current and archived files, is labor intensive, prone to error, and increases rent requirements to store paper files. Another problem and expense encountered by DWSS is lost or misplaced physical paper files, and the associated time and effort either locating the missing file, or recreating the file from scratch. This problem is a noted LCB audit exception. While there are improvements that can be made to the manual system, the ongoing cost of maintaining the existing manual system are only going to increase as volume and record retention standards are enforced. The Maximus audit has recommended that DWSS clean up the filing systems and implementing an imaging system is there suggested solution. Some of the points mentioned in the legislatively sponsored audit of the Child Support Enforcement Program performed by Maximus are: There is currently no central repository for either active or archived files. Record management and retention standards are being applied inconsistently. Primary storage is in the various field offices. These offices are located in high rent areas to make them accessible to our clients. There are both Federal and State guidelines for records retention, with records stored all over the state and there is no way to insure that we are in compliance.

Specific citations from the Maximus Performance Audit of the State of Nevada's Enforcement and Collection of Child Support pursuant to Section 2 of Assembly Bill 580 from the 2005 session regarding imaging are as follows: Centralized mail room and imaging unit for instantly linking documents to cases. A central mail room, expanding the one used for the State Collection and Disbursement Unit (SCaDU) today, will sort all of the mail statewide and image the mail to provide the beginning of a paperless office approach, keeping hard copies of a very small percentage of incoming mail and forwarding them to one of the three regional offices. The imaged documents can be called up at the state or regional offices without the need for physical transfer.
Page 7

Appendix E - TIR for Imaging

[SPECIFY AGENCY ACRONYM...] [SPECIFY PROJECT TITLE...] TIR BUSINESS CASE

Maximus, Executive Summary, 2006, page 11 ES 9. Imaging Documents By scanning/imaging incoming documents and linking them through bar coding to cases, a case manager can call up a case with accompanying documents anywhere in the state at any time. No longer will the case manager have to go to the file room or ask a fellow worker if he or she has seen the file the electronic version will be instantly available. This should save time and space. While it may be a while before all offices are paperless, it is appropriate to begin the process now. Maximus, Executive Summary, 2006, page 14 With the implementation of a wider use of imaging, the ability for return documentation, as a result of a centralized locate action, becomes more readily available in every IV-D case with which the NCP is related. Effectiveness Of Operations, Section D, page 11 A Central Locate Unit will provide support to case managers in each of the major functional areas. With specialized training and tools, improved interfaces and locate alerts, and established performance expectations, a Central Locate Unit will provide the case managers with the timely support and information that is expected for them to take prompt actions on their cases. The success of this recommendation is dependent on the implementation of another recommendation made in the Automation subsection of this report (Recommendation D.5.2.3 Implementation of Expanded Use of Imaging Technology). Case managers in the Central Locate Unit should have access to and the ability to image any hard copy documentation received by the Central Locate Unit in response to locate actions that they initiated. This will allow the case managers in the Regional Offices, as well as those working in the centralized Customer Service Center, to have immediate access to the most current documentation related to their IV-D caseload. Effectiveness Of Operations, Section D, page 14 D.2.2.6.d We recommend that DWSS institute, along with the cooperation and participation of the Office of Vital Statistics, the imaging of the Affidavits of Paternity to facilitate the data entry into the Vital Statistics database. Imaging will expedite the availability of the birth certificate information online for caseworker inquiry, as well as expedite the es-

Appendix E - TIR for Imaging

Page 8

[SPECIFY AGENCY ACRONYM...] [SPECIFY PROJECT TITLE...] TIR BUSINESS CASE

tablishment of paternity. Effectiveness Of Operations, Section D, page 34 D.5.1.3 Finding: Imaging Another problem exists with the flow of documents from one office to another within the State. This problem has a major impact on timely case processing, particularly in the area of referrals from the PA office to the IV-D office, and from the Central Registry (located in the Central Office) to the appropriate DA or PAO office. PA referrals present a continual problem of timely receipt of the IV-D Application for Services (Form 2906) from the PA District Offices to the appropriate IV-D office. There are instances when the IV-D Office receives the form well into the federally-mandated case intake and assessment timeframe, necessary accompanying documentation is not received with Form 2906, or the office does not receive Form 2906 at all. This problem occurs in Clark County as well as the Program Area Offices. Once a case is established on NOMADS and case assessment completed, often there is a need for additional information from the PA District Office to continue processing or take action on the IV-D case. The IV-D office frequently experiences difficulty and delays in obtaining information from PA. Delays in obtaining hardcopy requested information and/or documentation is a detriment to IV-D performance efficiency. Clark County initiated an imaging solution to alleviate problems they experienced with the timely receipt of Form 2906 from the PA District Office. Imaging has alleviated time delays and the loss of applications as imaged data is available almost immediately to the Clark County DAFS case manager. Robert Teuton, Assistant District Attorney in the Clark County DAFS states that "since the implementation of the ITS (Information Tracking System) about April 2006, upper IV-D management has not received a single complaint from a custodial parent about a lost application or supporting documents. All outstanding intake over 20 days has been processed and the current intake processing is completed in an average of 5 days. The efficiencies have improved dramatically, along with the morale. This imaging capability is not available to Washoe County or any of the rural offices. Effectiveness Of Operations, Section D, pages 74 and 75 D.5.2.3 Recommendation: Implementation of Expanded Use of Imaging Technology (ES 9) D.5.2.3.a Due to the problems currently encountered with the timely flow of documents from the PA District Office to the PAOs, as well as the timely flow of interstate documents from the Central Registry to the appropriate DA office or PAO, we recommend the more immediate implementation of an imaging system. DWSS currently operates an im-

Appendix E - TIR for Imaging

Page 9

[SPECIFY AGENCY ACRONYM...] [SPECIFY PROJECT TITLE...] TIR BUSINESS CASE

aging system in the Southern SCaDU in Las Vegas where payments are imaged on a daily basis, prior to receipting. D.5.2.3.b We recommend DWSS explore and take steps to implement imaging in all of the PA District Offices, as well as Central Office. We understand that document imaging potentially could be a part of the FileNet CDMS solution. Implementing document imaging statewide will minimize the potential of documents being lost, sent to the incorrect office or not received timely. Imaging does not rely upon the creation of Regional Offices and should be paced on a fast path implementation schedule. DWSS will need to develop a Desk Guide that will be used in local offices and Central Office to ensure standardization of the imaging process. Effectiveness Of Operations, Section D, page 81 The referenced document is located on the Nevada Legislature Website retrieved from: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/lcb/research/library/performanceAudit/ As stated throughout the Maximus performance audit, the efficiencies gained through elimination of duplicated effort, accuracy and availability of data by implementing imaging not only benefits DWSS, but also the District Attorneys offices performing child support functions across the State of Nevada, and, in the end, better serves the customers of DWSS by providing more timely services, minimizing duplication of effort, and to the general public by reducing costs of running the program(s) within DWSS. It is the intent of this request to procure funding for the design and planning phase required for document imaging and workflow implementation using the FileNet software product.

Appendix E - TIR for Imaging

Page 10

[SPECIFY AGENCY ACRONYM...] [SPECIFY PROJECT TITLE...] TIR BUSINESS CASE

BUSINESS OBJECTIVE STATEMENT To increase the productivity of DWSS employees by providing them, and their clients, with the information needed to effectively perform case management in a timely, error free fashion. As FileNet/imaging automation improvements are introduced, DWSS hopes to be able to consolidate its call and mail centers, as recommended in the Maximus Audit results, gaining efficiencies, while at the same time increasing the ease of locating physical documents by having correct document management systems in place with personnel that are trained and accountable. Other potential efficiencies include the reduction of physical storage space required for physical paper files, and compliance with State record retention guidelines by applying correct record retention standards at the document level versus the current practice of retaining documents at the case level.

BUSINESS ASSUMPTIONS, MANDATES, AND LIMITING FACTORS DWSS is making this request based on the following information. o Addition of one FTE, IT Professional 4, grade 41, designated as the FileNet Administrator for DWSS. Funding for this position is requested in the accompanying Work Program. This project is completely dependent upon the approval of this position. o Use existing DWSS investment of over $2,000,000 in FileNet software and related hardware. o Comply with several parts of the LCB Maximus Audit/AB 536. o Allow for the introduction of new business practice to optimize case processing, reduce business expense and enhance customer service. o Use existing employees by retraining. o Meet or exceed all Federal and/or State guidelines in records retention and management. o Dramatically increase the speed and accuracy that caseworkers can store and retrieve necessary information from case files. Reduce the burden on clients by not requiring them to reproduce documents.

METRICS Business Employees (associated with the business) Business Processors (users / operators) Business Sites Operating Hours (hours per day)

VALUES CURRENT PROJECTED 2050 2051 200/8 25 Normal Business Hours 1200/9 25 Same

Appendix E - TIR for Imaging

Page 11

[SPECIFY AGENCY ACRONYM...] [SPECIFY PROJECT TITLE...] TIR BUSINESS CASE

METRICS Operating Days (days per week) ALL ANSWERS ARE RELATED TO THE COMPLETION OF PHASE 2.

VALUES CURRENT PROJECTED Normal BusiSame ness hours

113,877 Business Customers (those served by the business) Peak Usage (concurrent users) Master Records in Repository
as of 09/17/07

Same

100 1,000,000

700 100,000,000 All documents, either hard or soft, created by and/or received by DWSS that pertains to its business

Transactions Processed (per specified period)

SACDU Payments 10,000 per month

TECHNOLOGY AS IS AND TO BE ALL ANSWERS ARE RELATED TO THE COMPLETION OF PHASE 2. Database Computing Platform Network Storage (availability, mirroring, .etc)

CURRENT

PROJECTED

Paper/Physical files Windows/AIX TCP/IP Office space and off site storage, SAN Manual file folders, FileNet, Java, SQL

DB2 Windows/AIX TCP/IP SAN

Application infrastructure (language, multi-tiered, etc.)

FileNet, Java, SQL

Appendix E - TIR for Imaging

Page 12

[SPECIFY AGENCY ACRONYM...] [SPECIFY PROJECT TITLE...] TIR BUSINESS CASE

TECHNOLOGY AS IS AND TO BE Security * PDS is DWSS implementation of a portal and security system.

CURRENT Locks on doors, DWSS PDS* Novell Identity Management

PROJECTED DWSS PDS* Novell Identity Management

REQUIREMENTS FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS o DWSS wants to prepare for reducing the handling of paper, and cost of storage, while also making all documents available statewide with only a click of a button to all business partners. o Build and train a support team who can manage and improve the system after contractors leave. o Design an architecture that will allow for growth, consolidation and/or expansion. o To define the requirements for hardware, software and network changes to insure a successful implementation of phase two of this project. o Have a plan in place to start moving on consolidation of Mail and Call centers as noted in AB 536. o Prepare Project Plan and TIR for Phase Two TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS o System must comply with guidelines as set by State of Nevada. o Use as much existing hardware and licensing as possible. o All data must be accessible statewide with as little delay as possible. Clients will be allowed access to much of their own data within a secure environment. o Completed IT application must be maintainable by DWSS employees. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Appendix E - TIR for Imaging

Page 13

[SPECIFY AGENCY ACRONYM...] [SPECIFY PROJECT TITLE...] TIR BUSINESS CASE

ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON STATUS QUO Description: The DWSS current process is for each application and associated file to be owned by the office and assigned single case manager within that office. When an applicant applies for additional benefits they may or may not go back to the same office. If they go to the same office and are applying for a related program there will at least be an attempt to find their file. If either they go to a different office or their file cannot be located, duplication of work for both the client and the caseworker will be required. If the file is located and forwarded to the new caseworker and/or office, it does not limit the potential for problems. The old case maybe selected for audit in which case an auditor will show up at the original office and will find that the file is no longer there. Depending on the audit requirements another case cannot just be substituted, but the original case file must be found. Again, there is more work, travel and expense for the state and, in many cases, can lead to the loss of performance bonuses. Evaluation and Consequences: The absence of approval for the requested automation improvements will cause DWSS to be ineffective in servicing their clients and substantially increase State costs. Duplication of effort across programs, the inability to separate case support efforts and the increasing need for costly urban office space could be overcome with the introduction of a document imaging solution. Continued dependency on a paper file with a single worker managing the case continues to compromise DWSS efforts to improve efficiency, effectiveness and advance economical long term solutions. Why IT? As pointed out in the LCB Maximums Audit the current physical system is expensive, cumbersome, and prone to human error and is an inefficient way to serve the State and its clients. Electronic files will reduce errors, extend information use to all offices and in some cases to the client thereby reducing cost, increasing productivity and maintaining, if not increasing, performance bonuses.

Appendix E - TIR for Imaging

Page 14

[SPECIFY AGENCY ACRONYM...] [SPECIFY PROJECT TITLE...] TIR BUSINESS CASE

RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE: ELECTRONIC STORAGE, RETRIEVAL AND MANAGEMENT Description: Content Management solutions have been around for many years and provide an economical method to resolve the problems with our current system. Once the document is electronically stored in the content management system, the possibility of it being lost or misplaced will be reduced to almost zero. The records are also accessible by case workers statewide. Evaluation: DWSS has already made a substantial investment in FileNet software and hardware. Continued expansion of FileNet usage will not only resolve many of the problems as stated above but will allow DWSS to do so by leveraging prior purchases of Software and hardware and at the same time share the expense of maintenance and operating expenses over more programs.

[NEXT VIABLE ALTERNATIVE NAME AND TYPE] (Describe and evaluate each viable alternative with a separate Description and Evaluation box) Description: Not follow the suggestion of AB 536 and put together a study plan on how to correct DWSS deficiencies and continue using a manual plan. Evaluation: The initial investment of the plan would be reduced, but the ongoing cost to achieve the standards required would be very substantial. The manpower need would expand from 1 FTE to several. A manual system would require a method, i.e. courier system, to transport a file from one location to another in a same day or at most next day time frame. A manual system just to track the folders would require at least 2 FTEs. Service levels using a manual system will never be able to reach those of an electronic system because there is no way for a physical file to be in two places at the same time. DWSS already owns a substantial amount of the hardware and software required.

NON-VIABLE ALTERNATIVES Continue with current system.

Appendix E - TIR for Imaging

Page 15

[SPECIFY AGENCY ACRONYM...] [SPECIFY PROJECT TITLE...] TIR BUSINESS CASE

SELECTED ALTERNATIVE: CHARACTERISTICS FINANCIAL BENEFITS TABLE BASELINE MEASUREMENT MEASURE METHODOLOGY YEAR 1 TARGET YEAR 2 TARGET

FINANCIAL BENEFIT Revenue Increase: Cost Reduction: * While DWSS believes that there will be substantial saving, we will reserve our calculation for Phase 2.

TOTAL

$0.00*

$0.00*

$0.00*

$0.00*

$0.00*

NON-FINANCIAL BENEFITS

NON-FINANCIAL BENEFIT Public and Employee Safety: NONE Customer Service Improvement: IMPROVEMENT IS BASED ON COMPLETION OF PHASE 2.

BASELINE VALUE

TARGET VALUE

% OF GOAL IN 2 YRS?

2% rate of annual improvement.

10% rate of annual improvement for the next 2 years. 15% with 5% improvement in year one and 10% in year 2.

100%

Process / Performance Improvement: IMPROVEMENT IS BASED ON COMPLETION OF PHASE 2.

This area is currently not being monitored.

100%

Appendix E - TIR for Imaging

Page 16

[SPECIFY AGENCY ACRONYM...] [SPECIFY PROJECT TITLE...] TIR BUSINESS CASE

NON-FINANCIAL BENEFIT

BASELINE VALUE

TARGET VALUE Have one location for all records to be physically stored and have them available to any State of Nevada employee with the appropriate security to access this information from anywhere in the state.

% OF GOAL IN 2 YRS?

Strategic (Collaboration): IMPROVEMENT IS BASED ON COMPLETION OF PHASE 2.

Current system requires that all active files be maintained manually in each office with a significant amount of duplication and thousands of man-hours wasted.

100%

Appendix E - TIR for Imaging

Page 17

[SPECIFY AGENCY ACRONYM...] [SPECIFY PROJECT TITLE...] TIR BUSINESS CASE

NON-FINANCIAL BENEFIT

BASELINE VALUE

TARGET VALUE Case reviews and audits are required in many programs. Having ALL information available in one location will have many advantages in this area. Some of these areas should lead to Performance Bonuses. Others such as Investigations & Recovery will also see improvements.

% OF GOAL IN 2 YRS?

Statutory Compliance: IMPROVEMENT IS BASED ON COMPLETION OF PHASE 2.

Currently DWSS complies in most cases.

100%

Appendix E - TIR for Imaging

Page 18

[SPECIFY AGENCY ACRONYM...] [SPECIFY PROJECT TITLE...] TIR BUSINESS CASE

RISKS TO PROJECT COMPLETION RISK TYPE AND DESCRIPTION PROBABILITY

IMPACT

WHAT IS IT AND HOW YOU DEAL WITH IT? Not funding the project will leave DWSS unable to implement recommendations made by the LCB Maximus audit. It will also leave DWSS with a real possibility of losing many millions of dollars in federal performance bonuses. While conversion to Content Management is not easy and does have a relatively high failure rate, DWSS has taken steps to avert many of the problem areas. This is why DWSS is asking for funding to hire skilled MSA's to guide the project though the initial design and requirements phase. It is expected that this will have a great impact on DWSS probability of success. This metric is the second highest cause for failure (it is listed as the main reason by 32% of the failed installs according to HCLs report). Throughout this TIR significant emphasis has been placed on selecting the implementation team and getting the team adequately trained. The LCB Maximus audit did recommend implementing an imaging solution. Approval of the FileNet Administrator position is required for this TIR to be implemented.

Funding

Technical

Staffing/Experience

Mandate Related

Dependency Related

Appendix E - TIR for Imaging

Page 19

[SPECIFY AGENCY ACRONYM...] [SPECIFY PROJECT TITLE...] TIR BUSINESS CASE

Security

Security is a very high priority at DWSS. DWSS takes its responsibility of protecting its clients information very seriously. DWSS has designed, written and implemented its own security system, which is known by 2 acronyms, SAM and PDS. It was designed to exceed all Government requirements and uses Novells Identity Manager as the front end. Failure to correctly define and understand Business Process is the reason 64% of the failed installs listed it as the main reason for failure. Engaging skilled MSA help, who have been through the process before, enhances DWSS probability of successful implementation. The stakeholders are DWSS, DWSS clients and other government agencies. Changes in business process and areas of responsibility are going to be massive with the implementation of Content Management and workflow. Implementation must be undertaken with a great deal of understanding and concern for the stakeholders.

Business Process

Stakeholder

COST / BENEFIT SUMMARY

COST / BENEFIT COMPARED TO OTHER ALTERNATIVES The alternative to produce a manual system or a hybrid system that will give DWSS the same ability and accuracy of an Imaging system is not cost effective nor does DWSS believe that it can be accomplished. The non-viable alternative is to just keep the current system. The current system is error prone, manually intensive, inefficient, and has little value to DWSS, its clients and business partners.

Appendix E - TIR for Imaging

Page 20

[SPECIFY AGENCY ACRONYM...] [SPECIFY PROJECT TITLE...] TIR BUSINESS CASE

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS STAFF INVOLVEMENT POSITION(S) AS NOTED ELSWARE THE FIRST JOB IN THIS PHASE IS TO SELECT THE TEAM. THE STAFF
LISTED BELOW WILL BE MOST OF THE TEAM DOING THIS SELECTION, SOME WILL CONTINUE ON IN THE PROJECT AND OTHER WILL BE DONE AT THIS PIONT.

ROLE IN PROJECT

PHASES OF INVOLVEMENT

Gary Stagliano Dave Stewart Steve Fisher Charles Barker Marc Sieben Glenn Meyer Ron Taylor FileNet Administrator PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Program Staff Subject Mater Expert Agency Project Oversight Technical Lead/Project Manager and Oversight Project Lead Team Member Team Member Team Member Technical Lead

All Phases All Phases All Phases All Phases Team Selection Team Selection Team Selection All Phases

In House Project Management: Steve Fisher

HIGH LEVEL PROJECT TIMETABLE MILESTONE OR ACTIVITY Work Program(s) TIR approval Contract approval Hire FTE Team Selection and Training MSA contractors on board Network Requirements ANTICIPATED START 9/07 8/07 11/07 12/07 12/07 1/08 3/08
ESTIMATED COMPLETION

11/07 10/07 1/08 1/08 6/08 4/08 4/08

Appendix E - TIR for Imaging

Page 21

[SPECIFY AGENCY ACRONYM...] [SPECIFY PROJECT TITLE...] TIR BUSINESS CASE

HIGH LEVEL PROJECT TIMETABLE Content Architecture Hardware Requirements Project Completion Anticipated Retirement Technology has not, as yet, gone beyond current Content Management. There have been improvements and additions over the years, but a true replacement is not yet on the horizon. 1/08 2/08 n.a. 4/08 4/08 6/08

n.a.

8 to 10 years

Appendix E - TIR for Imaging

Page 22

APPENDIX D STRATEGIC PLAN TRACKING TOOL


ASSIGNED TO GOAL I. All children in IV-D cases have established paternity Objective A: Increase Paternity Establishment Percentage (PEP) a minimum of 3% annually. Implement a process which improves the timeliness and accessibility of genetic testing through the collection Action Step 1: of specimens by authorized designees. David Castagnola Tactics Based upon specific authority of NRS 126.121 STATUS START FINISH

3/1/2007 Done Done Done Done - IVA will not be included unless trained as back-up for IVD. Done Done

Policy, procedures, and forms development Training

Consider which staff to authorize (e.g., IV-D, IV-A, and hospitals) Consider in which locations to provide the service Margie Adams

Ensure certification process is considered Expand the opportunities for unmarried parents to voluntarily acknowledge paternity. Action Step 2: Tactics

5/1/2008 2-prong test (audio/video and Rights & Obligations IVD staff only at this time Updating Declaration - June Public Hearing Pending Routine contacts 3/1/2008

Assess current use of voluntary paternity acknowledgment services in IV-D offices Expand to IV-A offices: Consider IV-A staff and/or IV-D staff in IV-A office Policy, procedures, and forms Training for the staff providing voluntary paternity acknowledgment services

Consider equipment needs (e.g., VCR, audio tape recorder, DVD, training videos and oral notice) Develop strategies to ensure existing voluntary paternity acknowledgments are identified and documentation Action Step 3: is obtained. Louise Bush Tactics Legal review and possible legislation Obtaining information from Vital Statistics and waiving fees charged to IV-D Generate an ad hoc report to identify undisclosed information Promote scanning of Vital Statistics documents GOAL II. All Children in IV-D cases have support orders Objective A: Increase the percent of IV-D cases with support orders by a minimum of 3% annually. Action Step 1: Identify cases without orders established and to be reviewed by workers and actions taken as necessary. Tactics: By office/by worker Generate monthly Identify cases without orders established, along with characteristics of those cases Action Step 2: Tactics: Number in locate

Mtg with Vital Records staff Looking at options to assist Budget constraints

Identify IV-D/Vital Statistics issues (e.g., backlog and timing issues)

John Alexander

9/1/2008

Goal date for report generation - April 2008 John Alexander 11/1/2008

Number with an outgoing interstate process Number with non-cooperation Number with an unknown alleged father Number with an attempted service of process Consider 90-day service of process timeframe along with out of locate date Number pending < 6 months Page 1 of 4

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 53 appendixes\Appendix D - Strategic plan tracking tool

APPENDIX D STRATEGIC PLAN TRACKING TOOL


6-12 months >12 months Consider whether the report should include both characteristics summary information and office/worker specific break-down, or only characteristics summary information Objective B: Increase the percent of support orders established though stipulation. Provide guidance for the application of deviations by IV-D workers. Action Step 1: Tactics: Establish baseline of orders established by stipulation, prior to implementation of Action Step

David Castagnola

6/1/2008

Amend policy to remove prohibition of deviation application GOAL III. All children in IV-D cases receive financial support from parents as ordered Objective A: Increase the percent of current support collected by 3% annually. Implement early intervention strategies to encourage noncustodial parents to provide timely current support Action Step 1: payments. Tactics: Identify strategies which may include: o Expand information for noncustodial parents (NCPs) on Web site o Expand auto-dialer options o Expand NCP employment assistance program o Encourage NCPs participation in the pre-order (pre-service of process) process Explore and develop remedies to ensure establishment of reasonable orders. Action Step 2: Tactics: Explore ways to impute income

Coordinate/communicate with Hearing Masters Ensure state and federal requirements in regards to deviations are met

Louise Bush

10/1/2008

Susan Hallahan

10/1/2008

Increase stipulations by addressing the application of deviations by IV-D workers (see Goal II, Objective B, Action Step 1) Objective B: Increase the percent of cases with an eligible arrears collection by 3% annually. Implement remedies that avoid the accumulation of arrears, eliminate uncollectible debts, and write-off debts to Objective C: ensure the principal balance owing on June 30 2008, is not exceeded in subsequent years. Principal balance owing on 6/30/08 = TBD Increase payments collected from financial institution accounts through exploring statewide centralization of Action Step 1: Financial Institution Data Match (FIDM), and exploring legislation for streamlining seizures and the requirement for financial institutions to accept direct actions from other states. David Castagnola Tactics: Analyze what resources would be required to centralize FIDM statewide, and consider court coordination issues In order to streamline the seizure process, consider an administrative deduction order and elimination of the pre-notice requirement Action Step 2: Increase the current use of the administrative license suspension remedy by enriching automation support and consider expanding through legislation the authority and scope of the remedy. John Alexander Tactics: Updated Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) information issues

Explore options for treatment of prisoners Incorporate early intervention strategies (see Action Step 1) Develop the guidelines four-year review process

4/1/2008

4/1/2008

Auto-generated notices

Explore options for automated match/interface with professional, occupational, and recreational licensing entities Consider exploring legislation for suspension of business licenses and vehicle registrations Establish baseline, if possible Page 2 of 4

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 53 appendixes\Appendix D - Strategic plan tracking tool

APPENDIX D STRATEGIC PLAN TRACKING TOOL


Action Step 3: Increase collections from insurance proceeds by considering pursuing legislation to require all insurers and self-insurers to participate in a data-matching process. Tactics: Work with insurance industry David Castagnola 4/1/2008

Consider court rule to require disclosure of child support debt and assignment of settlement proceeds to settle the debt Develop guidelines for debt-write off of uncollectible assigned debt. Action Step 4: Louise Bush Tactics: Determine how to define uncollectible debt

Consider whether match should be internal or contracted

10/1/2008

Authority for write-off would remain with the Administrator Implement automation enhancements (a - f) to improve enforcement processes. a. Address Employer table issues b. Increase electronic payment options (e.g., credit cards, debit cards, electronic fund transfers) c. Automate early identification of delinquency (alert and form) d. Address ITFS (NOMADS screen interface sources) issues e. Address SOLQ (social security access) screen issues f. Develop alternate simplified ledger (for dissemination to parties, other states, other agencies, etc.) GOAL IV. All children in IV-D cases have medical support Objective A: Increase the percent of cases with medical support orders. Baseline by November 2008 Objective B: Increase the percent of cases in which medical coverage is provided. Baseline by November 2008 Identify remedies to improve the establishment and enforcement of medical support. Action Step 1: Tactics: Through the Medical Support Workgroup: o Consider Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) medical support provisions o Consider how to capture the data o Case clean up, as necessary o Consider positioning for pending medical support performance measures o Consider National Medical Support Notice (NMSN) employer compliance issues
Action Step 5:

John Alexander

9/1/2008

David Castagnola

10/1/2008

Explore options for insurance plan matching GOAL V. The IV-D program will be efficient, consistent, and responsive in its operations Increase the programs cost effectiveness by 25 cents in the next three years by ensuring technology is used to Objective A: enhance efficiency; increasing the quality and availability of staff support and resources; and addressing case processing issues. Objective A.1. Ensure technology is used to enhance efficiency. Develop a plan for generation of management reports. Action Step 1: Tactics: Through the Reports Committee: o Develop monthly OCSE-157 report (by office/by worker) online and database structure o Analyze need for management reports and make recommendations o Analyze need for OCSE-34A information (by office) o Analyze need for case management reports and make recommendations
Explore available COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) options Analyze and recommend document management options for IV-D. Action Step 2: Tactics: Imaging Action Step 3:

Mike Brown

10/1/2008

Analyze and recommend data warehouse/mining options Louise Bush 10/1/2008

Forms generation, printing, and retrieval Analyze and recommend implementation of work flow processing.
Page 3 of 4

Louise Bush

10/1/2008

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 53 appendixes\Appendix D - Strategic plan tracking tool

APPENDIX D STRATEGIC PLAN TRACKING TOOL


Objective A.2. Increase the quality and availability of staff support and resources. Consider restructuring to include three program offices to provide support to local offices. Action Step 4: Tactics: Quality control (QC) support Maintain performance measures Develop and review a strategic plan. Louise Bush 10/1/2008

Training support Louise Bush Develop, at least once per review year; review at least twice per year

Action Step 5:

Address case processing issues. Objective A.3. Explore options for pursuing legislation authorizing administrative process for establishing, modifying Action Step 6: administratively issued orders, and enforcing support orders. Explore centralization of case management of interstate initiating cases. Action Step 7: Tactics: Analysis and recommendations by interstate initiating workgroup Implement remedies to increase the ability to retain one-state cases. Action Step 8: Tactics: Increase the use of long-arm

Louise Bush Louise Bush

4/1/2008 4/1/2008

Louise Bush

10/1/2008

Review policy to determine where flexibility may be provided in use of one-state actions Promote timely, accurate, and complete information received from IV-A. Action Step 9: Louise Bush Tactics: Training/outreach to IV-A on importance of complete and accurate data (e.g., Person Search, ANSWRS, Form 2906, and good cause form) Address importance of scanning information into Information Tracking System (ITS)

Determine service of process options in other states Corrective Action Conference 4/1/2008

Consider expanding use of the ITS Action Step 10: Identify cases eligible for closure and take appropriate action to close. Action Step 11: Decrease the percent of cases in locate and decrease the average time a case is in locate. a. Add automated locate sources Tactics: Consider Project Save our Children (PSOC)
b.

Louise Bush John Alexander

6/1/2008 10/1/2008

Consider access to Gaming Control Board database Improve efficiency in viewing and using locate information. Tactics: Enhancing INTR (NOMADS screen for case tracking interfaces)

Training to use locate tools (e.g., Child Support Enforcement Network (CSENet)) Objective B: Pass data reliability audit for FFY 2008. Identify and implement remedies to improve data reliability. Action Step 1: Tactics: State QC and local staff to conduct DRA audit prior to Federal audit
Continuous local office QC reviews Automation enhancements Management reports Case clean-up including identifying cases assigned to the correct functional area

John Alexander

9/1/2008

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 53 appendixes\Appendix D - Strategic plan tracking tool

Page 4 of 4

APPENDIX C

Department of Health & Human Services Division of Welfare & Supportive Services

Child Support Enforcement STRATEGIC PLAN


2007 2008
November 2007

Federal Mission Statement


To enhance the well-being of children by assuring that assistance in obtaining support, including financial and medical, is available to children through locating parents, establishing paternity, establishing support obligations, and monitoring and enforcing those obligations.

Federal Vision for the Future


Children can count on their parents for the financial, medical, and emotional support they need to be healthy and successful.

2 of 13

Program Purpose Statement


The purpose of the Nevada Child Support Enforcement program is to promote the well-being of children, strengthen families, and reduce the demand on public treasuries by securing financial and medical support from legally responsible parents.

3 of 13

GOAL I All children in IV-D cases have established paternity Objective A: Increase Paternity Establishment Percentage (PEP) a minimum of 3% annually. FFY 2007: Actual = 79.60% (preliminary) FFY 2008: Target = 82.60% Actual = TBD Action Step 1: Implement a process which improves the timeliness and accessibility of genetic testing through the collection of specimens by authorized designees. (David Castagnola March 2008) Tactics: Based upon specific authority of NRS 126.121 Policy, procedures, and forms development Training Consider which staff to authorize (e.g., IV-D, IV-A, and hospitals) Consider in which locations to provide the service Ensure certification process is considered Action Step 2: Expand the opportunities for unmarried parents to voluntarily acknowledge paternity. (Margie Adams, May 2008) Tactics: Assess current use of voluntary paternity acknowledgment services in IV-D offices Expand to IV-A offices: Consider IV-A staff and/or IV-D staff in IV-A office Policy, procedures, and forms Training for the staff providing voluntary paternity acknowledgment services Consider equipment needs (e.g., VCR, audio tape recorder, DVD, training videos and oral notice) Action Step 3: Develop strategies to ensure existing voluntary paternity acknowledgments are identified and documentation is obtained. (Louise Bush, March 2008) Tactics: Legal review and possible legislation Obtaining information from Vital Statistics and waiving fees charged to IV-D Generate an ad hoc report to identify undisclosed information Identify IV-D/Vital Statistics issues (e.g., backlog and timing issues) Promote scanning of Vital Statistics documents 4 of 13

GOAL II All children in IV-D cases have support orders Objective A: Increase the percent of IV-D cases with support orders by a minimum of 3% annually. FFY 2007: Actual = 68.81% (preliminary) FFY 2008: Target = 71.81% Actual = TBD Action Step 1: Identify cases without orders established and to be reviewed by workers and actions taken as necessary. (John Alexander, September 2008) Tactics: By office/by worker Goal date for report generation - April 2008 Generate monthly Action Step 2: Identify cases without orders established, along with characteristics of those cases. (John Alexander, November 2008) Tactics: Number in locate Number with an outgoing interstate process Number with non-cooperation Number with an unknown alleged father Number with an attempted service of process Consider 90-day service of process timeframe along with out of locate date Number pending < 6 months 6-12 months >12 months Consider whether the report should include both characteristics summary information and office/worker specific break-down, or only characteristics summary information

5 of 13

GOAL II, continued. . . Objective B: Increase the percent of support orders established though stipulation. Action Step 1: Provide guidance for the application of deviations by IV-D workers. (David Castagnola, June 2008) Tactics: Establish baseline of orders established by stipulation, prior to implementation of Action Step Coordinate/communicate with Hearing Masters Ensure state and federal requirements in regards to deviations are met Amend policy to remove prohibition of deviation application

6 of 13

GOAL III All children in IV-D cases receive financial support from parents as ordered Objective A: Increase the percent of current support collected by 3% annually. FFY 2007: Actual = 47.63% (preliminary) FFY 2008: Target = 50.63% Actual = TBD Action Step 1: Implement early intervention strategies to encourage noncustodial parents to provide timely current support payments. (Louise Bush, October 2008) Tactics: Identify strategies which may include: o Expand information for noncustodial parents (NCPs) on Web site o Expand auto-dialer options o Expand NCP employment assistance program o Encourage NCPs participation in the pre-order (pre-service of process) process Action Step 2: Explore and develop remedies to ensure establishment of reasonable orders. (Susan Hallahan, October 2008) Tactics: Explore ways to impute income Explore options for treatment of prisoners Incorporate early intervention strategies (see Action Step 1) Develop the guidelines four-year review process Increase stipulations by addressing the application of deviations by IV-D workers (see Goal II, Objective B, Action Step 1)

7 of 13

GOAL III, continued. . . Objective B: Increase the percent of cases with an eligible arrears collection by 3% annually. FFY 2007: Actual = 51.74% (preliminary) FFY 2008: Target = 54.74% Actual = TBD Objective C: Implement remedies that avoid the accumulation of arrears, eliminate uncollectible debts, and write-off debts to ensure the principal balance owing on June 30 2008, is not exceeded in subsequent years. Principal balance owing on 6/30/08 = TBD Action Step 1: Increase payments collected from financial institution accounts through exploring statewide centralization of Financial Institution Data Match (FIDM), and exploring legislation for streamlining seizures and the requirement for financial institutions to accept direct actions from other states. (David Castagnola, April 2008) Tactics: Analyze what resources would be required to centralize FIDM statewide, and consider court coordination issues In order to streamline the seizure process, consider an administrative deduction order and elimination of the pre-notice requirement Action Step 2: Increase the current use of the administrative license suspension remedy by enriching automation support and consider expanding through legislation the authority and scope of the remedy. (John Alexander, April 2008) Tactics: Updated Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) information issues Auto-generated notices Explore options for automated match/interface with professional, occupational, and recreational licensing entities Consider exploring legislation for suspension of business licenses and vehicle registrations Establish baseline, if possible

8 of 13

GOAL III, continued. . . Action Step 3: Increase collections from insurance proceeds by considering pursuing legislation to require all insurers and self-insurers to participate in a data-matching process. (David Castagnola, April 2008) Tactics: Work with insurance industry Consider whether match should be internal or contracted Consider court rule to require disclosure of child support debt and assignment of settlement proceeds to settle the debt Action Step 4: Develop guidelines for debt-write off of uncollectible assigned debt. (Gary Stagliano, April 2008) Tactics Determine how to define uncollectible debt Authority for write-off would remain with the Administrator Action Step 5: Implement automation enhancements (a - f) to improve enforcement processes. (John Alexander, September 2008) a. Address Employer table issues b. Increase electronic payment options (e.g., credit cards, debit cards, electronic fund transfers) c. Automate early identification of delinquency (alert and form) d. Address ITFS (NOMADS screen interface sources) issues e. Address SOLQ (social security access) screen issues f. Develop alternate simplified ledger (for dissemination to parties, other states, other agencies, etc.)

9 of 13

GOAL IV All children in IV-D cases have medical support Objective A: Increase the percent of cases with medical support orders. Baseline by November 2008 Objective B: Increase the percent of cases in which medical coverage is provided. Baseline by November 2008 Action Step 1: Identify remedies to improve the establishment and enforcement of medical support. (David Castagnola and Louise Bush, October 2008) Tactics: Through the Medical Support Workgroup: o Consider Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) medical support provisions o Consider how to capture the data o Case clean up, as necessary o Consider positioning for pending medical support performance measures o Consider National Medical Support Notice (NMSN) employer compliance issues Explore options for insurance plan matching

10 of 13

GOAL V The IV-D program will be efficient, consistent, and responsive in its operations Objective A: Increase the programs cost effectiveness by 25 cents in the next three years by ensuring technology is used to enhance efficiency; increasing the quality and availability of staff support and resources; and addressing case processing issues. FY 2007: Actual = $3.51 (preliminary) FY 2010: Target = $3.76 Actual = TBD Objective A.1. Ensure technology is used to enhance efficiency. Action Step 1: Develop a plan for generation of management reports. (Mike Brown, October 2008) Tactics: Through the Reports Committee: o Develop monthly OCSE-157 report (by office/by worker) online and database structure o Analyze need for management reports and make recommendations o Analyze need for OCSE-34A information (by office) o Analyze need for case management reports and make recommendations Analyze and recommend data warehouse/mining options Explore available COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) options Action Step 2: Analyze and recommend document management options for IV-D. (Louise Bush, October 2008) Tactics: Imaging Forms generation, printing, and retrieval Action Step 3: Analyze and recommend implementation of work flow processing. (Louise Bush, October 2008)

11 of 13

GOAL V, continued. . . Objective A.2. Increase the quality and availability of staff support and resources. Action Step 4: Consider restructuring to include three program offices to provide support to local offices. (Louise Bush, October 2008) Tactics: Quality control (QC) support Training support Maintain performance measures Action Step 5: Develop and review a strategic plan. (Louise Bush - Develop, at least once per year; review, at least twice per year) Objective A.3. Address case processing issues. Action Step 6: Explore options for pursuing legislation authorizing administrative process for establishing, modifying administratively issued orders, and enforcing support orders. (Louise Bush, April 2008) Action Step 7: Explore centralization of case management of interstate initiating cases. (Louise Bush, April 2008) Tactics: Analysis and recommendations by interstate initiating workgroup Action Step 8: Implement remedies to increase the ability to retain one-state cases. (Louise Bush, October 2008) Tactics: Increase the use of long-arm Determine service of process options in other states Review policy to determine where flexibility may be provided in use of onestate actions

12 of 13

GOAL V, continued. . . Action Step 9: Promote timely, accurate, and complete information received from IV-A. (Gary Stagliano, March 2008) Tactics: Training/outreach to IV-A on importance of complete and accurate data (e.g., Person Search, ANSWRS, Form 2906, and good cause form) Address importance of scanning information into Information Tracking System (ITS) Consider expanding use of the ITS Action Step 10: Identify cases eligible for closure and take appropriate action to close. (Gary Stagliano, April 2008) Action Step 11: Decrease the percent of cases in locate and decrease the average time a case is in locate. (John Alexander, October 2008) a. Add automated locate sources Tactics: Consider Project Save our Children (PSOC) Consider access to Gaming Control Board database b. Improve efficiency in viewing and using locate information. Tactics: Enhancing INTR (NOMADS screen for case tracking interfaces) Training to use locate tools (e.g., Child Support Enforcement Network (CSENet)) Objective B: Pass data reliability audit for FFY 2008. Action Step 1: Identify and implement remedies to improve data reliability. (John Alexander, September 2008) Tactics: State QC and local staff to conduct DRA audit prior to Federal audit Continuous local office QC reviews Automation enhancements Management reports Case clean-up including identifying cases assigned to the correct functional area 13 of 13

APPENDIX B STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM RESTRUCTURED AS PROPOSED BY MAXIMUS AND MODIFIED BY DWSS

DWSS ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR UNCLASSIFIED

IV-D ADMINISTRATOR DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 45 (NEW)

POLICY UNIT CHIEF SOCIAL SERVICES CHIEF III 41 (NEW)

ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT CHIEF SOCIAL SERVICES CHIEF III 41

ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II 25

CHIEF OF FIELD OPERATIONS SOCIAL SERVICES MGR V (III) 42(39)

IT COORDINATOR SOCIAL SERVICES PROGRAM SPECIALIST III 37

POLICY UNIT SOCIAL SERVICES PROGRAM SPECIALIST II 35

ENFORCEMENT UNIT FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST II 31 (NEW)

QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGER QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST II 36 (34)

STATE TRAINING MANAGER SOCIAL SERVICES PROGRAM SPECIALIST III 37

REGIONAL OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR LAS VEGAS SOCIAL SERVICES MANAGER I 37

POLICY UNIT SOCIAL SERVICES PROGRAM SPECIALIST II 35

FIDM & LIENS UNIT FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST II 31 (NEW)

EMPLOYER MAINTENANCE UNIT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT IV 29 (NEW)

REGIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE SPECIALIST QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST I 34

REGIONAL TRAINER - LAS VEGAS PROGRAM OFFICER II 33 (NEW)

REGIONAL OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR RENO SOCIAL SERVICES MANAGER I 37

POLICY UNIT SOCIAL SERVICES PROGRAM SPECIALIST II 35

FIDM & LIENS UNIT FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST II 31 (NEW)

SPLS/ICR UNIT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III 27 (NEW)

REGIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE SPECIALIST QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST I 34

REGIONAL TRAINER - RENO PROGRAM OFFICER II 33 (NEW)

REGIONAL OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR ELKO FAMILY SERVICES SUPERVISOR I 34

POLICY UNIT SOCIAL SERVICES PROGRAM SPECIALIST I 33

CONTRACTS/QC ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT IV 29

SPLS/ICR UNIT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III 27 (NEW)

REGIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE SPECIALIST QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST I 34

REGIONAL TRAINER - ELKO PROGRAM OFFICER II 33 (NEW) These boxes do not include staff assigned to the

POLICY UNIT SOCIAL SERVICES PROGRAM SPECIALIST I 33

CONTRACTS/QC ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II 25 (27) EXISTING POSITIONS

Dotted lines represent local supervision of a position's daily activites (i.e. - leave, office li i )

POLICY UNIT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II 25 (27)

NEW CENTRAL FUNCTION POSITIONS NEW RESTRUCTURING POSITIONS RECLASSIFIED/RESTRUCTURED POSITIONS

FUNCTION STATE JOB TITLE B/A / POS #


NEW GRADE (OLD GRADE)

Solid lines represent supervision of a position's primary job duties

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 53 appendixes\Appendix B - Centralization dec unit

Page 1 of 1

Modified on: 05/15/2008 Printed on: 8/29/2008 at 11:20 AM

APPENDIX U CONTRIBUTORS The Division of Welfare and Supportive Services would like to recognize the following individuals for their contributions to this report. NAME Nancy K. Ford Louise Bush Gary Stagliano Romaine Gilliland David Stewart David Castagnola John Alexander Cathy Kaplan Tara Jacobi Robin Ynacay-Nye Kathi Sinclair Sue Smith Denise Martinez Kathy Springman Laura Jenkins Teri Harasha Roger Mowbray Sue Berfield Michael J. Brown Kathi Brunson Lori Garcia Susan Hallahan TITLE Administrator CSEP Program Chief Deputy Administrator, Program and Field Operations Deputy Administrator, Administrative Services Deputy Administrator, Information Systems Social Services Program Specialist III Social Services Program Specialist III Staff Professional Social Services Program Specialist III Social Services Program Specialist III Personnel Officer III Budget & Statistics Chief Management Analyst III Administrative Assistant IV Management Analyst IV Social Services Program Specialist II Special Projects Contractor Assistant Director, Family Support Division Application Supervisor, Family Support Division Unit Administrator, Family Support Division Program Manager Chief Deputy District Attorney ORGANIZATION DWSS DWSS DWSS DWSS DWSS DWSS DWSS DWSS DWSS DWSS DWSS DWSS DWSS DWSS DWSS DWSS DWSS Clark County District Attorneys Office Clark County District Attorneys Office Clark County District Attorneys Office Washoe County District Attorneys Office Washoe County District Attorneys Office

NAME Rita Hanifen Kelly Macatanfay Annette Mansfield Linda Marzell Beth McKiever Carolyn Smith Robert Teuton C.A. Watts Kelly Winquist Sharron Yore Jim Shirley Russell Smith Gary Woodbury Robert Auer Patricia Peacher Connie Wenner The Honorable Judy Frances Doherty Bob Beckett Cheri Emm-Smith Arthur Mallory David Roger Mark Jackson Richard Gammick Keira Dembowski JP Soden The Honorable Steve L. Dobrescu

TITLE Child Support Coordinator Management Analyst Assistant Manager, Family Support Division Supervisor, Family Support Division Program Analyst II Child Support Supervisor Assistant District Attorney, Family Support Division Director, Family Support Division Business Systems Analyst Family Services Supervisor I District Attorney District Attorney District Attorney District Attorney Coordinator Coordinator District Court Judge District Attorney District Attorney District Attorney District Attorney District Attorney District Attorney Federal Program Specialist Federal Program Specialist District Court Judge

ORGANIZATION Churchill County District Attorneys Office Clark County District Attorneys Office Washoe County District Attorneys Office Washoe County District Attorneys Office Clark County District Attorneys Office Elko County District Attorneys Office Clark County District Attorneys Office Clark County District Attorneys Office Clark County District Attorneys Office DWSS Pershing County Humboldt County Elko County Lyon County Lyon County District Attorneys Office Douglas County District Attorneys Office Second Judicial District Court Nye County Mineral County Churchill County Clark County Douglas County Washoe County Office of Child Support Enforcement Office of Child Support Enforcement Seventh Judicial District Court

APPENDIX T AB 536 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CHALLENGES


State Share of State General Collections Fund Recommendations that can be accomplished with existing resources 1.A. 1.B. 1.C. 1.D. 1.E. Improve management reporting by "Reports Workgroup" using existing NOMADS functionality Phase 1 of document imaging to include the architectural design and a Technology Investment Request Centralize various case processing functions and call center functions with existing resources Use existing resources to identify current training needs, develop training material and deliver training as needed Monitor and update strategic plan by the IV-D Planning Committee subject to Task Force direction Challenges to Implementation Legislative Federal Competing Direction Approval Resources Statutory Authority Strategic Consensus

Recommendations dependant upon establishment and implementation of a Child Support Enforcement Task Force Create and implement a CSEP Task Force in effect through the 2011 2.A. session 2.B. 2.C. 2.D 2.E. 2.F. 2.G. Strategic planning for future funding of the CSEP Consider funding options for improving performance and increasing efficiencies that require additional resources Implement performance improvements and efficiencies if funding is approved Consider creation of a State controlled and directed regional structure Implement a State controlled and directed regional structure as envisioned by the Task Force and approved by the Legislature Identify training needs and deliver training associated with a State controlled regional structure

Recommendations dependant upon entities outside of DWSS 3.A. 3.B. 3.C. 3.D. 3.E. 3.F. 3.G. Present TIR to 2009 Legislature to fund assessment of options for possible replacement of NOMADS . Conduct assessment of the viability of replacing NOMADS, if approve. Seek federal and legislative approval to conduct a feasibility study to replace NOMADS Initiate feasibility study for the replacement of NOMADS Consider funding options for phase 2 of document imaging Implement phase 2 of document imaging if funding is approved Analyze and report on using administrative processes vs. hearing masters

Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX T AB 536 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUMMARY

State Fiscal Years Quarter Ending 1. Recommendations that can be accomplished with existing resources 1.A. 1.B. 1.C. 1.D. 1.E. Improve management reporting by "Reports Workgroup" using existing NOMADS functionality Phase 1 of document imaging to include the architectural design and a Technology Investment Request Centralize various case processing functions and call center functions with existing resources Use existing resources to identify current training needs, develop training material and deliver training as needed Monitor and update strategic plan by the IV-D Planning Committee subject to Task Force direction

SFY 2009 SFY 2010 SFY 2011 SFY 2012 SFY 2013 Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 Mar-10 Jun-10 Sep-10 Dec-10 Mar-11 Jun-11 Sep-11 Dec-11 Mar-12 Jun-12 Sep-12 Dec-12 Mar-13 Jun-13

Recommendations dependant upon the establishment and implementation of a Child Support Enforcement Task Force Create and implement a CSEP Task Force in effect through the 2011 2.A. session 2.B. 2.C. 2.D 2.E. 2.F. 2.G. Strategic planning for future funding of the CSEP Consider funding options for improving performance and increasing efficiencies that require additional resources Implement performance improvements and efficiencies if funding is approved Consider creation of a State controlled and directed regional structure Implement a State controlled and directed regional structure as envisioned by the Task Force and approved by the Legislature Identify training needs and deliver training associated with a State controlled regional structure

Recommendations dependant upon entities outside of DWSS 3.A. 3.B. 3.C. 3.D. 3.E. 3.F. 3.G. Present TIR to 2009 Legislature to fund assessment of options for possible replacement of NOMADS . Conduct assessment of the viability of replacing NOMADS, if approve. Seek federal and legislative approval to conduct a feasibility study to replace NOMADS Initiate feasibility study for the replacement of NOMADS Consider funding options for phase 2 of document imaging Implement phase 2 of document imaging if funding is approved Analyze and report on using administrative processes vs. hearing masters Solid arrows represent tasks with no more than one dependancy: Dotted arrows represent tasks with more than one dependancy:

Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX S CSEP ACRONYMS


A.K.A AB ALJ ANSRS APA APD APDU BA BDR BPA CAT CDMS CFR CM CMTS COTS CP CRM CSE CSENet CSEP CSP CST CSU DA DAFS DBA DHHS DMV DoD DoIT DRA DWSS Also Known As Assembly Bill Administrative Law Judge Automated Nevada Serverbased Reference System Administrative Procedures Act Advance Planning Document Advance Planning Document Update Budget Account Bill Draft Request Business Process Analyst Category Content and Document Management System Code of Federal Regulations Case Manager Change Management Control System Commercial Off The Shelf Custodial Parent Customer Relationship Management Child Support Enforcement Child Support Enforcement Network Child Support Enforcement Program Cross System Product Custodian Customer Service Unit District Attorney District Attorneys Family Support Doing Business As Department of Health and Human Services Department of Motor Vehicles Department of Defense Department of Information Technology Deficit Reduction Act Division of Welfare and Supportive Services EAC ECM ESD EST FCR FEIN FFP FFY FIDM FMAP FTE GAAP GASB GF ICR IFC IM IS ISM IT ITFS ITP ITS IV-A IV-D Entity Analytics Solutions Electronic Content Management Employment Security Division Estimate Federal Case Registry Federal Employer Identification Number Federal Financial Participation Federal Fiscal Year Financial Institution Data Match Federal Medical Assistance Percentage Full Time Equivalent (position) Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Governmental Accounting Standards Board General Fund Interstate Central Registry Interim Finance Committee Informational Memorandum Information Systems Information Systems Manager Information Technology Interface Selection Information Technology Professional Information Tracking System Title IV-A of the Social Security Act covering TANF Block Grants Title IV-D of the Social Security Act covering Child Support and Establishment of Paternity Title IV-A of the Social Security Act covering Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Legislative Counsel Bureau

IV-E

LCB

APPENDIX S CSEP ACRONYMS


LOTW LTR MA MSA N/A NAWC NCP NDNH NMSN NOMADS NRCP NRS OCSE PA PAO PEP PRWORA PSOC QA QC QUICK Ledgers On The Web Letter Management Analyst Master Service Agreement Not Applicable Nevada Automated Worksheet Calculator Noncustodial Parent National Directory of New Hires National Medical Support Notice Nevada Operations of MultiAutomated Data Systems Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure Nevada Revised Statutes Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement Public Assistance Program Area Office Paternity Establishment Percentage Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act Project Save Our Children Quality Assurance Quality Control Query Interstate Cases for Kids RA RFI RFP ROM SCaDU SDNH SEIN SOLQ SOP SPLS SRD SSC SSN TANF TBD TIR UAT UEIN UIB USPS VRU WITS Regional Administrator Request For Information Request For Proposals Regional Office Manager State Collection and Disbursement Unit State Directory of New Hires State Employer Identification Number State Online Query Service of Process State Parent Locator Service Systems Requirements Document State Share of Collections Social Security Number Temporary Assistance for Needy Families To Be Determined Technology Investment Request User Acceptance Testing Unique Employer Identification Number Unemployment Insurance Benefit United States Postal Service Voice Response Unit Work Item Tracking System

APPENDIX R CSEP INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RECOMMENDATIONS AND INITIATIVES


Ref # Recommendation Replacement of the IV-D components of NOMADS (see Appendix L) Streamline mail handling to include bar coding and enhance NOMADS to update records. Enhance central office's web site for case participants and employers to allow customer input of information and availability of forms. Ease employer burden via internet, VRU and toll-free phone. Develop a web application. Develop an interface file for the VRU Expand auto-dialer options Automation enhancements to improve the enforcement process Implementation of electronic income withholding orders for the military Elimination of duplicate income withholding orders. Automation of the Unemployment Benefit Insurance (UIB) intercept process. Initiate an automatic withdrawal process for NCP payments. Participate in the Query Interstate Cases for Kids (QUICK) system. Alternate simplified ledger for dissemination to parties, other states Clean-up of the employer data base (See Appendix M) Update DMV information for auto generated license suspensions Develop management reports for data reliability MSA Hours MSA Rate MSA Costs Other Costs Total Costs $1,048,045 $1,048,045 $139,500 $279,000 $193,440 Federal Share $691,710 $92,070 $184,140 $127,670 State Share $356,335 $47,430 $94,860 $65,770

1 2 3 4 4(a) 4(b) 4 5 5(a) 5(b) 5 5(d) 5(e) 5(f) 6 7 8

1,500 3,000
MSA Hours

$93 $93 $93

$139,500 $279,000 $193,440

2,080

1,600
240 240 MSA Hours 520 120 200 720 520 300 $854,220 $854,220 $46,500 $165,912 $1,902,265 $2,947,957 $563,785 $30,690 $109,502 $1,945,652 $290,435 $15,810 $56,410 $1,002,305

2,380

$93

$221,340

$221,340

$146,084

$75,256

500 1,784

$93 $93

$46,500 $165,912

Total: $1,045,692

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 53 appendixes\Appendix R - IS projects for CSEP 06-16-08

Page 1 of 1

[DWSS] [CLEAN UP OF EMPLOYER DATA.] BUSINESS CASE

PLANNING DOCUMENT - COVER PAGE LAST UPDATED: 04/02/08


PROJECT TITLE Clean Up Employer Data (CMTS #27843, WITS #30) DEPARTMENT NAME Department of Health and Human Services AGENCY NAME Division of Welfare and Supportive Services (DWSS) PROJECT SUMMARY [PURPOSE & DESCRIPTION] To comply with the recommendation of the Maximus performance audit, DWSS is seeking to clean up the employer table, the manner of which employer data are stored and processed. DWSS may also establish a centralized employer unit, which was also recommended by the Maximus audit. The unit would be responsible for maintaining the database, avoid duplication of employer records, and ensure valid data are maintained for each employer. These are vital functions necessary to meet the business needs of expediting support payments to custodial parents. The scope of this project is: Define the problems associated with the employer table. Describe the sources of the interfaces that hit the employer table, and how the records are matched. Describe employer records that must be corrected, and how to replace or merge records. Explore a front-end for the employers to update their addresses and other contact information on the web. SUBMITTAL DATE [mm/dd/20yy] BUDGET NUMBER [####] DECISION UNIT [####]

TIME / COST: PHASE


IMPLEMENTATION COST ANNUAL MAINTENANCE / SUPPORT COST BIENNIAL COST

[New, Continuing Phase, or Upgrade]


$[x,xxx,xxx] $[x,xxx,xxx] $[xx,xxx,xxx]

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES Appendix 1: Cost Worksheet Appendix 2: Supporting Cost Details

OUTSIDE REFERENCES [Document Title, Date, Author, Location] [...]

Appendix Q - Clean-up employer database 06-16-08

Page 1

[DWSS] [CLEAN UP OF EMPLOYER DATA.] BUSINESS CASE

PROJECT CONTACTS / AUTHORITY PROJECT ROLE Sponsor Agency Administrator Department Director Agency IT Project Manager CONTACT ? Nancy Ford, Administrator, DWSS Michael Willden, Director, Nevada Department of Health and Human Services David Stewart, Deputy Administrator, IS Welfare and Supportive Services Tony Gould, Business Process Analyst, DWSS ? 775-684-0504 775-684-4000 775-684-0767 PHONE / FAX ? N/A m.willden@dhss.nv.gov dnstewart@dwss.nv.gov E-MAIL

775-684-0781

tgould@dwss.nv.gov

CONTACT S (FOR DEPENDENCIES, LINKED PROJECTS, EXTERNAL PARTNERS, ETC.) EXTERNAL/INTERNAL PROJECT/DEPENDENCY Child Supportive Enforcement, DWSS Eligibility and Payments, DWSS Washoe County Program Area Office Clark County District Attorneys Office Reno District Attorneys Office CONTACT Teri Harasha, Shirley Ceaglio Jeff Brenn, Sherry Haar, Howard Webb Barbara Koehlke, Brett Barlow Beth McKiever, Donna Cochran, Stephanie Prawalsky Annette Mansfield, Sue Carder, Denise White Laura Jenkins, Nancy Kenison, Bart London, David Bugli, Marc Averbach, Evelyn Russell, Laurie Sorenson, Cheryl Texeira, Tracey Owen, Larry Smolyansky, Ted Poehler, Christie Cohen, Dave Texeira PHONE / FAX 775-684-0692 775-684-0618 775-448-5163 702-671-9394 775-789-7123 E-MAIL tharasha@dwss.nv.gov jbrenn@dwss.nv.gov bkoehlke@dwss.nv.gov petersB@co.clark.nv.us amansfi@da.washoecounty.us

Information Systems, DWSS

775-684-0561

ljenkins@dwss.nv.gov

Appendix Q - Clean-up employer database 06-16-08

Page 2

[DWSS] [CLEAN UP OF EMPLOYER DATA.] BUSINESS CASE

BUSINESS CASE AND CONTEXT


BUSINESS PROBLEMS The interfaces match their records against the employer table (TWNEMPLOYER table (NOMADS screen EMPD)) by the Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) and/or State Employer Identification Number (SEIN). The key for identification is the Employer ID, which is a FEIN, a SEIN, or a pseudo ID. There are a number of problems associated with the employer table, which are described as follows: 1. Many of the employer records have been duplicated. The causes are: 1.1. The Employment Security Division (ESD) runs a daily interface using the FEIN and SEIN as the key for identification. If a record was found with an FEIN as the employer ID, then it was overlaid by the SEIN. In conflict, the other interfaces match their records using the FEIN as the key for identification, so when an FEIN isnt found a new record is added. Note: Recently, a new element was added to the employer table to maintain the FEIN. However, incoming interfaces continue to add duplicate records to the database, because the FEIN isnt recognized unless its the Employer ID. A data element doesnt exist on the employer table for the SEIN. 1.2. Employer records with a pseudo as the Employer ID arent recognized by any of the interfaces, and as a result new records are added. Pseudo records are added by the request of child support workers, and the FEIN and/or SEIN are not known. They may also be the result of auto-conversion, which occurred around 19992000. 1.3. Around 1999-2000, some employer records were added with the FEIN identifiers improperly formatted, with the hyphen placed in the 8th position rather than the 3rd. These records cant be matched against any of the interfaces, and as a result new records are added by incoming interfaces. 1.4. Around 1999-2000, some employer records were added with the SEIN identifiers improperly formatted, with the hyphen placed in the 3rd position rather than the 8th. These records arent recognized by any of the interfaces, and as a result new records are added by incoming interfaces. 1.5. Users may not have diligently researched the employer table before choosing to add a new record. 2. If a business is sold the names and addresses may not change, but the SEIN/FEIN identifiers will differ. This leads to confusion for child support workers when they search the database to match a participant to an employer, because the system displays multiple records for the same employer.

Appendix Q - Clean-up employer database 06-16-08

Page 3

[DWSS] [CLEAN UP OF EMPLOYER DATA.] BUSINESS CASE

BUSINESS PROBLEMS 3. For the child support workers, the criterion to search for employer records is limited to business name (EMPLOYER ID POP-UP in NOMADS). For the Helpdesk, the criteria to search for employer records are limited to the business name, doing business as (DBA), or the employer ID (EMPLOYER TABLE MENU in NOMADS). The chances of duplication of employer data can be avoided if the search criteria are expanded. 4. Employer records that were inadvertently added cannot be deleted. 5. Duplicated records cannot be efficiently merged, as the routine is slow and tends to lock up the system. 6. The database doesnt maintain the various address types that may exist for an employer, but will be expanded to maintain new address types under work item 12. Its anticipated that work item 12 will be promoted around September, 2008. The address types are: Primary Address Site Address(s) Income Withholding Address Payroll Address Employment Verification Address Service of Process Address National Medical Support Notice Address Unemployment Insurance Benefit Address Workers Compensation Address 7. Many of the employer addresses on the database are invalid. Data reliability can be improved if the communication between the employers and child support staff is improved, and if the data is diligently maintained.

BUSINESS OBJECTIVE STATEMENT Define the problems associated with the employer table. Describe the sources of the interfaces that hit the employer table and how the records are matched. Describe employer records that must be corrected and how to replace or merge records. Explore a front-end for the employers to update their addresses on the web.

Appendix Q - Clean-up employer database 06-16-08

Page 4

[DWSS] [CLEAN UP OF EMPLOYER DATA.] BUSINESS CASE

BUSINESS ASSUMPTIONS, MANDATES, AND LIMITING FACTORS [List things that affect / limit your options, scope, methods or other project parameters]

METRICS Business Employees (associated with the business) Business Processors (users / operators) Business Sites Operating Hours (hours per day) Operating Days (days per week) Business Customers (those served by the business) Peak Usage (concurrent users) [Specify the type] Master Records in Repository [Specify the type] Transactions Processed (per specified period) []

VALUES
CURRENT PROJECTED

[Specify count] [Specify count] [Specify count] [Specify count] [Specify count] [Specify count] Normal BusiSame ness Hours Normal BusiSame ness Days [Specify count] [Specify count] [Specify count] [Specify count] [Specify count] [Specify count] [Specify count / period] [] [Specify count / period] []

TECHNOLOGY AS IS AND TO BE Database Computing Platform Network Storage (availability, mirroring, .etc) Application infrastructure (language, multi-tiered, etc.) []

CURRENT

PROJECTED

NOMADS DB2 IBM MAINFRAME [Specify Type] [Specify Type] [Specify Type] []

Same Same [Specify Type] [Specify Type] [Specify Type] []

Appendix Q - Clean-up employer database 06-16-08

Page 5

[DWSS] [CLEAN UP OF EMPLOYER DATA.] BUSINESS CASE

SOURCES OF INTERFACES AND THE KEYS USED TO MATCH UP EMPLOYER RECORDS Employment Security Division (ESD) Interface: Records are matched by the FEIN and/or SEIN State Directory of New Hire (SDNH) (Department of Employment Training & Rehabilitation) interface: Records are matched by the FEIN. Federal Case Registry (FCR) Interface o National Directory of New Hire (NDNH): Records a matched by the FEIN

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MAINTAINING EMPLOYER DATA 1. The key to identify each employer record will be a Unique Employer Identification Number (UEIN). In addition to the FEIN, the SEIN will be maintained for each employer, and where necessary, multiple FEINs and SEINs will be maintained for each employer. The interfaces will be changed to recognize the FEIN and SEIN, which will reduce duplicating records that already exist in the database. (Development 1500 hrs.) 2. DWSS will work with ESD to determine if its necessary to match their records against the SEIN. The effort put into maintaining the employer data can be reduced if the SEIN doesnt have to be maintained.

3. The system will be enhanced so employer records can be end dated. End dated records will be distinctive, or may not be displayed as child support workers search the database for new matches between employers and case participants. (Development 750 hrs.) 4. Before new records are added by the request of child support workers, those who maintain the database will research for an employers FEIN, and if necessary the SEIN. The employers name and contact information will also be confirmed. This process ensures that information on the database is reliable, and reduces the chances for duplicating existing records. 5. Before the database is updated, the information received by interfaces which impacts the employer database will be pended and researched by those who maintain the employer database. 5.1. The system must allow the users to alter the data before its committed to the database. (Development 1000 hrs.)

Appendix Q - Clean-up employer database 06-16-08

Page 6

[DWSS] [CLEAN UP OF EMPLOYER DATA.] BUSINESS CASE

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MAINTAINING EMPLOYER DATA 6. The search tool for the child support workers and those who maintain the employer data will be expanded to search by name, DBA, address, city, state/country and ZIP code, or a combination thereof. Entity Analytics Solutions (EAS) software will be used for identity resolution. The search results will display based on a point system. (Development 1000 hrs.) 7. The system will be corrected so those who maintain the data can merge duplicated records more efficiently. (Development 500 hrs.) 8. A system tool will be provided so those who maintain the data can delete invalid employer records. (Development 20 hrs.) 9. Those responsible for the database will maintain address records according to USPS standards. 10. Notices used to correspond with employers will contain the email and phone number for those who maintain the employer data, so that employers may report a change of contact information. The notices are: Original Order/Notice To Withhold Income For Child Support (NV014O) Order/Notice To Withhold Income For Child Support (NV0014) Amended Order/Notice To Withhold Income For Child Support (NV014A) National Medical Support Notice (GN0155) Employer Verification Form (GN0092) Employer Non-Compliance LTR (Income Withholding) (GN0050) Notice To Employer To Terminate Withholding (GN0089) Order/Notice To Terminate Withhold Inc For Child Support (NV014T) (Development 100 hrs.) 11. Employers that are new to the database will be contacted by mail for their: Primary Address Site Address(s) Income Withholding Address Payroll Address Employment Verification Address Service of Process Address National Medical Support Notice Address Unemployment Insurance Benefit Address Workers Compensation Address (Development 250 hrs.)

Appendix Q - Clean-up employer database 06-16-08

Page 7

[DWSS] [CLEAN UP OF EMPLOYER DATA.] BUSINESS CASE

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MAINTAINING EMPLOYER DATA 12. The link labeled Child Support Information for Employers will be relocated to the front page of the DWSS website. Both the front page and the employer page will include a link for the email and phone number of those responsible for the employer data, so employers can report a change of contact information. (Development 8 hrs.) 13. Employer records which havent been actively associated to a IV-A/IV-D case or case participant for two or more years will be end dated or archived. (Development 100 hrs.) 14. The employer data and the functions related to employers will be maintained on the web, which includes the data maintained on; EMPT: Employer Table Menu EMLS: Employer List By Name EMPD: Employer Detail Primary Record EMAD: Employer Address Maintenance NEMP: NCP Employment SEAT: Select Employer Address By Type TR04: Case Tracking Employment Changes Employer Merge Employer Delete Employer End-Date (Development 300 hrs.)

Appendix Q - Clean-up employer database 06-16-08

Page 8

[DWSS] [CLEAN UP OF EMPLOYER DATA.] BUSINESS CASE

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLEANING UP EMPLOYER DATA 1. Employer records which are not associated to an IV-A or IV-D case or case participant will be deleted. (Development 10 hrs.) 2. Remaining employer addresses will be standardized (normalization) according to USPS standards. (Development 500 hrs.) 3. Employer records with an FEIN or SEIN thats formatted incorrectly will be compared with records that have a correctly formatted FEIN or SEIN, and if the names and contact information meets the criteria for a match the records will be merged automatically. The contact information and UEIN for the records with the valid FEIN or SEIN will be primary. Cases and case-participants associated to the invalid (secondary) records will be reassigned to the primary UEIN. 3.1. Records that dont meet the criteria for a match will be reported, researched, and the appropriate action taken. (Development 120 hrs.) 4. Employer records with an FEIN will be matched against those with an SEIN using a cross-reference provided by ESD. If the names and contact information meets the criteria for a match the records will be combined automatically, so the employer record contains both the FEIN and SEIN. 4.1. Records that dont meet the criteria for a match will be reported and researched and the appropriate action will be taken. Note: It hasnt been confirmed that ESD can provide this data. (Development 120 hrs.) 5. Employer records without an FEIN and SEIN (Pseudo Records) will be compared against one another. If the names and contact information meets the criteria for a match the records will be merged automatically. Employer records with the latest pseudo ID will be primary, and the contact information and UEIN for the primary records will be used. Cases and case-participants associated to the invalid (secondary) records will be reassigned to the primary UEIN. (Development) (Development 160 hrs.)

Appendix Q - Clean-up employer database 06-16-08

Page 9

[DWSS] [CLEAN UP OF EMPLOYER DATA.] BUSINESS CASE

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLEANING UP EMPLOYER DATA 6. Employer records without an FEIN and/or SEIN will be compared against records with an FEIN and/or SEIN. If the names and contact information meets the criteria for a match the records will be merged automatically. Employer records that have an FEIN or SEIN will be primary. 6.1. If the criteria for a match are met, but multiple FEIN or SEIN exist for an employer (same name and address, but different FEIN and/or SEIN), then the records will not be automatically merged. The records will be reported and researched, and the appropriate action will be taken. 6.2. Records that dont meet the criteria for a match will be reported and researched and the appropriate action will be taken. (Development 200 hrs.) 7. Employer records that remain without a valid FEIN and/or SEIN will be reported and researched, and the appropriate action will be taken. (Development 20 hrs.) 8. Employer records which havent been actively linked to a IV-A/IV-D case or case participant for two or more years will be end dated or archived. (Development 10 hrs.) 9. Excluding those which havent been actively linked to a IV-A/IV-D case or case participant, employers who remain on the database will be contacted by mail for their: Primary Address Site Address(s) Income Withholding Address Payroll Address Employment Verification Address Service of Process Address National Medical Support Notice Address Unemployment Insurance Benefit Address Workers Compensation Address (Development 20 hrs.) (Add 320 hrs. for the design faze (all))

Appendix Q - Clean-up employer database 06-16-08

Page 10

[DWSS] [CLEAN UP OF EMPLOYER DATA.] BUSINESS CASE


RESOURCES

The SEIN can be obtained and verified by the ESD. The FEIN can be obtained and verified by: ESD may be the best source for the FEIN. Child Support Enforcement in the state of Minnesota has indicated they have their employer data in good condition, and they verify employer FEINs with their employment department. They have direct access to the employer data. A phone call with the employer.

An employers name, address and phone number can be found using a number of resources, including: AnyWho Online Directory. ESD (See 2.3.). A phone call with the employer.

Alternative Comparison
STATUS QUO

Evaluation and Consequences: Reference: Business Problems. Why IT? RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE: Description: Reference: Recommendations For Maintaining Employer Data and Recommendations For Cleaning Up The Employer Table Evaluation: [Summarize why this is the recommended option]

Appendix Q - Clean-up employer database 06-16-08

Page 11

[DWSS] [CLEAN UP OF EMPLOYER DATA.] BUSINESS CASE

NON-VIABLE ALTERNATIVES [Non Viable Option 1]: [Summarize the option and why it was considered not viable] [Next Non-Viable Option]: [Summarize the option and why it was considered not viable] [...]

SELECTED ALTERNATIVE: CHARACTERISTICS


FINANCIAL BENEFITS TABLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT
Revenue Increase:

BASELINE MEASURE
$[x,xxx,xxx]

MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY
Describe how this is measured Describe how this is measured

YEAR 1 TARGET

YEAR 2 TARGET

TOTAL

[Describe the Benefit]


Cost Reduction:

$[x,xxx,xxx] $[x,xxx,xxx]

$[x,xxx,xxx]

[Describe the Benefit]

$[x,xxx,xxx]

$[x,xxx,xxx] $[x,xxx,xxx]

$[x,xxx,xxx] $[x,xxx,xxx]

NON-FINANCIAL BENEFITS NON-FINANCIAL BENEFIT Public and Employee Safety: NONE Customer Service Improvement: Improved correspondence between child support enforcement and employers, which will contribute towards expediting child support enforcement processes. Process / Performance Improvement: [Describe Benefit] Strategic (Collaboration): [Describe Benefit] Statutory Compliance: [Describe Benefit]
Appendix Q - Clean-up employer database 06-16-08 Page 12

Baseline Value [####]

Target Value [####]

% of goal in 2 yrs? [####]

[##]% [####] [####]

[####] [####] [####]

[####] [####] [####]

[##]% [##]% [##]%

[DWSS] [CLEAN UP OF EMPLOYER DATA.] BUSINESS CASE

NON-FINANCIAL BENEFIT [Name & Description of Other Benefit] RISKS TO PROJECT COMPLETION RISK TYPE AND DESCRIPTION Probability Impact

Baseline Value [####]

Target Value [####]

% of goal in 2 yrs? [##]%

What is it and how you deal with it? Failure to fund the project will leave DWSS unable to implement the recommendations made by the Maximus audit, and the employer database will remain substandard. To establish a match between employer records, a software product or programmay be required that will compare names, addresses and ID numbers. [Description] [Description] What is it and how you deal with it? [Description] [Description] [Description] [Description] [Description]

Funding

Technical

Staffing/Experience Mandate Related RISK TYPE AND DESCRIPTION Dependency Related Security Business Process Stakeholder [Name Other Risk]

[L, M, or H] [L, M, or H] Probability [L, M, or H] [L, M, or H] [L, M, or H] [L, M, or H] [L, M, or H]

[L, M, or H] [L, M, or H] Impact [L, M, or H] [L, M, or H] [L, M, or H] [L, M, or H] [L, M, or H]

COST / BENEFIT SUMMARY COST / BENEFIT COMPARED TO OTHER ALTERNATIVES [Describe how the chosen alternatives cost / benefit is better than the contending alternatives]

Appendix Q - Clean-up employer database 06-16-08

Page 13

[DWSS] [CLEAN UP OF EMPLOYER DATA.] BUSINESS CASE

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
STAFF INVOLVEMENT POSITION(S) Business Process Analyst II [Staff Classification / Type] [Staff Classification / Type] [Staff Classification / Type] [Staff Classification / Type] [Staff Classification / Type] [Staff Classification / Type] ROLE IN PROJECT Project Manager [Description] [Description] [Description] [Description] [Description] [Description] PHASES OF INVOLVEMENT All Phases [ID project phases] [ID project phases] [ID project phases] [ID project phases] [ID project phases] [ID project phases]

Meet with the end-users, Child Support Enforcement Program and Development to: A. Define the problems associated with the employer data. B. Describe the sources of interfaces and how records are matched. C. Describe records that must be corrected and how to replace or merge records. D. Explore a front-end for employers to update their addresses on the web, or an alternative.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

HIGH LEVEL PROJECT TIMETABLE MILESTONE OR ACTIVITY


Project Initiation RFP [Specify Milestone] [Specify Milestone] [Specify Milestone] [Specify Milestone] [Specify Milestone] Project Completion

ANTICIPATED START
9/10/07 [mm/yy] [mm/yy] [mm/yy] [mm/yy] [mm/yy] [mm/yy] n.a.

ESTIMATED COMPLETION

n.a. [mm/yy] [mm/yy] [mm/yy] [mm/yy] [mm/yy] [mm/yy] [mm/yy]

Appendix Q - Clean-up employer database 06-16-08

Page 14

[DWSS] [CLEAN UP OF EMPLOYER DATA.] BUSINESS CASE

HIGH LEVEL PROJECT TIMETABLE


Anticipated Retirement n.a. [mm/yy]

REFERENCE MATERIAL Each employer record is identified by a 10-character ID. The IDs are described as follows: Federal Employer Identification number. Example of ID: 88-1234567 State Employer Identification number (Employment Security Department). Example of ID: 0234567-00 State Employer Identification number for the employers agent. Example of ID: 0234567-95 Pseudo number created by a conversion and employer records added by the Helpdesk. Example of ID: 0001-12345 Pseudo number created pre-conversion. Example of ID: PS0000123 Improperly formatted FEIN numbers, where the hyphen is placed in the 8th position rather than the 3rd. Example of ID: 8801234-56 Improperly formatted SEIN numbers, where the hyphen is placed in the 3rd position rather than the 8th. Example of ID: 02-3456700

The employer table is affected by the following data sources: ESD Interface State Directory of New Hire (SDNH) interface Department of Employment Training & Rehabilitation

Federal Case Registry (FCR) interface o National Directory of New Hire (NDNH) The Help Desk

Appendix Q - Clean-up employer database 06-16-08

Page 15

[DWSS] [CLEAN UP OF EMPLOYER DATA.] BUSINESS CASE

REFERENCE MATERIAL Postal Service address standards: http://pe.usps.gov/cpim/ftp/pubs/Pub28/pub28.pdf http://www.usps.com/businessmail101/addressing/deliveryAddress.htm

COSTS (ITEMS PENDING ARE HIGHLIGHTED)


Marc/Larry: Query on how many employer records exist, excluding those who havent been actively associated with an IV-A/IV-D case or case participant for 2 or more years. (Required for #9 under clean-up). o Answer: Approximately 145,085

Teri: Estimate the cost for each correspondence. Include postage and a return envelope. (Required for #9 under clean-up). o Answer: .95 cents each.

Cost to mail correspondence to employers soliciting for their valid contact information: $137,831.00 Marc Sieben, Larry Smolyansky, Dave Texeira: Estimate the number of hours needed to develop the code for items marked (Development). o 7008 man hours at $100. (7008x100) $700,800.00

Ron Taylor: Estimate the number of hours required by the DBA group. o 10 man hours at $43.48(10x43.48) $434.80

Christie Cohen: Estimate the number of hours required to build task guides. o 10 man hours at $41.71 (10x41.71) $417.10

Paul Larsen: Estimate the number of hours required to test. o 100 man hours at $32.66 (100x32.66) $3,266.00

Tony Gould: Estimate the number of hours for requirements. o 275 man hours at $41.71 (275x41.71) $11,470.25

Cost to expand the E.A.S. License. E.A.S. will be used as a search engine for the employer records. o Answer: Nothing right now

Appendix Q - Clean-up employer database 06-16-08

Page 16

[DWSS] [CLEAN UP OF EMPLOYER DATA.] BUSINESS CASE

COSTS (ITEMS PENDING ARE HIGHLIGHTED)

Estimated Cost for Manpower:

$716,388.15

Estimated Cost for Correspondence: $137,831.00 Total Cost Estimate: $854.220.00

Pendings Dave S. is going to arrange a meeting with child support to discuss the plan. Afterwards, Marc A., Larry and Dave T. will detail the hours required for development.

NOTES
IV-A does not add records to the employer table. If theyre unable to find an employer record, then they add the record as text in the JINC screen. The record is then removed automatically during the following month. The helpdesk adds about 10 employer records a day. Ted: Concerning the E.A.S. software, we are licensed for 2 million records. At last count there were 1.6 million person records, and 290K employer records. That leaves a balance of approx. 100,000, so the license will need to be expanded. Ted is going to estimate how many person records are added each day. o ANSWER: Approx 2755 per week, 143,000 per year.

David: Estimate how many employer records are added by interfaces. o ANSWER: Approx 535 per week, 27,820 per year.

Appendix Q - Clean-up employer database 06-16-08

Page 17

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

Technology Investment Request (TIR) Cover Page PROJECT TITLE CSE Modernization Requirement Definition DEPARTMENT NAME Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) AGENCY NAME Division of Welfare and Supportive Services (DWSS) PROJECT SUMMARY [PURPOSE & DESCRIPTION] DWSS requires automated computer systems to process Child Support Enforcement claims related to Nevadas citizens entitled to child support, including statewide public assistance programs. These systems are in need of modernization to better satisfy Federal and State processing mandates, upgrade aging software architectures, and offset and avoid expensive future maintenance costs. Currently, the Child Support Enforcement program and the public assistance programs are supported by the Nevada Operations Of Multi-Automated Data Systems (NOMADS) application. The purpose of this TIR is to more fully identify Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program requirements, consider potential alternate solutions, and estimate costs. Key project steps include: evaluate CSE technology alternatives; select an appropriate modernization/replacement approach and methodology, master project schedule; establish the modernization/replacement budget and source; and, position DWSS to modernize or replace the automated CSE applications in compliance with the intent of satisfying recommendations made by. the Maximus Performance Audit of the State of Nevada's Enforcement and Collection of Child Support pursuant to Section 2 of Assembly Bill 580, 2005 Session, and in support of Assembly Bill 536, 2007 session, as referenced: (f) The status of improvements in information technology, including, without limitation, technology for case management to replace the Nevada Operations of Multi-Automated Data Systems currently used in the collection of child support (Appendix 4, AB 536) SUBMITTAL DATE April 7th, 2008 BUDGET NUMBER 3238 DECISION UNIT E586

The scope of this TIR is to: Comprehensively review the ability of the NOMADS software application to perform business responsibilities required by federal and state laws, regulations and policy. Examine the ability of the IV-D specific application modules within NOMADS to promote business efficiencies and cost-effective case management. Determine the long-term viability of the IV-D specific application modules within NOMADS to provide continued support of Divisional responsibilities and to integrate into the Department of Information Technologys global information technology plan. Analyze the cost-effectiveness and functionality of the IV-D specific application modules within NOMADS in comparison to other software applications used by other state or county governments engaged in similar business activities.

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 1

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

Identify best practice software support options utilized by other states to promote business efficiencies and cost-effective operations. Recommend software application improvement or replacement options using provided high level system requirements, to include a preliminary cost analysis and implementation plan(s) and timelines of these options.

At the conclusion of the project, DWSS anticipates the following achievements: Identification of overall CSE modernization requirements and scope; Cost Benefit Analysis of modernization requirements and alternatives; Assessment and selection of appropriate CSE modernization alternatives; Documented CSE high level business and technical system requirements; Master schedule and approach for modernizing or replacing the CSE applications; Master plan for funding CSE modernization. The output of this effort would be used as input to a Federal Feasibility Study process, or RFP, for acquiring/state transferring a CSE application and services, or as a basis to modernize/re-write the application with State resources. DWSS CSE requirement analysis expected to take up to 24 months. TIME / COST: PHASE IMPLEMENTATION COST ANNUAL MAINTENANCE / SUPPORT
COST

Upgrade CSE Requirement Definition $1,044,024 0 $1,044,024 OUTSIDE REFERENCES

BIENNIAL COST ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES Appendix 1: TIR Service & Resource Plan Appendix 2: Benefits Mapping Appendix 3: Supporting Cost Details Appendix 4: Assembly Bill 536 Appendix 5: Quick Facts: DWSS/Child Support Enforcement Program

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 2

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

PROJECT CONTACTS / AUTHORITY PROJECT ROLE Sponsor CONTACT __________________________ __/__/__ Louise Bush, Chief , Child Support and Enforcement, DWSS __________________________ __/__/__ Nancy Ford, Administrator, Welfare and Support Services __________________________ __/__/__ Michael Willden, Director, DHSS __________________________ __/__/__ David Stewart, Deputy Administrator, IS Welfare and Support Services Project Manager __________________________ __/__/__ 775-684-0549 Steve Fisher, Manager, Application Development, Welfare and Support Services EXTERNAL CONTACT S (FOR DEPENDENCIES, LINKED PROJECTS, EXTERNAL PARTNERS, ETC.) EXTERNAL PROJECT/DEPENDENCY N/A Note: Signatures are not required at initial TIR submission, only names, titles and other identifying information. Signatures are to be submitted after final review as part of the review closure process (see TIR Instruction Guide for further details on TIR submission) CONTACT shfisher@dwss.nv.gov PHONE / FAX 775-684-0705 E-MAIL lbush@dwss.nv.gov

Agency Administrator

775-684-0504 775-684-0614

nkford@dwss.nv.gov

Department Director Agency IT

775-684-4000

m.willden@dhss.nv.gov

775-684-0767

dnstewart@dwss.nv.gov

PHONE / FAX

E-MAIL

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 3

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

BUSINESS CASE AND CONTEXT BUSINESS REASON BUSINESS PROBLEM / OPPORTUNITY: Introduction The Child Support Enforcement program is a federal, state, and local intergovernmental collaboration functioning in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. The Office of Child Support Enforcement in the Administration for Children and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services helps states develop, manage and operate child support programs effectively and according to federal law. There are no eligibility requirements for child support services, which include locating the noncustodial parent, establishing paternity and support obligations, enforcing the child support orders, and obtaining and enforcing medical support. Non-public assistance custodians fill out an application for services. Public assistance custodians assign support rights to the state and cooperate with the agency regarding child support services. The Child Support Enforcement Program is supervised by DWSS and jointly operated by participating county district attorney's offices through cooperative agreements. In Fiscal Year 2007 the Nevada average monthly registered Child Support Enforcement caseload was 113,401. Total collections through the program were approximately $166,152,302 for Fiscal year 2007 (Appendix 5, Quick Facts) Processing CSE cases results in numerous business transactions and activities per year. Using automated systems that adhere to stringent Federal and State processing requirements, DWSS Child Support Enforcement program, and the participating county district attorneys offices, collect and distribute child support payments for all of the State of Nevada, and facilitate child support collections for other jurisdictions outside of the State of Nevada. Dependence on reliable integrated systems, capable of processing hundreds of thousands of transactions each week, is mission critical to DWSS CSE programs current and future business success. Over the past seven years the current Child Support Enforcement legacy system (NOMADS) has been modified and patched to accommodate changing business rules in support of Federal and State mandates. The core Child Support Enforcement application continues to use the Cross System Product (CSP) programming language and DB2 as the primary data storage environments. May 10th, 2001, the NOMADS application was Federally certified. Since that time, over 750 code enhancements and system discrepancies have been identified and applied to the CSE application alone, with a current backlog of 327 more requests for CSE related issues, equating to approximately 67,300 hours of work. More recently major add-on components, such as Ledgers on the Web (LOTW) and Nevada Automated Worksheet Calculator (NAWC), have been added externally on separate platforms to provide better services to State of Nevada employees, county District Attorneys (DA) Offices and clients. Although these changes offered significant and immediate business benefit, the overall technical architecture has reached maturity and requires updating and/or replacement
Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition Page 5

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

BUSINESS REASON during the next several years to adequately and timely support future business needs. Users, including the county DAs, continue to request more functionality, ease of use, and WEB enabled/ interactivity capabilities. The cost and complexity to maintain and enhance the Child Support Enforcement systems to comply with business and legislative changes and reporting requirements are increasing. In the case of the Child Support Enforcement application, the need for changes and system redesign has reached a critical point. Maintenance and operational costs for underlying programming language software, CSP, is being paid exclusively by DWSS at an excess of $120,000 per year alone. Ongoing operational costs, including Facility charges, are estimated at $2,498,860 per year to run the Child Support Enforcement portion of the NOMADS software application. The demand for improved services continues to increase requiring adjunct supporting applications to be added to the overall architecture. Data integration and control is beginning to suffer as add-on components contain more and more critical data elements external to the core applications; reporting and data integrity issues occur more frequently. DWSS past system upgrade experience, and similar Child Support Enforcement activities within other States, clearly indicates that the process of modernizing Child Support Enforcement applications is a multi-year multi-million dollar effort. Modernization of Nevadas Child Support Enforcement systems is expected to require a four (4) to six (6) year period and cost in the tens of millions of dollars. TIR Purpose and Description Upon approval of this request, DWSS will engage a third party consultant group to assist DWSS and its county partners, in a complete and thorough evaluation of Nevadas Child Support Enforcement application requirements definition and identification of viable alternatives prior to beginning the process to procure Federal funding for the actual application remediation/replacement. Modernization of Nevadas Child Support Enforcement applications will require careful decision making. Multiple technology alternatives and related costs must be evaluated and viable solutions and providers must be selected. Child Support Enforcement program related technology upgrades may include one or more of the following approaches: Consider a single integrated Child Support Enforcement solution Consider transporting existing Child Support Enforcement applications from another state Upgrade the Child Support Enforcement application as a separate effort; Consider rewriting only portions of the existing applications by updating specific underlying infrastructure and functionality. Solicit appropriate products and services needed to complete the project.

The primary purpose of this Technology Investment Request (TIR) is to evaluate the Child Support Enforcement application technical and business functional requirements in anticipation of modernizing and/or replacing current legacy applications. A comprehensive analysis of current
Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition Page 6

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

BUSINESS REASON systems is needed to determine possible upgrade alternatives and identify an optimal phased schedule. An equally important objective is to accurately plan and budget expected Child Support Enforcement application modernization costs. At the conclusion of this requirement definition effort, DWSS will have a well defined overall Child Support Enforcement application modernization/replacement approach and defined project phases and will have obtained a more precise estimation of project time and associated costs. The information and costs will be the basis of future TIRs and appropriation requests to accomplish the remediation and/or replacement the Child Support Enforcement application modules of the NOMADS application at the direction of the legislature in conjunction with DoIT/State standards and guidelines. By completing a 24 month requirement definition project, DWSS will reduce overall Child Support Enforcement modernization risk and cost, and better determine the best overall approach and strategy for updating its Child Support Enforcement applications. In anticipation of the lengthy Child Support Enforcement modernization process - and to avoid costly miscues regarding system needs and business requirements DWSS requests the ability to conduct a thorough systems requirement analysis and technology alternative evaluation to determine the overall scope, cost, feasibility, and best technical approach for completing Nevadas Child Support Enforcement modernization/replacement effort. BUSINESS OBJECTIVE STATEMENT DWSS Business Objectives: Carefully analyze DWSS business, application, and modernization requirements to better match potential technology solutions including COTS products, CSE framework products, transport products, and/or a combination of the former. More accurately identify the scope and feasibility of keeping Child Support Enforcement automated systems viable in support of current and future mission-critical business requirements. Better identify Child Support Enforcement application modernization alternatives and evaluate cost benefits. Set Child Support Enforcement modernization expectations for all stakeholders. More accurately document the overall risk, cost, schedule, and funding for completing Nevadas Child Support Enforcement application modernization. Accurately identify required staff investment and involvement to complete the Child Support Enforcement modernization effort. Establish Child Support Enforcement technology architecture direction and strategy.

BUSINESS ASSUMPTIONS, MANDATES, AND LIMITING FACTORS Child Support Enforcement application modernization impacts both core and ancillary automated applications. This requirement analysis project must address which ancillary
Page 7

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

BUSINESS REASON systems are to be more tightly integrated and which will continue to be more loosely coupled through system interfaces. This constraint must be balanced with available funding, available viable solutions, and a reasonable project schedule. The Child Support Enforcement applications core and ancillary automated applications have numerous electronic and manual interfaces. These interfaces must be sufficiently analyzed and evaluated so as to determine which impact the modernization effort. Wherever possible the project will need to leverage diminishing institutional knowledge resulting from retirement. A large contingency of Child Support Enforcement application development staff are departing DWSS in the next few years Resulting Child Support Enforcement application business and technical requirements must be accurately defined and documented at a sufficient level so as to avoid project scope miscues and drive a successful system solution and vendor selection. This approach must be balanced by avoiding too much detail so as to exclude viable alternatives. The Child Support Enforcement programs numerous business rules must be sufficiently documented so as to identify critical Use Cases and information flows, complex business transaction and accounting timing cycles, and overall transactional volumes. Current Federal and State Child Support Enforcement program reporting is complex and voluminous and must be accurately identified and defined to be part of the modernization project scope.

METRICS Business Employees (associated with the business) Business Processors (users / operators) Business Sites Operating Hours (hours per day) DWSS will begin the development of web functionality in FY10 to include: and online application service interface, a customer self service interface and an employer registration interface. Operating Days (days per week) Business Customers (those served by the business) Peak Usage (concurrent users) Internal Users:

VALUES CURRENT PROJECTED 600 600+ 600 14 600+ 14 22-24 hours/Web Access 11 hrs. Daily Operations 7 115,000+ Monthly 400+

11 hrs. Daily Operations

5 115,000 Monthly 400

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 8

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

METRICS Master Records in Repository*: IVD only rows in the database as of 2/18/08 32,111,559 Common rows in the database as of 2/18/08 NAWC rows in the database as of 3/19/08 277,046,160 Total Rows :
*Please note that these are high-level repository counts provided for reference purposes only.

VALUES CURRENT PROJECTED

224,606,020 32,111,559 20,328,581

224,606,020 + 32,111,559 + 20,328,581 +

Sample Transactions Processed (per specified period) Transactions are processed a year for NOMADS Child Support 194,000,000 194,000,000+

TECHNOLOGY AS IS AND TO BE Please note that this first project is to identify Child Support Enforcement modernization requirements. The project will include an evaluation of viable Child Support Enforcement technology solutions, a cost benefit analysis, and establish the technology strategy going forward. Current Child Support Enforcement technology at DWSS will not change as result of this effort, but will be upgraded in later phases. Technology projections will occur in subsequent phases. Database Computing Platform

CURRENT

PROJECTED

Network

Storage (availability, mirroring, .etc)

DB2 IBM Mainframe, UNIX/AIX, MS Windows TCP/IP, DoIT SilverNet Mainframe DASD, SAN disk drives, Network Storage Device, RAID protected
Page 9

N/A N/A TCP/IP, DoIT SilverNet

N/A

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

TECHNOLOGY AS IS AND TO BE Application infrastructure (language, multi-tiered, etc.)

CURRENT CSP, COBOL, JAVA

PROJECTED N/A

REQUIREMENTS FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS Identify Nevadas Child Support Enforcement application modernization business and technical requirements. The requirements must adequately address critical financial and accounting reporting, business rules and processing algorithms, information flow, and process timing. Identify, evaluate, and document Child Support Enforcement program Federal and State reporting requirements. Identify and evaluate viable Child Support Enforcement application modernization alternatives. Perform a Cost Benefit Analysis of feasible alternatives. Develop a Child Support Enforcement application modernization technology strategy, plan, and master schedule. Develop a Child Support Enforcement application modernization funding strategy, plan, and schedule. Use the findings of this assessment to prepare an Advanced Planning Document (APD) -or- an Advanced Planning Document Update (APDU) -or- Request For Proposal to acquire Child Support Enforcement application modernization products and services through the Federal grant application process for states seeking to acquire automation. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS Identify operating system and database replacement requirements. Identify database migration and conversion strategies. Identify Child Support Enforcement application strategic technology infrastructure direction and requirement. Identify, evaluate, and document business and system transaction volumes, peaks, and processing frequencies. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Complete the Child Support Enforcement modernization requirement project in a timely manner.

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 10

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

Keep project stakeholders apprised of the project progress and direction.

ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON STATUS QUO Description: Continue to patch and enhance the NOMADS/Child Support Enforcement modules of the application to support the Child Support Enforcement program of Nevada. CSP, the language NOMADS is written in, is no longer supported by IBM. Evaluation and Consequences: The NOMADS Child Support Enforcement application continues to cost $2,498,860 in DoIT mainframe usage and software maintenance charges annually, application has 327 of outstanding application enhancement requests and bug fix request representing approximately 20,400 hours of application development time. The Child Support Enforcement application is cumbersome and inefficient for the end user, causing frequent errors due to the complexity of the application. It is estimated that for a new worker to become proficient in the use of the system is 12-14 months. Why IT? Modernizing existing CSE automated applications is primarily a technology issue. Existing business processes and human resources are not able to absorb automated system inefficiencies when dealing with hundreds of thousands of business transactions. The underlying database schemas, screen navigation, coded business rules, and interfaces need to be refreshed with newer technologies and architectures. Newer technologies will facilitate and improve system maintenance and responsiveness to changing business processes. Modernizing Nevadas CSE applications will help provide a good working environment and help maintain lean staffing levels and increased levels of service by the use of automation.

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 11

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE: Alternative 1: Using both In-House and External Resources - Conduct the CSE Modernization Requirement Definition Project Description: Using both in-house and external resources, prepare for Child Support Enforcement application modernization by formally collecting Child Support Enforcements business and technical requirements, evaluating and selecting appropriate modernization alternatives, preparing an overall system modernization recommendation, establishing the overall modernization budget, identifying constraints and resources, and identifying viable solution vendors if applicable. Project deliverables include: Identification of overall Child Support Enforcement modernization requirements and scope; Documented Child Support Enforcement business and technical system requirements; Identification of viable Child Support Enforcement application technology alternatives and solutions; Cost Benefit Analysis of modernization requirements and alternatives; Assessment and selection of appropriate Child Support Enforcement application modernization alternatives; Development of an overall Child Support Enforcement application remediation/replacement technology architecture and strategy.

Evaluation: This alternative provides the best combination of internal and external Child Support Enforcement automation and modernization knowledge to complete the project. DWSS and County staff will be able to provide Nevada specific business requirements, while contracted staff will be able to provide emerging national and successful state requirements and solutions. As part of the Child Support Enforcement Modernization Assessment project, which this TIR represents, a more in depth and thorough analysis of Child Support Enforcement modernization benefits and costs is expected. DWSS is aware of potential benefits that will accrue as improved technology alternatives are considered and matched to business needs. We are also aware of the potential costs. A primary focal point of this TIR/project is to perform the necessary work to identify viable Child Support Enforcement technology solutions and then accurately document, analyze and compute both costs and benefits; consequently, the information provided below is preliminary and will be refined and augmented as more information is collected.

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 12

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

NON-VIABLE ALTERNATIVES Non Viable Option 1: Do nothing - do not consider the current CSE business and technology need and avoid planning for the future. This option is likely to be the most costly as it would likely result in a much larger future technology investment under much more stressful and stringent conditions.

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 13

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

RISKS TO PROJECT COMPLETION


RISK TYPE AND DESCRIPTION Probability Impact What is it and how you deal with it? DWSS project funding sources are subject to many factors including Federal and State Child Support Enforcement activities. If reductions in project funding occur, the projected will be redefined to cover the most critical Child Support Enforcement modernization issues. Technical risks for completing the Child Support Enforcement modernization requirement definition project are minimal. Existing documentation tools will be used through out the project including MS Office, MS Project and Project Server, etc. DWSS, during the next few years, will be experiencing staff retirements. Both business/program and technical staff retirements will occur. Institutional knowledge will be lost. Business/Program staff may not be readily available to participate on the project. DWSS will need to consider flexible staffing arrangements such as backfilling and contracting to help ensure that appropriate resources are able to participate as needed. Security risks for completing the Child Support Enforcement modernization requirement definition project are minimal. Sensitive information and documents will be secured as necessary and non-DWSS staff participating on the project will be required to comply with state security standards.

Funding

Technical

Staffing Experience

Staff Availability

Security

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 14

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

Business Process

Accurately and sufficiently identifying Child Support Enforcement business and technical modernization requirements is a significant risk. DWSS will engage county staff, where appropriate, Child Support Enforcement subject matter experts to help ensure that appropriate topics and requirements are being addressed. DWSS management and county partners will need to help set expectations and provide appropriate project information including objectives and anticipated results. Nevadas Child Support Enforcement systems have many different manual and electronic interfaces. These interfaces must be sufficiently evaluated so as to determine impact on modernization scope and cost. A comprehensive list of interfaces will be included within the project. Nevadas Child Support Enforcement systems contain numerous Federal and State reporting requirements. Each needs to be addressed to determine impact on modernization scope. A comprehensive list of reports to be evaluated will be included within the project. Identifying and defining Child Support Enforcement modernization requirements may require making difficult decisions between different objectives and alternatives. If the decision making process becomes laborious, the project may be delayed or stalled. Placing knowledgeable decision makers in key positions well help keep the process moving forward.

Stakeholder

System Interfaces

Child Support Enforcement Reporting

Child Support Enforcement Decision Making

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 15

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

Management Turnover

Due to the length of the Child Support Enforcement modernization effort, there may be turnover in key DWSS and County middle and executive management positions. Commitment to the process must be institutionalized to avoid project stoppage and potential failure.

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 16

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

COST / BENEFIT SUMMARY COST / BENEFIT COMPARED TO OTHER ALTERNATIVES Completing the Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition project using both external and internal resources is the most cost effective and least risky approach. Many Child Support Enforcement business transactions are detailed and complex and require seasoned experts knowledgeable in both Federal and State requirements. A combination of DWSS and County program staff, who know and understand current system requirements, and the use of other external consultant resources, that specialize in knowing Child Support Enforcement emerging technologies and best practices, provides the best opportunity to accomplish a successful project. Completing the project with just DWSS and County program staff runs the risk of missing new opportunities, which could result in additional future costs. Conducting the project exclusively with in-house resources restricts the availability of external expertise and eliminates input from resources experienced in assisting other states develop and implement successful Child Support Enforcement systems. DWSS has and is experiencing a significant loss in Child Support Enforcement IT institutional knowledge due to staff retirement. This is placing added pressure on remaining IT resources to keep operations processing smoothly. Adding the Child Support Enforcement Requirement Definition Project into the mix without augmenting resources may result in a diluted set of requirements and could create backlogs in current processing queues. A Child Support Enforcement Requirement Definition Project undertaken by a project team comprised of internal subject matter experts, in-house IT staff, and external resources will provide the most cost-effective and thorough analysis of options available to reengineer the unemployment insurance benefits and contributions systems. DWSS will also have access to lessons learned from Child Support Enforcement modernization projects undertaken in other states.

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 17

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS STAFF INVOLVEMENT POSITION(S) Child Support Enforcement Modernization Steering Committee including DWSS Administrator, County District Attorneys Child Support executive management Other Program management staff DWSS/County IT staff Selected external stakeholders Chief of Child Support Enforcement /DWSS County District Attorneys Child Support executive management Other Program management staff DWSS/County IT staff DWSS IS Deputy Administrator (1) Business Process Analyst 2 (BPA 2) 1-2 per business topic Agency Project Oversight, Project Management, Quality Control, Alternative Analysis, Feasibility and Cost Analysis, RFP Development Requirements Gathering and Documentation Agency Project Oversight, Project Management, Quality Control, Alternative Analysis, Feasibility and Cost Analysis, RFP Development ROLE IN PROJECT PHASES OF INVOLVEMENT

Agency Project Oversight

All

Program Staff Subject Mater Expert

All

All

All

IT Manager - ISM 3 (1)

All

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 18

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

STAFF INVOLVEMENT Project/Team Management, Quality Control, Analysis and Requirement Definition, Technical Analysis, Alternative Analysis, Feasibility and Cost Analysis, RFP Development Project Management, Quality Control, Analysis and Requirement Definition, Alternative Analysis, Feasibility and Cost Analysis, RFP Development Project Management and Quality Control, Requirement Definition, RFP Development Analysis and Requirement Definition, Technical Analysis, Team Leads DBA Technical Analysis and Requirement Definition Business and Technical Analysis, Requirement Definition, Child Support Enforcement expertise, Project Management, Alternative Analysis, Feasibility and Cost Analysis, RFP Development

Applications Manager ITP 4 (1)

All

Senior Project Manager - ITP 4 (1)

All

Requirements Manager - MA III (1)

All

Technical Staff ITP 3 and 4 (3-4)

Requirement Definition and Analysis, Alternative Development Requirement Definition and Analysis, Alternative Development, Feasibility and Cost

DWSS DBA ITP III (1)

MSA Staff (as required)

Requirement Definition and Analysis, Alternative Development, Feasibility and Cost

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 19

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

STAFF INVOLVEMENT Nevadas Child Support Enforcement modernization/replacement requirements definition project requires an experienced project management team. Project management staff will be expected to create and manage project plans, document and resolve project issues, ensure that work is being completing in a timely accurate manner, monitor and manage staff participation and staffing levels, provide verbal and written status reporting, help ensure a quality product, verify and track project costs and manage project budgets, and other duties typical of a technology project of this type and nature. The Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition Project management team will include internal staff from DWSS Requirements, Testing and Training unit, DWSS senior IT managers, and project management staff from participating consultants. The Senior Project Managers role will be to complete and manage day-to-day project plans, identify project tasks, help estimate task effort, confirm task staffing, verify task completion, manage issues and risks, and ensure project quality. DWSS IS Deputy Administrator and DWSS IT Manager will provide project management oversight, large-scale project plan development and monitoring, project deliverable definition and monitoring, vendor task and contact management, and other tasks. Participating consultants will produce and execute project plans integrated with DWSS overall project plan. For additional project oversight, DWSS will use a Child Support Enforcement Modernization Steering Committee consisting of DWSS senior program staff, DWSS executive management staff, and selected external stakeholders who will help monitor project progress and guide results. Finally, the project will work closely with other external project monitors such as the Nevada ITPOC.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 20

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

HIGH LEVEL PROJECT TIMETABLE MILESTONE OR ACTIVITY Project Initiation Child Support Enforcement Requirements Definition RFP development Child Support Enforcement Requirements Definition RFP bid process Child Support Enforcement Requirements Definition RFP Award process Child Support Enforcement Requirements Definition Child Support Enforcement Modernization/Replacement Alternative Definition Child Support Enforcement Modernization/Replacement Alternative Study Child Support Enforcement Modernization/Replacement Alternative Review Child Support Enforcement Modernization/Replacement Option Selection Project Completion Anticipated Retirement ANTICIPATED START 07/09 7/09
ESTIMATED COMPLETION

n.a. 9/09

10/09

11/09

12/10

1/11

2/11 5/10

4/10 6/10

7/10

9/10

10/10

12/10

1/11

3/11

n.a. n.a.

3/11 n.a

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 21

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

Appendix 1: TIR Service & Resource Plan


(TIR_ServiceResourcePlanner CSE Assessment.xls)

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 22

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

Appendix 2: Benefits Mapping

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 23

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

BENEFITS MAPPING

FINANCIAL BENEFIT

BASELINE MEASURE

MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY

YEAR 1 TARGET

YEAR 2 TARGET

TOTAL

The modernization of the Child Support Enforcement software application will hopefully present some financial benefits through user efficiencies, reduced maintenance and support costs, and more efficient business processes. As this request is for an assessment of the current software application and to identify what the State of Nevadas best viable alternatives are, in terms of either remediation of the existing application or replacing the application completely or in part, there are no financial benefits to this TIR. One of the deliverables of this TIR would be to identify and quantify the possible financial benefits to the State of Nevada by the remediation/replacement of the Child Support Application

NON-FINANCIAL BENEFITS NON-FINANCIAL BENEFIT Baseline Value Target Value % of goal in 2 yrs?

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 24

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

NON-FINANCIAL BENEFIT

Baseline Value Average number of Days for a Child Support case to be processed

Target Value

% of goal in 2 yrs? N/A The Child Support Enforcement requirement definition is the first project of several to modernize CSE systems. Measurable improvements will occur in later phases. As Above.

Public and Employee Safety: Nevadas Child Support Enforcement systems provide much needed resources to Nevadans. These resources are used to obtain shelter, food, and other basic necessities of life for the children that this program was designed to protect and serve. Modernizing and upgrading Nevadas Child Support Enforcement systems will help ensure that such services continue to be provided in a timely manner.

Public and Employee Safety: DWSS collects sensitive client and customer information such as SSNs, personal demographics, addresses, and financial information. Modernizing and upgrading Nevadas Child Support Enforcement systems will provide added security to sensitive customer identification information.

The Child Support Enforcement application uses the clients SSN as one of the primary access keys thereby raising the level of potential unauthorized access

Child Support Enforcement sensitive information safeguarded through system features such as encryption and/or audit trail: 100% Provide a primary key that does not require client sensitive information.

Customer Service Improvement:

Customer Modernizing Nevadas Child Support Enforcement calls per systems will help increase data quality, improve month client services, and reduce customer complaints 37,000 and inquiries.
Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition Page 25

As above.

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

NON-FINANCIAL BENEFIT

Baseline Value Average number of Days for a Child Support case to be processed

Target Value

% of goal in 2 yrs?

Process / Performance Improvement: Improve system functionality and reduce workarounds. The current systems have process deficiencies that prevent accurate processing of information. Sample deficient processes include overpayments, creation of invalid record types, misrouting of Child Support Enforcement documents, duplicate active accounts, mishandling of unique case types, and other issues. These issues may require system and manual workarounds to force information to process correctly. The workarounds often cause erroneous transaction counts for workload reporting purposes.

Average number of Days for a Child Support case to be processed

As above.

$4,000,000 annually in support costs

Strategic (Collaboration):

Antiquated and unsupported technology platform

Contemporary platform supported by a contemporary skill set

As above

Statutory Compliance:

AB536

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 26

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

Appendix 3: Supporting Cost Details

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 27

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

STUDY COSTS Study costs include any costs for completing required technology studies prior to technology acquisition, development or implementation. Cost Cost Description Category Services & Support
Technology Study

It is envisioned that the State, in conjunction with the participating County partners, develop and submit an RFP for the Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment project. DWSS is requesting $1,000,000 to conduct this assessment. On Tuesday March 18th, one of DWSS managers attended a session on Feasibility Studies and Analysis of Alternatives during the Office of Child Support Enforcement Systems Symposium. During this session the manager queried the panel of speakers how much assessments studies cost and how long do they take. The answer received from several panel members was consistent; the cost of a study will be between $700,000 and $1.2 million with a timeframe of 9 months to 13 months to complete. NOTE: DWSS previously received an unsolicited bid for this project in the amount of over $600,000, and believes this bid to be on the very low end of the spectrum of possible bids.

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 28

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

Cost Cost Description Category Studyrelated Travel It is anticipated that up to five (5) State staff conduct onsite visits to assess potential state transfer systems. Length 5 days Airfare Mileage Per diem Ground Transportation
FTEs 5 5 5 Total $8,813 $8,813 $8,813 $26,439

Site Visit 1-FY10 Site Visit 2-FY10 Site Visit 3-FY11

It is anticipated that up to five (5) State staff have to travel to and from Las Vegas quarterly for face to face events such as meetings and requirements documentation. Length 2 days Airfare Per diem Mileage Ground Transportation
FTE's 5 5 5 5 5 Total $ 3,643 $ 3,333 $ 3,483 $ 3,483 $ 3,643 $ 17,585

Quarterly Visit 1-Mar FY10 Quarterly Visit 2 - June FY10 Quarterly Visit 3-Sept FY11 Quarterly Visit 4-Dec FY11 Quarterly Visit 5-Mar FY11

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 29

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

TOTAL TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT REQUEST The total technology investment required includes the study costs, the implementation costs and the subsequent ongoing operating costs. Cost Category Total Study Costs Total Implementation Costs Total Ongoing Costs Cost Description $1,044,024 $0 $0.

Total Technology Investment $1,044,024 Request FUNDING REQUEST The Funding Request table identifies the total cost to implement and operate the new technology over two biennia and where the funding will come from. Category Description

Total Technology Investment $1,044,024 Request Available Base Funding Available Federal Funding Other Funding $354,968 State Share of Collections $689,056 Child Support Enforcement Program If other sources of funding are available indicate the amount. Provide supporting detail of the sources and any restrictions on them in Appendix 1 Supporting Cost Detail. $0

General Fund Request

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 30

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

Appendix 4 AB 536

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 31

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

Assembly Bill No. 536Committee on Judiciary CHAPTER.......... AN ACT relating to child support; requiring the District Attorney of Clark County and the Division of Welfare and Supportive Services of the Department of Health and Human Services to report to the 75th Session of the Nevada Legislature regarding the status of certain recommendations concerning child support enforcement; and providing other matters properly relating thereto. Legislative Counsels Digest: This bill requires the District Attorney of Clark County to prepare a report for submission to the 75th Session of the Nevada Legislature concerning the progress made in carrying out recommendations that were provided to the District Attorney concerning the Family Support Division of the Office of the District Attorney in a report made in 2003. This bill further requires the Division of Welfare and Supportive Services of the Department of Health and Human Services to prepare a report for submission to the 75th Session of the Nevada Legislature concerning the progress made towards carrying out recommendations contained in an audit from 2006 concerning the enforcement of child support in this State. The district attorneys of this State are required to cooperate with and provide to the Division any information necessary for inclusion in the report. This bill further specifies additional topics to be included in the report from the Division. The report by the District Attorney and the report by the Division must be submitted to the Director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau not later than September 1, 2008. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. 1. The District Attorney of Clark County shall prepare a report concerning the manner in which the recommendations have been carried out or the status of such recommendations that are contained in the July 2, 2003, report entitled Organizational Assessment of the Clark County, Nevada, District Attorneys Family Support Division, which was submitted to the District Attorney by Policy Studies Inc. 2. The Division of Welfare and Supportive Services of the Department of Health and Human Services shall prepare a report providing the manner in which the recommendations contained the December 22, 2006, Performance Audit of the State of Nevadas Enforcement and Collection of Child Support prepared by MAXIMUS have been carried out or the status of such recommendations. Each district attorney in this State shall cooperate with the Division and provide the necessary information to the Division for inclusion in the report. The report must include, without limitation, the status of, or the manner in which the Division and the district attorneys have carried out, specific recommendations to: (a) Centralize processing of cases and call center functions; (b) Measure the success of the Program for the Enforcement of Child Support through performance measures rather than policy adherence; (c) Improve reporting by management;

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 32

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

(d) Develop and adhere to a strategic plan; and (e) Develop a document imaging system. 3. The report prepared pursuant to subsection 2 must also include, without limitation, information concerning: (a) Strategic planning among the district attorneys of this State concerning the future funding for the enforcement of child support in Nevada; (b) Programs to enforce child support in other states with a distribution of population which is similar to the distribution in Nevada; (c) Options for creating a regional structure in Nevada and whether such options would enhance efficiency and benefit the Program for the Enforcement of Child Support and the agencies involved in the collection of child support; (d) Training programs that have been implemented for employees who assist in the collection of child support; (e) An analysis of the benefits and detriments of using administrative hearing officers rather than masters in matters relating to the enforcement of child support; and (f) The status of improvements in information technology, including, without limitation, technology for case management to replace the Nevada Operations of Multi-Automated Data Systems currently used in the collection of child support. 4. The reports prepared pursuant to this section must be submitted to the Director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau not later than September 1, 2008, for distribution to the 75th Session of the Nevada Legislature. 5. As used in this section, Program for the Enforcement of Child Support means the program established to locate absent parents, establish paternity and obtain child support pursuant to Part D of Title IV of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 651 et seq., and other provisions of that Act relating to the enforcement of child support.

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 33

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

Appendix 5 Quick Facts

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 34

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

Quick Facts: DWSS/Child Support Enforcement Program


Program: The program is a federal, state, and local intergovernmental collaboration functioning in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. The Office of Child Support Enforcement in the Administration for Children and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services helps states develop, manage and operate child support programs effectively and according to federal law. The Child Support Program is supervised by DWSS and jointly operated by county district attorney's offices through cooperative agreements. Eligibility: There are no eligibility requirements for child support services which include locating the non-custodial parent, establishing paternity and support obligations and enforcing the child support order. Non-public assistance custodians fill out an application for services. Public assistance custodians must assign support rights to the state and cooperate with the agency regarding child support services.

Workload History: FY 07: Avg Cases: FY 07:Total Collection: FY 08: Avg Cases: FY 08: YTD Collection: 113,401

$166,152,302 115,542

$109,821,942

FYTD JUL 07 Aug Sep Oct Nov DEC JAN 08 Feb Mar 114,370 113,877 114,027 114,257 116,383 117,015 116,262 118,148

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 35

DWSS Child Support Enforcement Software Application Assessment TIR business case

Apr May JUN FY08 Tot FY08 Avg 924,339 115,542

Child Support Enforcement Modernization Requirement Definition

Page 36

Appendix O

State of Nevada Department of Health and Human Services

Division of Welfare and Supportive Services

Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Program Title IV-D Requirements for Replacing the IV-D Portion of the Nevada Operations of Multi-Automated Data Systems (NOMADS)

Project Report
April 10, 2008
Division of Welfare & Supportive Services 1470 College Parkway Carson City, NV 89706-7924 Phone: (775) 684-0500 Email: welfare@dwss.nv.gov

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT PARTICIPANTS PROJECT FRAMEWORK PURPOSE OBJECTIVE PROBLEM DESCRIPTION HIGH-LEVEL BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 7

Page 2 of 16

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Nevada Legislative Commission contracted MAXIMUS, an independent consultant, to conduct an audit of the Child Support Enforcement Program (CSEP), also known as Title IV-D, of the Division of Welfare and Supportive Services (DWSS), and to provide recommendations for improving customer service and performance. Pursuant to Assembly Bill 536, a status of the implementation of the recommendations must be reported to the 75th Session of the Nevada Legislature. One of MAXIMUS major recommendations is to replace the IV-D component of the Nevada Operations of Multi-Automated Data Systems (NOMADS), which is the statewide automated data processing and information retrieval system for both IV-D and the Public Assistance (PA) Programs. This report is the result of a project aimed at assessing the IV-D component capabilities of NOMADS and defining an ideal automated system to assist DWSS in the planning and development for NOMADS replacement. The project participants from the State and County IV-D offices were tasked with identifying NOMADS deficiencies and laying out the high-level requirements of an effective, efficient, and fully functional automated system that will better serve CSEPs case management and business operations. As reported in MAXIMUS Performance Audit of the State of Nevadas Enforcement and Collection of Child Support, and confirmed by the project team, NOMADS is functionally inadequate. NOMADS is not easy to use, does not always generate useful or accurate reports and documents, does not systematically maintain and process data accurately and consistently, does not support all of the business operations, and does not adequately perform all of the federal certification requirements. Some of the reasons for the functional inadequacy are the system design deficiencies and aging software architecture that have adverse effects on worker productivity and consequently require frequent corrections from the DWSS Information System (IS) department. Due to these and similar problems, MAXIMUS recommendations to replace NOMADS and separate the PA and IV-D systems are deemed vital to the improvement of child support enforcement and collection. Based on the findings of this project report, it is evident that the IV-D component of NOMADS is functionally deficient, needs to be replaced, and must be given top priority.

Page 3 of 16

PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
The following staff/offices participated in the discussion and preparation of this report: Sue Berfield, Clark County District Attorneys Office, Family Support Division Michael J. Brown, Clark County District Attorneys Office, Family Support Division Kathi Brunson, Clark County District Attorneys Office, Family Support Division Louise Bush, DWSS, CSE Program Lori Garcia, Washoe County District Attorneys Office, Family Support Division Susan Hallahan, Washoe County District Attorneys Office, Family Support Division Rita Hanifen, Churchill County District Attorneys Office Teri Harasha, DWSS, CSE Program Laura Jenkins, DWSS, Information Systems Kelly Macatangay, Clark County District Attorneys Office, Family Support Division Annette Mansfield, Washoe County District Attorneys Office, Family Support Division Linda Marzell, Washoe County District Attorneys Office, Family Support Division Beth McKiever, Clark County District Attorneys Office, Family Support Division Carolyn Smith, Elko County District Attorneys Office Dave Stewart, DWSS, Information Systems Robert Teuton, Clark County District Attorneys Office, Family Support Division C.A. Watts, Clark County District Attorneys Office, Family Support Division Kelly Winquist, Clark County District Attorneys Office, Family Support Division Sharron Yore, DWSS, Elko Program Area Office

Page 4 of 16

PROJECT FRAMEWORK Purpose


The purpose of this project is to prepare a report which will: Serve as supporting documentation for the report to be submitted to the 75th Session of the Nevada State Legislature in response to the Performance Audit of the State of Nevadas Enforcement and Collection of Child Support1 dated December 22, 2006. Serve as a management tool for assessing the current and planning the future statewide IV-D system.

Objective
The objective of this project is to identify and document high-level business and user requirements for a fully functional IV-D system that meets the IV-D programs operational requirements and then compare those requirements to the current system for its possible replacement.

Problem
The current system does not fully support the operational requirements of Nevadas IV-D program and appears to impact the programs performance as revealed in the aforementioned Performance Audit of the State of Nevadas Enforcement and Collection of Child Support.

Description
This is an initial assessment/evaluation of the current IV-D system and the operational requirements of the IV-D program. It is not an in-depth study or analysis of the current mainframe system NOMADS. Rather, it lists and categorizes high-level requirements for a IV-D system to meet the operational demands of case management and federal system certification requirements. These requirements include associated information, such as corresponding current system comparisons and affected IV-D business elements as classified into the following categories:

Reference http://www.leg.state.nv.us/lcb/research/library/performanceaudit/

Page 5 of 16

IV-D Business Elements B C F M R S T Budget Compliance Financials Case Management Reporting Security Technical

Definition Required to support program / operational budgeting Required to meet Federal certification standards and requirements Required to meet customer (custodian / non-custodial parent) collections, distributions, and disbursements Required to support user effectiveness, efficiency, and customer service Required for proactive case management reports and managerial reports for performance, forecasting, and trend analysis Required to only allow appropriate authorized access Required to meet hardware and network architecture

Page 6 of 16

HIGH-LEVEL BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS


BR# 1 2

Ideal System Business Requirements


The system must meet current federal certification standards and requirements. The system must be web-based (i.e. accessible over the Internet with proper authentication by user and customer). An application accessible over a network such as the Internet or an Intranet. Web applications use a thin client which gives the ability to update and maintain the application without distributing and installing software on each users computer. A web-based application can perform as specified on an industry standard internet browser. The system must utilize workflow technologies for work processes (e.g. wizard user interfaces). The system must be event and activity based with a flexible way to create and manage business rules through modular workflows. The system must provide for customization of workflow modules to accommodate individual office procedures without circumventing state procedures. The system must provide for accounts receivable and accounts payable and conform to accounting standards as defined in GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) or by the GASB (Governmental Accounting Standards Board). This includes maintenance of all financial transactions and reporting capabilities (e.g. on-demand /

Current System Comparison


NOMADS meets federal certification standards and requirements. The system does not provide this type of interface.

Affected Elements

C S, T

2.1

2.2

The system contains no workflow process modules. The system is not user-friendly. Requiring users to leave the screen and search for the information in another source is counterproductive and lengthens the time it takes for [them] to accomplish a task on a screen.2

F, M, R, T

3.1

3.2

The financial case data [generated by the system]are notoriously unreliable, causing individual financial audits for each case before a hearing.3 The system requires Help Desk to address financial-related actions such as requesting refunds or moving balances.4

C, F, M, R

MAXIMUS, Performance Audit of the State of Nevadas Enforcement and Collection of Child Support, Final Report Audit Findings and Recommendations, December 22, 2006. Section D p. 82-83
3

Ibid., ES p. 15 Ibid., Section C p. 57

Page 7 of 16

BR#

Ideal System Business Requirements


periodic detail and summary reports by customer, case, team, unit, office or state level). These reports must be easily understood by case managers and customers.

Current System Comparison


The system does not automatically bring forward the correct obligation amounts when court orders are entered under certain circumstances. This causes the arrearage balances to be calculated incorrectly thereby requiring IV-D staff to manually adjust the balances after the court order is entered. NOMADS has a very cumbersome operating budget process for IV-D offices that was never utilized. The systems interface displays old, inaccurate, and duplicate information. It is inflexible, hard to use, and contains bad data; too many unhelpful alerts and workarounds, thus increasing data reliability risks and affecting worker productivity.5 employer information in NOMADS [is] inaccurate, the process for correcting errors [is] cumbersomeInaccurate employer informationleads to unproductive enforcement efforts. Delays in correcting inaccurate information results in postponement of child support collections. Delayed or

Affected Elements

The system must submit, support, and report IV-D budgetary processes, down to the office level. The system must support case managers in identifying case issues and activities. It should help them reduce delays and produce better outcomes. The system must proactively monitor work progress and prioritize work activities based on case circumstances. The system must provide demographics, including a history of changes, as needed to comply with federal certification requirements. The system must provide current and historical data to track the status of legal proceedings; i.e. dockets, service-of-process (SOP), bench warrants, etc.

B, R

C, M, R

6.1

6.2

6.3

Ibid., ES p. 3 Ibid., Section D p. 46 See supra note 3. Ibid., Section D p. 13 Ibid., Section D p. 44 See supra note 8. Ibid. Ibid., Section D p. 77

10

11

12

Page 8 of 16

BR# 6.4

Ideal System Business Requirements


The system must provide Customer Relationship Management (CRM). The system must provide for a simplified, user friendly method of viewing and updating demographics, tracking notes, and notifying and calling NCPs, CSTs, employers, attorneys, etc. NOTE: The industry language is Customer Relationship Management (CRM) and includes (among others) these two aspects: operational and analytical, to include statistical reporting.

Current System Comparison


unsuccessful enforcement efforts lead to increased customer service demands upon the child support program.6 The workaroundsare elaborate, and the number of system fixes reflected in work tickets is high. The inefficiency of what is already clearly outdated system hurts productivityThe good news is that replacement systems are cheaper and easier to implement than legacy systems.7 The NOMADS system makes it unduly difficult for workers attempting to perform locate work, when they must sort through information gleaned from data matching on a daily basis. In many instances dated information previously determined to be invalid, is repeatedly reported as new information, thereby wasting limited resource time devoted to the locate effort.8 The system generates erroneous, outdated, and duplicated alert notifications (e.g. income withholding, drivers license suspension) causing unnecessary customer service burdens9 to workers. MAXIMUS recommends that DWSS develop business rules that will allow for the elimination of a significant number of duplicate and dated alerts.10 The systems user screens are poorly structured (e.g. structure of locate tools is dysfunctional).

Affected Elements

Locate information and functionality is

Page 9 of 16

BR#

Ideal System Business Requirements

Current System Comparison


spread across a multitude of screens within the system. Workers are

Affected Elements

forced to access and complete an inordinate number of individual screens in order to complete the locate function.11 The current system does not provide for a user friendly method of viewing and updating demographics, tracking notes, etc., as defined by Customer Relationship Management methodologies. While NOMADS meets federal certification requirements, the system does not adequately perform what it was certified to do (e.g. financial-related processes), causing the development of two sub-systems (e.g. Ledgers on the Web and Nevada Automated Worksheet Calculator (NAWC)) as workarounds. IV-D staff are also relegated to performing duties and tasks on subsystems, outside of NOMADS Both of these applications reside on a server and are used to perform financial-related functions that NOMADS was originally certified to perform.12 The system does not adequately perform the following federal certification requirements: A-3 The system must automatically accept and process referrals from the States Title IV-E (Foster Care) agency.

Page 10 of 16

BR#

Ideal System Business Requirements

Current System Comparison D-5 The system must automatically support the review and adjustment of support obligations. D-5c The system must identify cases in which the order does not include health care coverage. G-3 The system must generate reports required to ensure and maintain the accuracy of data and to summarize accounting activities. NOTE: Currently NOMADS has a method of entering contact notes and changing demographics. However, it is very cumbersome and inefficient. Something similar to Outlook Contacts is a better approach.

Affected Elements

7 7.1

7.2

7.3

The system must provide for robust standard reports and easy ad hoc capability. Management reports that summarize at the supervisory level with continued summarization to the state, office, and case manager level. Management reports that provide for trend analysis and forecasting. Specifically related to the performance measures and incentives to give focus and help support continuous improvement efforts. Case Manager (CM) reports that are CM generated and help in the day-today management of case work.

The system generates useless or inaccurate reports. Reports should provide the case manager with the type of information that will assist him or her in taking appropriate case actions, monitoring cases for timeframes, and required follow-up actions.13 Useful and relevant reports should enable [case managers and supervisors] to not only manage their caseloads but also make comparisons, conduct [QA] audits, [and] identify training needs.14

C, F, M, R

The current system management and case manager reports do not provide for a pro-active stance a problem cannot be identified until it is too late to change the outcome.
13

Ibid., Section D p. 83 Ibid.

14

Page 11 of 16

BR# 8 8.1

Ideal System Business Requirements


The system must provide internal quality assurance methodologies and tools. The system must provide a randomization algorithm for case sampling. The system must have a built-in monitoring process to conduct quality control and quality assurance audits in support of Federal reporting requirements necessary for case processing cycles. The system must utilize data warehousing and data mining technologies to provide the ability to perform complex queries and analysis without effecting performance in the production environment. If the current database structure is to be utilized, then IV-D data should be located in separate, distinct tables and normalized. The system must utilize auto-generated customer mailings and phone calls. Mailings and informational reminders (e.g. court dates, past due notices, postal verifications, etc.) must be auto-generated. Calls must be auto-generated to NCPs and CSTs as information reminders to include but not limited to: court dates, past due notices, funds transfer to debit cards, etc. The system must track all automated notices and contacts.

Current System Comparison


The system does not currently have internal quality assurance methodologies and tools.

Affected Elements

C, R

8.2

The system does not currently provide for data warehousing / data mining. New reports and ad hocs are an enormous coding effort requiring significant time by skilled programmers.

R, T

10 10.1

The systems document generation capabilities are unreliable, requiring staff to sort, review, and correct documents. there is an overall problem with document generation that is related to a larger problem with NOMADS Some of the document problems [include] duplicate employer and postal verification letters generated, automatic generation of documents on incorrect cases, Drivers License Suspension letters printed on cases incorrectly, delinquency notices printed on cases that are not delinquent, incorrect generation of Income Withholding Notices when Income Withholding [is] already [in] place, automatic generation of documents for no apparent reason.15

C, M, R, T

10.2

10.3

The system will also generate documents that will initiate incorrect actions on closed cases.
15

Ibid., Section D p. 73-74

Page 12 of 16

BR# 11 11.1

Ideal System Business Requirements


The system must utilize document management and imaging technologies. The system must utilize simple document imaging hardware/software, which can be easily integrated into day-to-day field office operations and will enhance employee productivity. The system must utilize a centralized document management system which provides ease in indexing, searching, retrieving, viewing, and printing caserelated files. The system must track the location of hard-copy documents and/or case files. The system must handle all incoming and outgoing correspondence. It should attach/link all incoming and outgoing documents or scanned images to the case file as part of the permanent record. The system must be modular in business rule design and implementation. The system should utilize a business rule management approach (i.e. rules engine) to support both business and IT and provide for a separation of business rules from the technical part of an application. Business rules must be stored in a common repository where rules can be easily updated and/or removed. Business rules must be easily integrated into workflow processes. The system code must be supportable by DWSS Information Systems (IS). IS staff will acquire training as needed to support the new system.

Current System Comparison


There is currently no document imaging technologies in NOMADS. However, there are document imaging capabilities in the State Collections and Disbursement Unit (SCaDU) system, which is separate from NOMADS. The systems content management capabilities do not support the IVD offices needs to produce legal and case processing documents. State and federal forms in NOMADS are inflexible and cannot easily be changed or updated to meet the needs of new or changing policy and procedures. There is no versioning control on changed forms: A form cannot be reproduced if it has changed since the original publication. All business rules require code changes made by a skilled programmer instead of non-programmer, authorized users. NOMADS does not provide workflow. The workaroundsare elaborate, and the number of system fixes reflected in work tickets is high. The inefficiency of what is already a clearly outdated system hurts productivityThe good news is that replacement systems are cheaper and easier to implement than legacy systems.16 The system is an outdated, state mainframe system that operates on language that IBM no longer supports [It] is so fractured and there are numerous outstanding problems resulting in yet-to-be-discussed or resolved work

Affected Elements

C, M, R, T

11.2

11.3

11.4

12 12.1

M, T

12.2

12.3

13

16

See supra note 3.

Page 13 of 16

BR#

Ideal System Business Requirements

Current System Comparison


items, requiring IV-D case managers to employ numerous workarounds to process cases17 MAXIMUS concludes that the number of and inconsistencies in creative workarounds potentially could raise data integrity and reliability issues.18 NOMADS uses a role based security process. The roles are set-up Statewide, therefore it does not support office or user specific security access needs. The system has only a two level/tier security set-up (i.e.: supervisor and worker) therefore does not support organizational levels as is found in large IV-D offices. While NOMADS supports User Acceptance Test (UAT) environments, their connectivity to system applications within each environment is inconsistent. The current test processes are completely manual, which makes monitoring and controlling the test cycle difficult and allows for inconsistencies in the test processes and test results. Test participants do not have equal access to the location where test plans and other test documentation are stored. Communication between test participants is on an individual basis rather than in a collaborative environment.

Affected Elements

14 14.1

14.2

15

15.1

15.2

The system must support multiple levels of security and organizational structures. The system must provide for a flexible security administration process that supports all levels of authority within an office down to a specific user. Restricted access to conflict and confidential cases based on a user ID, which can be easily maintained by authorized IV-D security administrators. The system must have a well-designed architecture to support continuous testing of particular functions or code modules and their integration capabilities to ensure reliability, maintainability, and security of business operations. The system must allow for failure testing and statistical process controls to ensure that system components are performing efficiently and effectively according to business rules and requirements. The system must provide a tool that automates the system code test activities and provides consistency and control throughout the test cycle. The test tool should be test methodology neutral and should have the capability to create and store a repository of systems requirements, test cases, test plans, and test results. It should provide for collaboration and streamline communication between all

C, S, T

S, T

17

Ibid., Section D p. 75 Ibid., Section D p. 77

18

Page 14 of 16

BR#

Ideal System Business Requirements


test participants and project stakeholders. The system must provide separate training environments sufficient for concurrent use by multiple offices statewide.

Current System Comparison

Affected Elements

16

17

17.1

17.2

The system must be separate and distinct from DWSS eligibility programs, including IVA. Data will be shared through interfaces, not by sharing the same tables. Batch processing will be separated for IV-D.

The IVD program has not been provided with a separate training environment until recently. DWSS has been working on getting a pre-production training region available to train staff prior to code promotes and for on-going/new hire training. The training process is still in the development stages and will need dedicated resource time before it will be fully functional. The system overlays public assistance data on child support data, causing inaccuracies and inconsistencies. MAXIMUS recommends that ties between the PA and IV-D system are severed with the implementation of a new systemdue to the significant negative impact that PA data has on the IV-D side. The continuous overlaying of PA data on IV-D data causes a tremendous amount of rework, frustration19

M, T

M, T

18

The system must provide for the electronic filing and recording of court documents.

Sharing of data in the same tables causes data ownership issues. IVDstaff cannot update case or person demographic data on their own cases, they must rely on IV-A staff to update/correct data which causes delays in case processing. Merging of data which is done by DWSS IS staff (programmer) can take up to 4-6 weeks. Electronic filing and recording of court documents is not available in NOMADS.

19

Ibid., Section D p. 82

Page 15 of 16

BR# 19

Ideal System Business Requirements


The system must be capable of providing for centralized business functions including: Mail room consolidation Financial Institution Data Match (FIDM) Interstate case initiation Call center

Current System Comparison


Centralized business functions are not currently available in NOMADS.

Affected Elements

M, R, T

Page 16 of 16

APPENDIX N
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES Add a new definition to NRS Chapter 425 as follows: NRS 425.000 Administrative Law Judge means the person employed by or contracted by the Division to conduct hearings pursuant to this chapter and in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Chapter or NRS Chapter 130.

NRS 425.295 Debt defined. Debt means the amount of money owed as support for a dependent child pursuant to: 1. An order of a court of competent jurisdiction of this or any other state; or 2. A recommendation entered by the master pursuant to [NRS 425.382 to 425.3852, inclusive] NRS 425.383, and approved by the district court. 3. An order entered by the Administrative Law Judge pursuant to NRS 425.382 to 425.3852, inclusive, (Added to NRS by 1989, 1634; A 1991, 1031; 1993, 487; 1997, 2244) PROCEDURE FOR JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT [NRS 425.381 Master: Appointment; qualifications. 1. A master must be appointed as set forth in this section. 2. The district judges of: (a) The Family Court of the Second Judicial District shall appoint the masters for that District, and shall establish the qualifications and duties of those masters; and (b) The Family Court of the Eighth Judicial District shall appoint the masters for that District, and shall establish the qualifications and duties of those masters. 3. The district judges of the remaining judicial districts shall appoint the masters for those districts, and shall establish the qualifications and duties of those masters. 4. A master serves at the pleasure of the district judges who appointed him. (Added to NRS by 1991, 1031; A 1993, 483, 487) NRS 425.382 Authority of Chief and master. 1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 425.346, the Chief may proceed pursuant to NRS 425.3822 to 425.3852, inclusive, after: (a) Payment of public assistance by the Division; or (b) Receipt of a request for services to carry out the Program. 2. [Subject to approval by the district court,] [a master] An Administrative Law Judge may: (a) Take any action authorized pursuant to chapter 130 of NRS, including any of the actions described in subsection 2 of NRS 130.305. (b) Except as otherwise provided in chapter 130 of NRS and NRS 425.346: (1) Issue and enforce an order for the support of a dependent child, and modify or adjust such an order in accordance with NRS 125B.145; (2) Require coverage for health care of a dependent child; (3) Establish paternity; (4) Order a responsible parent to comply with an order for the support of a dependent child, specifying the amount and the manner of compliance; (5) Order the withholding of income; (6) Determine the amount of any arrearages and specify a method of payment; [(7) Enforce orders by civil or criminal contempt, or both;] (8) (7) Set aside property for satisfaction of an order for the support of a dependent child; (9) (8) Place liens and order execution on the property of the responsible parent; (10) (9) Order a responsible parent to keep the Administrative Law Judge [master] informed of his current residential address, telephone number, employer, address of employment and telephone number at the place of employment;

[(11) Issue a bench warrant for a responsible parent who has failed after proper notice to appear at a hearing ordered by the master and enter the bench warrant in any local and state computer system for criminal warrants;] (12) (10) Order the responsible parent to seek appropriate employment by specified methods; (13) (11) Upon the request of the Division, require a responsible parent to: (I) Pay any support owed in accordance with a plan approved by the Division; or (II) Participate in such work activities, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. 607(d), as the Division deems appropriate; (14) (12)Award reasonable attorneys fees and other fees and costs; and (15) (13) Grant any other available remedy. (Added to NRS by 1989, 1641; A 1991, 1031; 1993, 487, 2067; 1997, 2248, 2249) NRS 425.3822 Notice and finding of financial responsibility: Issuance; service. 1. If there is no court order concerning the support of a child entered against the parent from whom support is sought, the Chief may issue a notice and finding of financial responsibility after the Division: (a) Makes a payment of public assistance; or (b) Receives a request for services to carry out the Program. 2. The notice must be served upon the parent in the manner prescribed for service of summons in a civil action or by certified mail, restricted delivery, with return receipt requested. (Added to NRS by 1989, 1634; A 1991, 1338; 1995, 2425; 1997, 2250) NRS 425.3824 Notice and finding of financial responsibility: Contents; conference; hearing. 1. The notice and finding of financial responsibility issued pursuant to NRS 425.3822 must include: (a) The name of the person who has physical custody of the dependent child and the name of the child for whom support is to be paid. (b) A statement of the monthly support for which the parent is responsible. (c) A statement of the amount of arrearages sought, if any. (d) A statement that the parent may be required to provide coverage for the health care of the dependent child when coverage is available to the parent at a reasonable cost. (e) A statement of any requirements the Division will request pursuant to subparagraph (13) (11) of paragraph (b) of subsection 2 of NRS 425.382, regarding a plan for the payment of support by the parent or the participation of the parent in work activities. (f) A statement that if the parent desires to discuss the amount of support or coverage for health care that the parent should be required to pay or provide, the parent may contact the office that sent the notice within 20 days after the date of receipt of service and request a conference for negotiation. (g) A statement that if the parent objects to any part of the notice and finding of financial responsibility, the parent must send to the office that issued the notice a written response within 20 days after the date of receipt of service that sets forth any objections and requests a hearing. (h) A statement that if a response is received within the specified period, the parent is entitled to a hearing and that if a written response is not received within the specified period, the [master] Administrative Law Judge may enter [a recommendation] an order for support of a dependent child in accordance with the notice and finding of financial responsibility. (i) A statement that [as soon as the recommendation is entered and approved by the court,] the property of the parent is subject to an attachment or other procedure for collection, including, but not limited to, withholding of wages, garnishment, liens and execution on liens. (j) A reference to NRS 425.382 to 425.3852, inclusive. (k) A statement that the parent is responsible for notifying the office of any change of address or employment. (l) A statement that if the parent has any questions, the parent may contact the office or consult an attorney. (m) Such other information as the Chief finds appropriate. 2. The statement of the monthly support required pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 1 must be computed in accordance with NRS 125B.070. 3. After a conference for negotiation is held pursuant to paragraph (f) of subsection 1, if an agreement is not reached on the monthly support to be paid or the coverage to be provided, a hearing must be held

pursuant to NRS 425.3832 and notice of the hearing must be sent to the parent by regular mail at his last known address or to the last known address of his attorney. (Added to NRS by 1989, 1634; A 1991, 1032; 1993, 487; 1997, 2250, 2251) NRS 425.3826 Notice and finding of financial responsibility: Additional requirements when paternity has not been legally established. If the paternity of the dependent child has not been legally established and a notice and finding of financial responsibility is to be served on the alleged parent, the notice must include: 1. The information required by NRS 425.3824. 2. An allegation that the person is the parent of the dependent child. 3. The name of the other parent of the child. 4. The date of birth of the child. 5. The probable period during which conception took place. 6. A statement that if the alleged parent does not send to the office issuing the notice and finding of financial responsibility a written response that denies paternity and requests a hearing, within the specified period, the [master] Administrative Law Judge, without further notice to the alleged parent, may enter [a recommendation] an order that declares and establishes the person as the legal parent of the child. (Added to NRS by 1989, 1635; A 1991, 1033; 1993, 487) NRS 425.3828 Hearing required upon request; issuance of recommendation for support by master; approval of recommendation by district court; judicial relief. 1. If a written response setting forth objections and requesting a hearing is received by the office issuing the notice and finding of financial responsibility within the specified period, a hearing must be held pursuant to NRS 425.3832 and notice of the hearing must be sent to the parent by regular mail. 2. If a written response and request for hearing is not received by the office issuing the notice and finding of financial responsibility within the specified period, the [master may enter a recommendation] Administrative Law Judge may enter an order for the support of a dependent child in accordance with the notice and shall: (a) Include in that [recommendation] order: (1) If the paternity of the dependent child is established by the [recommendation] order, a declaration of that fact. (2) The amount of monthly support to be paid, including directions concerning the manner of payment. (3) The amount of arrearages owed. (4) Whether coverage for health care must be provided for the dependent child. (5) Any requirements to be imposed pursuant to subparagraph (13) (11) of paragraph (b) of subsection 2 of NRS 425.382, regarding a plan for the payment of support by the parent or the participation of the parent in work activities. (6) The names of the parents or legal guardians of the child. (7) The name of the person to whom, and the name and date of birth of the dependent child for whom support is to be paid. (8) A statement that the property of the parent is subject to an attachment or other procedure for collection, including, but not limited to, withholding of wages, garnishment, liens and execution on liens. (9) A statement that [objections to the recommendation] an appeal may be filed with the district court and served upon the other party within 10 days after receipt of the recommendation. The Chief shall provide information about appeal procedures in the statement. (b) Ensure that the social security numbers of the parents or legal guardians of the child and the person to whom support is to be paid are: (1) Provided to the enforcing authority. (2) Placed in the records relating to the matter and, except as otherwise required to carry out a specific statute, maintained in a confidential manner. 3. The parent must be sent a copy of [the recommendation] the order for the support of a dependent child by regular mail addressed to the last known address of the parent, or if applicable, the last known address of the attorney for the parent. 4. [The recommendation for the support of a dependent child is final upon approval by the district court pursuant to NRS 425.3844.] The Chief may take action to enforce and collect upon the order [of the court

approving the recommendation], including arrearages, from the date [of the approval of the recommendation] of the order of the Administrative Law Judge. [5. If a written response and request for hearing is not received by the office issuing the notice and finding of financial responsibility within the specified period, and the master enters a recommendation for the support of a dependent child, the court may grant relief from the recommendation on the grounds set forth in paragraph (b) of Rule 60 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure.] (Added to NRS by 1989, 1636; A 1991, 1033; 1993, 487; 1997, 2252, 2253; 1999, 2682) NRS 425.383 Modification or adjustment of order for support. 1. After the entry of a recommendation for the support of a dependent child by the master that has been approved by the district court, or after entry of an order for the support of a dependent child by a district court regarding which the Chief is authorized to proceed pursuant to NRS 425.382 to 425.3852, inclusive, the responsible parent, the person entitled to support or the enforcing authority may move for the amount of the child support being enforced to be modified or adjusted in accordance with NRS 125B.145. 2. The motion must: (a) Be in writing. (b) Set out the reasons for the modification or adjustment. (c) State the address of the moving party. (d) Be served by the moving party upon the responsible parent or the person entitled to support, as appropriate, by first-class mail to the last known address of that person. 3. The moving party shall mail or deliver a copy of the motion and the original return of service to the Chief. 4. The Chief shall set the matter for a hearing within 30 days after the date of receipt of the motion unless a stipulated agreement between the parties is reached. The Chief shall send to the parties and person with physical custody of the dependent child a notice of the hearing by first-class mail to the last known address of those persons. 5. A motion for modification or adjustment requested pursuant to this section does not prohibit the Chief from enforcing and collecting upon the existing order for support of a dependent child unless so ordered by the district court. 6. The only support payments that may be modified or adjusted pursuant to this section are monthly support payments that: (a) A court of this state has jurisdiction to modify pursuant to chapter 130 of NRS; and (b) Accrue after the moving party serves notice that a motion has been filed for modification or adjustment. 7. The party requesting the modification or adjustment has the burden of showing a change of circumstances and good cause for the modification or adjustment, unless the request is filed in accordance with subsection 1 of NRS 125B.145. (Added to NRS by 1989, 1636; A 1991, 1034; 1993, 487; 1997, 2254, 2255) NRS 425.____ Modification or adjustment of order for support. 1. After the entry of an order for the support of a dependent child by the Administrative Law Judge, the responsible parent, the person entitled to support or the enforcing authority may move for the amount of the child support being enforced to be modified or adjusted in accordance with NRS 125B.145. 2. The motion must: (a) Be in writing. (b) Set out the reasons for the modification or adjustment. (c) State the address of the moving party. (d) Be served by the moving party upon the responsible parent or the person entitled to support, as appropriate, by first-class mail to the last known address of that person. 3. The moving party shall mail or deliver a copy of the motion and the original return of service to the Chief. 4. The Chief shall set the matter for a hearing within 30 days after the date of receipt of the motion unless a stipulated agreement between the parties is reached. The Chief shall send to the parties and person with physical custody of the dependent child a notice of the hearing by first-class mail to the last known address of those persons.

5. A motion for modification or adjustment requested pursuant to this section does not prohibit the Chief from enforcing and collecting upon the existing order for support of a dependent child unless so ordered by the district court. 6. The only support payments that may be modified or adjusted pursuant to this section are monthly support payments that: (a) A court of this state has jurisdiction to modify pursuant to chapter 130 of NRS; and (b) Accrue after the moving party serves notice that a motion has been filed for modification or adjustment. 7. The party requesting the modification or adjustment has the burden of showing a change of circumstances and good cause for the modification or adjustment, unless the request is filed in accordance with subsection 1 of NRS 125B.145. NRS 425.3832 Hearings: Procedure; subpoenas; compensation of witnesses; evidence. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a hearing conducted pursuant to NRS 425.382 to 425.3852, inclusive, must be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this section by a qualified master appointed pursuant to NRS 425.381 or Administrative Law Judge. 2. Subpoenas may be issued by: (a) The master or Administrative Law Judge. (b) The attorney of record for the office. Obedience to the subpoena may be compelled in the same manner as provided in chapter 22 of NRS or NRS 422A.180. A witness appearing pursuant to a subpoena, other than a party or an officer or employee of the Chief, is entitled to receive the fees and payment for mileage prescribed for a witness in a civil action. 3. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the master or Administrative Law Judge need not observe strict rules of evidence, but shall apply those rules of evidence prescribed in NRS 233B.123. 4. The affidavit of any party who resides outside of the judicial district is admissible as evidence regarding the duty of support, any arrearages and the establishment of paternity. The master or Administrative Law Judge may continue the hearing to allow procedures for discovery regarding any matter set forth in the affidavit. 5. The physical presence of a person seeking the establishment, enforcement, modification or adjustment of an order for the support of a dependent child or the establishment of paternity is not required. 6. A verified petition, an affidavit, a document substantially complying with federally mandated forms and a document incorporated by reference in any of them, not excluded under NRS 51.065 if given in person, is admissible in evidence if given under oath by a party or witness residing outside of the judicial district. 7. A copy of the record of payments for the support of a dependent child, certified as a true copy of the original by the custodian of the record, may be forwarded to the master or Administrative Law Judge. The copy is evidence of facts asserted therein and is admissible to show whether payments were made. 8. Copies of bills for testing for paternity, and for prenatal and postnatal health care of the mother and child, furnished to the adverse party at least 20 days before the hearing, are admissible in evidence to prove the amount of the charges billed and that the charges were reasonable, necessary and customary. 9. Documentary evidence transmitted from outside of the judicial district by telephone, telecopier or other means that do not provide an original writing may not be excluded from evidence on an objection based on the means of transmission. 10. The master or Administrative Law Judge may permit a party or witness [residing outside of the judicial district] to be deposed or to testify by telephone, audiovisual means or other electronic means [before a designated court or at another location outside of the judicial district. The master shall cooperate with courts outside of the judicial district in designating an appropriate location for the deposition or testimony]. 11. If a party called to testify at a hearing refuses to answer a question on the ground that the testimony may be self-incriminating, the master or Administrative Law Judge may draw an adverse inference from the refusal. 12. A privilege against the disclosure of communications between husband and wife does not apply. 13. The defense of immunity based on the relationship of husband and wife or parent and child does not apply.

(Added to NRS by 1989, 1637; A 1991, 1034; 1993, 487; 1997, 2256) NRS 425.3834 Enforcement of order approving recommendation for support; judicial review; effect of recommendation during judicial review. 1. Upon issuance by a district court of an order approving a recommendation entered by a master pursuant to [NRS 425.382 to 425.3852, inclusive] NRS 425.383, the Chief shall enforce and collect upon the order, including arrearages. 2. A recommendation entered by a master pursuant to [NRS 425.382 to 425.3852, inclusive] NRS 425.383, is final upon approval by the district court pursuant to NRS 425.3844. Upon such approval, the recommendation is in full force and effect while any judicial review is pending unless the recommendation is stayed by the district court. 3. The district court may review, pursuant to the rules adopted therefor by the district judges of the judicial district in which the court is located, a recommendation entered by a master pursuant to [NRS 425.382 to 425.3852, inclusive] NRS 425.383, (Added to NRS by 1989, 1637; A 1991, 1035; 1993, 483, 487; 1997, 2257) NRS 425.____ Enforcement of order approving recommendation for support; judicial review; effect of recommendation during judicial review. 1. Upon issuance of an order by an Administrative Law Judge pursuant to NRS 425.382 to 425.3852, inclusive, the Chief shall enforce and collect upon the order, including arrearages. 2. An order entered by an Administrative Law Judge pursuant to NRS 425.382 to 425.3852, inclusive, is final and is in full force and effect while any judicial review is pending unless the recommendation is stayed by the district court pursuant to the provisions of NRS 233B.140. 3. The district court may review an order issued by an Administrative Law Judge pursuant to NRS 425.382 to 425.3852, inclusive upon appeal filed under NRS 233B.130 through NRS 233B.150, inclusive. NRS 425.3835 Court prohibited from staying proceeding or refusing hearing in certain circumstances; court required to hold hearing; court authorized to issue support order pendente lite. Except as otherwise required by the provisions of this chapter, a court of this state: 1. Shall not stay a proceeding or refuse a hearing pursuant to NRS 425.382 to 425.3852, inclusive, because of any pending or prior action or proceeding for divorce, separation, annulment, dissolution, habeas corpus, adoption or custody in this or any other state. 2. Shall hold a hearing pursuant to NRS 425.382 to 425.3852, inclusive, and may issue a support order pendente lite and, in aid thereof, require the obligor to give a bond for the prompt prosecution of the pending proceeding. (Added to NRS by 1999, 169) NRS 425.3836 Notice of intent to enforce court order for support; hearing; issuance of recommendation for support; effect of approval of recommendation; effect of noncompliance with order. 1. After the issuance of an order for the support of a dependent child by a court, the Chief may issue a notice of intent to enforce the order. The notice must be served upon the responsible parent in the manner prescribed for service of summons in a civil action or mailed to the responsible parent by certified mail, restricted delivery, with return receipt requested. 2. The notice must include: (a) The names of the person to whom support is to be paid and the dependent child for whom support is to be paid. (b) The amount of monthly support the responsible parent is required to pay by the order for support. (c) A statement of the arrearages owed pursuant to the order for support. (d) A demand that the responsible parent make full payment to the enforcing authority within 14 days after the receipt or service of the notice. (e) A statement that the responsible parent may be required to provide coverage for the health care of the dependent child when coverage is available to the parent at a reasonable cost.

(f) A statement of any requirements the Division will request pursuant to subparagraph (13) (11) of paragraph (b) of subsection 2 of NRS 425.382, regarding a plan for the payment of support by the responsible parent or the participation of the responsible parent in work activities. (g) A statement that if the responsible parent objects to any part of the notice of intent to enforce the order, he must send to the office that issued the notice a written response within 14 days after the date of receipt of service that sets forth any objections and includes a request for a hearing. (h) A statement that if full payment is not received within 14 days or a hearing has not been requested in the manner provided in paragraph (g), the Chief is entitled to enforce the order and that the property of the responsible parent is subject to an attachment or other procedure for collection, including, but not limited to, withholding of wages, garnishment, liens and execution on liens. (i) A reference to NRS 425.382 to 425.3852, inclusive. (j) A statement that the responsible parent is responsible for notifying the office of any change of address or employment. (k) A statement that if the responsible parent has any questions, he may contact the appropriate office or consult an attorney. (l) Such other information as the Chief finds appropriate. 3. If a written response setting forth objections and requesting a hearing is received within the specified period by the office issuing the notice of intent to enforce the order, a hearing must be held pursuant to NRS 425.3832 and notice of the hearing must be sent to the responsible parent by regular mail. If a written response and request for hearing is not received within the specified period by the office issuing the notice, the [master may enter a recommendation] Administrative Law Judge may enter an order for the support of a dependent child in accordance with the notice and shall include in that [recommendation] order: (a) The amount of monthly support to be enforced, including directions concerning the manner of payment. (b) The amount of arrearages owed and the manner of payment. (c) Whether coverage for health care must be provided for the dependent child. (d) Any requirements to be imposed pursuant to subparagraph (13) (11) of paragraph (b) of subsection 2 of NRS 425.382, regarding a plan for the payment of support by the parent or the participation of the parent in work activities. (e) A statement that the property of the parent is subject to an attachment or other procedure for collection, including, but not limited to, the withholding of wages, garnishment, liens and execution on liens. 4. [After the district court approves the recommendation for the support of a dependent child, the recommendation is final.] The Chief may take action to enforce and collect upon the order of the [court approving the recommendation] Administrative Law Judge, including arrearages, from the date of the [approval of the recommendation] signing of the order by the Administrative Law Judge. 5. This section does not prevent the Chief from using other available remedies for the enforcement of an obligation for the support of a dependent child at any time. [6. The master may hold a hearing to enforce a recommendation for the support of a dependent child after the recommendation has been entered and approved by the district court. The master may enter a finding that the parent has not complied with the order of the court and may recommend to the district court that the parent be held in contempt of court. The finding and recommendation is effective upon review and approval of the district court.] (Added to NRS by 1989, 1638; A 1991, 1035; 1993, 487; 1997, 2257, 2259) NRS 425.3838 Establishment of paternity: Procedure when paternity not disputed. 1. The [master may enter a recommendation] Administrative Law Judge may enter an order establishing the paternity of a child during a proceeding concerning the support of a dependent child pursuant to NRS 425.382 to 425.3852, inclusive, if both parents sign affidavits or other sworn statements that paternity has not been legally established and that the male parent is the father of the child. 2. If there is only one alleged father and he does not file a response that denies paternity and requests a hearing within the period allowed in paragraph (g) of subsection 1 of NRS 425.3824, the [master] Administrative Law Judge, without further notice to the alleged father, may enter [a recommendation] an order in accordance with NRS 425.3828 that declares and establishes the alleged father as the legal father of the child.

3. Any [recommendation] order entered pursuant to subsection 1 or 2 [and approved by the district court] establishes legal paternity of the dependent child for all purposes. (Added to NRS by 1989, 1639; A 1991, 1036; 1993, 487; 1997, 2261) NRS 425.384 Establishment of paternity: Procedure when paternity is disputed. 1. The [master] Administrative Law Judge shall order blood tests or tests for the genetic identification of the child, mother and alleged father if such tests are not ordered pursuant to NRS 425.490 and: (a) Paternity is alleged pursuant to NRS 425.3826 and a written response denying paternity and requesting a hearing is received by the Chief within the period allowed in paragraph (g) of subsection 1 of NRS 425.3824; (b) Any person alleges that more than one person may be the father of the child and none of the persons alleged to be the father acknowledges paternity of the child; or (c) The [master] Administrative Law Judge determines that there is a valid issue concerning the paternity of the child. The Division shall pay the costs of any tests conducted pursuant to this section. If the district court approves a recommendation Administrative Law Judge issues an order establishing the paternity of a child pursuant to NRS 425.3844, the father shall reimburse the Division for the costs of those tests. 2. If settlement is not made after the [master] Administrative Law Judge examines the results of the blood tests or tests for genetic identification conducted pursuant to this section or NRS 425.490, the [master] Administrative Law Judge shall make a determination of paternity based upon the evidence presented to him. (Added to NRS by 1989, 1639; A 1991, 1037; 1993, 487; 1997, 2261) NRS 425.3841 Establishment of paternity: Recommendation for temporary support pending resolution of proceedings. Upon the motion of a party in a proceeding to establish paternity, the [master shall issue a recommendation] Administrative Law Judge shall issue an order for the temporary support of the dependent child pending the resolution of the proceedings if the [master] Administrative Law Judge determines that there is clear and convincing evidence that the person to whom the [recommendation] order is issued is the father of the child. (Added to NRS by 1997, 2240) NRS 425.3844 Recommendation entered by master: Notification of parties; objection to recommendation; judicial review; approval and filing; effect upon filing. 1. A recommendation entered by a master pursuant to NRS 425.382 to 425.3852, inclusive, including a recommendation establishing paternity, must be furnished to each party or his attorney at the conclusion of the proceedings or as soon thereafter as possible. 2. Within 10 days after receipt of the recommendation, any party may file with the district court and serve upon the other parties a notice of objection to the recommendation. The notice must include: (a) A copy of the masters recommendation; (b) The results of any blood tests or tests for genetic identification examined by the master; (c) A concise statement setting forth the reasons that the party disagrees with the masters recommendation, including any affirmative defenses that must be pleaded pursuant to the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure; (d) A statement of the relief requested; (e) The notice and finding of financial responsibility if the Chief issued such a notice and finding; and (f) Any other relevant documents. 3. The district court shall: (a) If a notice of objection is not filed, accept the recommendation entered by the master, including a recommendation establishing paternity, unless clearly erroneous, and judgment may be entered thereon; or (b) If a notice of objection is filed within the 10-day period, review the matter pursuant to NRS 425.3834. 4. A party who receives a notice of objection pursuant to subsection 2 is not required to file an answer to that notice. The district court shall review each objection contained in the notice. 5. If a notice of objection includes an objection to a recommendation establishing paternity, the enforcement of any obligation for the support of the child recommended by the master must, upon the filing and service of the notice, be stayed until the district court rules upon the determination of paternity. The

obligation for the support of the child continues to accrue during the consideration of the determination of paternity and must be collected as arrears after the completion of the trial if the court approves the recommendation of the master. 6. If a recommendation entered by a master pursuant to NRS 425.382 to 425.3852, inclusive, including a recommendation establishing paternity, modifies or adjusts a previous order for support issued by any district court in this state, that district court shall review the recommendation and approve or reject the recommendation issued by the master. 7. Upon approval by the district court of a recommendation entered by a master pursuant to NRS 425.382 to 425.3852, inclusive, including a recommendation establishing paternity, a copy of the recommendation, with the approval of the court endorsed thereon, must be filed: (a) In the office of the clerk of the district court; (b) If the order of the district court approving the recommendation of the master modifies or adjusts a previous order issued by any district court in this state, with the original order in the office of the clerk of that district court; and (c) With any court that conducts a proceeding related thereto pursuant to the provisions of chapter 130 of NRS. 8. A district court that approves a recommendation pursuant to this section shall ensure that, before the recommendation is filed pursuant to subsection 7, the social security numbers of the parents or legal guardians of the child are: (a) Provided to the enforcing authority. (b) Placed in the records relating to the matter and, except as otherwise required to carry out a specific statute, maintained in a confidential manner. 9. Upon the approval and filing of the recommendation as provided in subsection 7, the recommendation has the force, effect and attributes of an order or decree of the district court, including, but not limited to, enforcement by supplementary proceedings, contempt of court proceedings, writs of execution, liens and writs of garnishment. (Added to NRS by 1989, 1640; A 1991, 1038; 1993, 484, 487; 1997, 2262; 1999, 2683) NRS 425.____ Orders entered by an Administrative Law Judge: Notification of parties; objection to order; judicial review. 1. An order entered by an Administrative Law Judge pursuant to NRS 425.382 to 425.3852, inclusive, including an order establishing paternity, must be furnished to each party or his attorney at the conclusion of the proceedings or as soon thereafter as possible. 2. Within 10 days after receipt of the order, any party may file with the district court and serve upon the other parties a petition for judicial review pursuant to NRS 233B.130 through NRS 233B.150, inclusive. The petition must include: (a) A copy of the Administrative Law Judges order; (b) The results of any blood tests or tests for genetic identification examined by the Administrative Law Judge; (c) A concise statement setting forth the reasons that the party disagrees with the Administrative Law Judges order; (d) A statement of the relief requested; (e) The notice and finding of financial responsibility if the Chief issued such a notice and finding; and (f) Any other relevant documents. 3. The district court shall conduct a judicial review of the proceedings in accordance with NRS 233B.130 through NRS 233B.150, inclusive. NRS 425.3846 Enforcement of support in accordance with chapter 31A of NRS. In addition to any other remedy provided by law for the enforcement of support, if [a recommendation] an order for support of a dependent child has been entered by the [master, approved by the district court and filed] Administrative Law Judge , the Chief may proceed in accordance with the provisions of chapter 31A of NRS. (Added to NRS by 1989, 1640; A 1991, 1038; 1993, 487)

NRS 425.3848 Disposal of property by parent: Temporary restraining order; bond; notice of lis pendens. 1. If at any time after service, receipt or refusal of a notice pursuant to NRS 425.3824 and before the filing of an order for support of a dependent child, the Chief reasonably believes that the parent is about to transfer, encumber, convey, sell, remove, secrete, waste or otherwise dispose of property that could be made subject to an action for collection to satisfy the debt, the Chief may: (a) Certify the matter to the district court; and (b) Request a temporary restraining order which directs that the property not be disposed of pending entry of an order for support of a dependent child by the district court. 2. The Chief shall file an affidavit in the case record that: (a) States the reasons he believes the parent is about to dispose of the property; and (b) Includes a legal description of the property. 3. If the parent furnishes a good and sufficient bond that is satisfactory to the court, the temporary restraining order must be vacated. 4. A certified copy of an order entered pursuant to this section may be recorded in the same manner as a notice of lis pendens pursuant to paragraph (h) of subsection 1 of NRS 247.120. (Added to NRS by 1989, 1640) NRS 425.385 Certification of complex issues to district court; temporary support. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the [master] Administrative Law Judge may certify a proceeding to establish an order for support of a dependent child or arrearages to the district court if the issues are complex or beyond the competence of the [master] Administrative Law Judge. The [master] Administrative Law Judge shall enter a temporary recommendation for support in such cases. The temporary support must be paid to the enforcing authority and held until final resolution of the case. (Added to NRS by 1989, 1641; A 1991, 1038; 1993, 484, 487; 1997, 2263) NRS 425.3855 Social security numbers of parents or legal guardians of child: Court entering order to ensure provision to enforcing authority; court entering order to ensure placement in records. A district court or Administrative Law Judge that enters an order pursuant to NRS 425.382 to 425.3852, inclusive, [or an order approving a recommendation for the support of a dependent child made by a master] shall ensure that the social security numbers of the parents or legal guardians of the child are: 1. Provided to the enforcing authority. 2. Placed in the records relating to the matter and, except as otherwise required to carry out a specific statute, maintained in a confidential manner. (Added to NRS by 1997, 2244; A 1999, 169, 2684, 2685; 2001, 195) NRS 425.470 Collection of arrearages in payments of support: Notification of responsible parent; authority of Chief; hearing before master. 1. The Chief shall send a notice by first-class mail to each responsible parent who is in arrears in any payment for the support of one or more children required pursuant to an order enforced by a court in this state. The notice must include a statement of the amount of the arrearage and the information prescribed in subsection 2. 2. If the responsible parent does not satisfy the arrearage within 20 days after he receives the notice required by subsection 1, the Chief may, to collect the arrearage owed: (a) Require the responsible parent to pay monthly the amount he is required to pay pursuant to the order for support plus an additional amount to satisfy the arrearage; or (b) Issue a notice of attachment to the financial institutions in which the assets of the responsible parent are held and attach and seize such assets as are necessary to satisfy the arrearage. 3. If the Chief proceeds to collect an arrearage pursuant to subsection 2, he shall notify the responsible parent of that fact in writing. The notice must be sent by first-class mail. 4. The Chief shall determine the amount of any additional payment required pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection 2 based upon the amount of the arrearage owed by the responsible parent and his ability to pay.

10

5. A responsible parent against whom the Division proceeds pursuant to subsection 2 may, within 20 days after he receives the notice required pursuant to subsection 3, submit to the Chief a request for a hearing. 6. If a hearing is requested within the period prescribed in subsection 5, the hearing must be held pursuant to NRS 425.3832 within 20 days after the Chief receives the request. The [master] Administrative Law Judge shall notify the responsible parent of his recommendation or decision at the conclusion of the hearing or as soon thereafter as is practicable. 7. For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to have received a notice 3 days after it is mailed, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to that person at his last known address. (Added to NRS by 1997, 2242) NRS 425.490 Blood tests or tests of genetic identification to determine paternity: Authority of Chief; payment of costs; orders for additional testing. 1. After paternity is alleged pursuant to NRS 425.3826, and a written response denying paternity and requesting a hearing is received by the Chief pursuant to paragraph (g) of subsection 1 of NRS 425.3824, the Chief shall order blood tests or tests for the genetic identification of the child, mother and alleged father if the child, mother or alleged father submits to the Chief a written statement signed under [oath] penalties of perjury which: (a) Alleges paternity and sets forth facts establishing a reasonable possibility that the mother and the alleged father had sexual intercourse at or about the probable time of conception; or (b) Denies paternity and sets forth facts establishing a reasonable possibility that the mother and the alleged father did not have sexual intercourse at or about the probable time of conception. The genetic identification test may be taken by anyone authorized by NRS 126.121. 2. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, the Division shall pay the costs of any tests conducted pursuant to this section. If the [district court approves a recommendation] Administrative Law Judge enters an order establishing the paternity of a child pursuant to NRS 425.3844, the father shall reimburse the Division for the costs of those tests. 3. If the child, mother or alleged father contests the results of a test conducted pursuant to this section, the Division shall order the parties to submit to additional testing upon the payment of the costs of the additional tests by the contesting party. NRS 425.510 Procedure for reporting to Department of Motor Vehicles names of persons who have failed to pay support or comply with certain subpoenas or warrants; plan for repayment of arrearages. [Effective until the date of the repeal of the federal law requiring each state to establish procedures for withholding, suspending and restricting the professional, occupational and recreational licenses for child support arrearages and for noncompliance with certain processes relating to paternity or child support proceedings.] 1. Each district attorney or other public agency collecting support for children shall send a notice by first-class mail to each person who: (a) Has failed to comply with a subpoena or warrant relating to a proceeding to determine the paternity of a child or to establish or enforce an obligation for the support of a child; or (b) Is in arrears in the payment for the support of one or more children. The notice must include the information set forth in subsection 2 and a copy of the subpoena or warrant or a statement of the amount of the arrearage. 2. If the person does not, within 30 days after he receives the notice required by subsection 1: (a) Comply with the subpoena or warrant; (b) Satisfy the arrearage pursuant to NRS 425.560; or (c) Submit to the district attorney or other public agency a written request for a hearing, the district attorney or other public agency shall report the name of that person to the Department of Motor Vehicles. 3. If a person requests a hearing within the period prescribed in subsection 2, a hearing must be held pursuant to NRS 425.3832. The [master] Administrative Law Judge shall notify the person of his [recommendation] order at the conclusion of the hearing or as soon thereafter as is practicable. If the [master] Administrative Law Judge determines that the person has failed to comply with a subpoena or warrant relating to a proceeding to determine the paternity of a child or to establish or enforce an obligation

11

for the support of a child, he shall include in the notice the information set forth in subsection 4. If the [master] Administrative Law Judge determines that the person is in arrears in the payment for the support of one or more children, he shall include in the notice the information set forth in subsection 5. 4. If the [master] Administrative Law Judge determines that a person who requested a hearing pursuant to subsection 2 has not complied with a subpoena or warrant relating to a proceeding to determine the paternity of a child or to establish or enforce an obligation for the support of a child [and the district court issues an order approving the recommendation of the master], the district attorney or other public agency shall report the name of that person to the Department. 5. If the [master] Administrative Law Judge determines that a person who requested a hearing pursuant to subsection 2 is in arrears in the payment for the support of one or more children, the [master] Administrative Law Judge shall notify the person that if he does not immediately agree to enter into a plan for the repayment of the arrearages that is approved by the district attorney or other public agency, his drivers license and motorcycle drivers license may be subject to suspension. If the person does not agree to enter into such a plan [and the district court issues an order approving the recommendation of the master], the district attorney or other public agency shall report the name of that person to the Department of Motor Vehicles. 6. The district attorney or other public agency shall, within 5 days after the person who has failed to comply with a subpoena or warrant or is in arrears in the payment for the support of one or more children complies with the subpoena or warrant or satisfies the arrearage pursuant to NRS 425.560, notify the Department of Motor Vehicles that the person has complied with the subpoena or warrant or has satisfied the arrearage. 7. For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to have received a notice 3 days after it is mailed, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to that person at his last known address. (Added to NRS by 1995, 949; A 1997, 2028; 1999, 520; 2001, 2609) NRS 425.510 Procedure for reporting to Department of Motor Vehicles names of persons who have failed to pay support; plan for repayment of arrearages. [Effective on the date of the repeal of the federal law requiring each state to establish procedures for withholding, suspending and restricting the professional, occupational and recreational licenses for child support arrearages and for noncompliance with certain processes relating to paternity or child support proceedings.] 1. Each district attorney or other public agency collecting support for children shall send a notice by first-class mail to each person who is in arrears in the payment for the support of one or more children. The notice must include the information set forth in subsection 2 and a statement of the amount of the arrearage. 2. If the person does not, within 30 days after he receives the notice required by subsection 1: (a) Satisfy the arrearage pursuant to subsection 6; or (b) Submit to the district attorney or other public agency a written request for a hearing, the district attorney or other public agency shall report the name of that person to the Department of Motor Vehicles. 3. If a person requests a hearing within the period prescribed in subsection 2, a hearing must be held pursuant to NRS 425.3832. The [master] shall notify the person of his [recommendation] order at the conclusion of the hearing or as soon thereafter as is practicable. If the [master] Administrative Law Judge determines that the person is in arrears in the payment for the support of one or more children, he shall include in the notice the information set forth in subsection 4. 4. If the [master] Administrative Law Judge determines that a person who requested a hearing pursuant to subsection 2 is in arrears in the payment for the support of one or more children, the [master] Administrative Law Judge shall notify the person that if he does not immediately agree to enter into a plan for the repayment of the arrearages that is approved by the district attorney or other public agency, his drivers license and motorcycle drivers license may be subject to suspension. If the person does not agree to enter into such a plan [and the district court issues an order approving the recommendation of the master], the district attorney or other public agency shall report the name of that person to the Department of Motor Vehicles. 5. The district attorney or other public agency shall, within 5 days after the person who is in arrears in the payment for the support of one or more children satisfies the arrearage pursuant to subsection 6, notify the Department of Motor Vehicles that the person has satisfied the arrearage. 6. For the purposes of this section: (a) A person is in arrears in the payment for the support of one or more children if:

12

(1) He: (I) Owes a total of more than $1,000 for the support of one or more children for which payment is past due; and (II) Is delinquent for not less than 2 months in payments for the support of one or more children or any payments ordered by a court for arrearages in such payments; or (2) He has failed to provide medical insurance for a child as required by a court order. (b) A person who is in arrears in the payment for the support of one or more children may satisfy the arrearage by: (1) Paying all of the past due payments; (2) If he is unable to pay all past due payments: (I) Paying the amounts of the overdue payments for the preceding 12 months which a court has determined are in arrears; or (II) Entering into and complying with a plan for the repayment of the arrearages which is approved by the district attorney or other public agency enforcing the order; or (3) If the arrearage is for a failure to provide and maintain medical insurance, providing proof that the child is covered under a policy, contract or plan of medical insurance. (c) A person shall be deemed to have received a notice 3 days after it is mailed, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to that person at his last known address. (Added to NRS by 1995, 949; A 1997, 2028, 2030; 1999, 520; 2001, 2609, effective on the date of the repeal of the federal law requiring each state to establish procedures for withholding, suspending and restricting the professional, occupational and recreational licenses for child support arrearages and for noncompliance with certain processes relating to paternity or child support proceedings) NRS 425.530 Notification of person who has failed to pay support or comply with certain subpoenas or warrants; request for suspension of persons licenses, certificates and permits; recommendation by master; hearing. [Effective until the date of the repeal of the federal law requiring each state to establish procedures for withholding, suspending and restricting the professional, occupational and recreational licenses for child support arrearages and for noncompliance with certain processes relating to paternity or child support proceedings.] 1. Each district attorney or other public agency collecting support for children shall send a notice by certified mail, restricted delivery, with return receipt requested to each person who: (a) Has failed to comply with a subpoena or warrant relating to a proceeding to determine the paternity of a child or to establish, modify or enforce an obligation for the support of a child; or (b) Is in arrears in the payment for the support of one or more children. The notice must include the information set forth in subsections 2 and 3 and a copy of the subpoena or warrant or a statement of the amount of the arrearage. 2. If the person does not, within 30 days after he receives the notice required by subsection 1: (a) Comply with the subpoena or warrant; (b) Satisfy the arrearage pursuant to NRS 425.560; or (c) Submit to the district attorney or other public agency a written request for a hearing, the district attorney or other public agency shall request in writing that the [master] Administrative Law Judge suspend all professional, occupational and recreational licenses, certificates and permits issued to that person. 3. If the [master] Administrative Law Judge receives from a district attorney or other public agency a request to suspend the professional, occupational and recreational licenses, certificates and permits issued to a person, the [master] Administrative Law Judge shall enter [a recommendation] an order determining whether the person: (a) Has failed to comply with a subpoena or warrant relating to a proceeding to determine the paternity of a child or to establish, modify or enforce an obligation for the support of a child; or (b) Is in arrears in the payment for the support of one or more children. As soon as practicable after the [master] Administrative Law Judge enters his [recommendation] order, the district attorney or other public agency shall notify the person by first-class mail of the [recommendation of the master] order of the Administrative Law Judge. 4. If a person requests a hearing within the period prescribed in subsection 2, a hearing must be held pursuant to NRS 425.3832. The [master] Administrative Law Judge shall notify the person of his [recommendation] order at the conclusion of the hearing or as soon thereafter as is practicable.

13

(Added to NRS by 1997, 2026; A 2005, 2807) NRS 425.530 Notification of person who has failed to pay support or comply with certain subpoenas or warrants; request for suspension of persons licenses, certificates and permits; recommendation by master; hearing. [Effective on the date of the repeal of the federal law requiring each state to establish procedures for withholding, suspending and restricting the professional, occupational and recreational licenses for child support arrearages and for noncompliance with certain processes relating to paternity or child support proceedings and expires by limitation 2 years after that date.] 1. Each district attorney or other public agency collecting support for children shall send a notice by certified mail, restricted delivery, with return receipt requested to each person who is issued a professional or occupational license, certificate or permit pursuant to title 54 of NRS and: (a) Has failed to comply with a subpoena or warrant relating to a proceeding to determine the paternity of a child or to establish, modify or enforce an obligation for the support of a child; or (b) Is in arrears in the payment for the support of one or more children. The notice must include the information set forth in subsections 2 and 3 and a copy of the subpoena or warrant or a statement of the amount of the arrearage. 2. If the person does not, within 30 days after he receives the notice required by subsection 1: (a) Comply with the subpoena or warrant; (b) Satisfy the arrearage pursuant to NRS 425.560; or (c) Submit to the district attorney or other public agency a written request for a hearing, the district attorney or other public agency shall request in writing that the [master] Administrative Law Judge suspend any professional or occupational license, certificate or permit issued pursuant to title 54 of NRS to that person. 3. If the [master] Administrative Law Judge receives from a district attorney or other public agency a request to suspend any professional or occupational license, certificate or permit issued pursuant to title 54 of NRS to a person, the [master] Administrative Law Judge shall enter [a recommendation] an order determining whether the person: (a) Has failed to comply with a subpoena or warrant relating to a proceeding to determine the paternity of a child or to establish, modify or enforce an obligation for the support of a child; or (b) Is in arrears in the payment for the support of one or more children. As soon as practicable after the [master enters his recommendation] Administrative Law Judge enters his order, the district attorney or other public agency shall notify the person by first-class mail of the [recommendation of the master] order of the Administrative Law Judge.. 4. If a person requests a hearing within the period prescribed in subsection 2, a hearing must be held pursuant to NRS 425.3832. The [master] Administrative Law Judge shall notify the person of his [recommendation] order at the conclusion of the hearing or as soon thereafter as is practicable. (Added to NRS by 1997, 2026; A 2005, 2805, 2807, effective on the date of the repeal of the federal law requiring each state to establish procedures for withholding, suspending and restricting the professional, occupational and recreational licenses for child support arrearages and for noncompliance with certain processes relating to paternity or child support proceedings) NRS 425.540 Dissemination and contents of court order approving recommendation of master determining that person has failed to pay support or comply with certain subpoenas or warrants; notification of person subject to order. [Effective until the date of the repeal of the federal law requiring each state to establish procedures for withholding, suspending and restricting the professional, occupational and recreational licenses for child support arrearages and for noncompliance with certain processes relating to paternity or child support proceedings.] 1. If a [master enters a recommendation] Administrative Law Judge enters an order determining that a person: (a) Has failed to comply with a subpoena or warrant relating to a proceeding to determine the paternity of a child or to establish or enforce an obligation for the support of a child; or (b) Is in arrears in the payment for the support of one or more children, [and the district court issues an order approving the recommendation of the master], the [court] district attorney or other public agency shall provide a copy of the order to all agencies that issue professional, occupational or recreational licenses, certificates or permits.

14

2. A [court] Administrative Law Judge order issued pursuant to subsection 1 must provide that if the person named in the order does not, within 30 days after the date on which the order is issued, submit to any agency that has issued a professional, occupational or recreational license, certificate or permit to that person a letter from the district attorney or other public agency stating that the person has complied with the subpoena or warrant or has satisfied the arrearage pursuant to NRS 425.560, the professional, occupational or recreational licenses issued to the person by that agency will be automatically suspended. Such an order must not apply to a license, certificate or permit issued by the Department of Wildlife or the State Land Registrar if that license, certificate or permit expires less than 6 months after it is issued. 3. If a [court] Administrative Law Judge issues an order pursuant to subsection 1, the district attorney or other public agency shall send a notice by first-class mail to the person who is subject to the order. The notice must include: (a) If the person has failed to comply with a subpoena or warrant, a copy of the court order and a copy of the subpoena or warrant; or (b) If the person is in arrears in the payment for the support of one or more children: (1) A copy of the court order; (2) A statement of the amount of the arrearage; and (3) A statement of the action that the person may take to satisfy the arrearage pursuant to NRS 425.560. (Added to NRS by 1997, 2026; A 2003, 1563; 2005, 2807, 2815) NRS 425.540 Dissemination and contents of court order approving recommendation of master determining that person has failed to pay support or comply with certain subpoenas or warrants; notification of person subject to order. [Effective on the date of the repeal of the federal law requiring each state to establish procedures for withholding, suspending and restricting the professional, occupational and recreational licenses for child support arrearages and for noncompliance with certain processes relating to paternity or child support proceedings and expires by limitation 2 years after that date.] 1. If a [master enters a recommendation] Administrative Law Judge enters an order determining that a person who is issued a professional or occupational license, certificate or permit pursuant to title 54 of NRS: (a) Has failed to comply with a subpoena or warrant relating to a proceeding to determine the paternity of a child or to establish or enforce an obligation for the support of a child; or (b) Is in arrears in the payment for the support of one or more children, [and the district court issues an order approving the recommendation of the master], the [court] district attorney or public agency shall provide a copy of the order to all agencies that issue professional or occupational licenses, certificates or permits pursuant to title 54 of NRS. 2. A [court] Administrative Law Judge order issued pursuant to subsection 1 must provide that if the person named in the order does not, within 30 days after the date on which the order is issued, submit to any agency that has issued a professional or occupational license, certificate or permit pursuant to title 54 of NRS to that person a letter from the district attorney or other public agency stating that the person has complied with the subpoena or warrant or has satisfied the arrearage pursuant to NRS 425.560, any professional or occupational license, certificate or permit issued pursuant to title 54 of NRS to the person by that agency will be automatically suspended. 3. If a [court] Administrative Law Judge issues an order pursuant to subsection 1, the district attorney or other public agency shall send a notice by first-class mail to the person who is subject to the order. The notice must include: (a) If the person has failed to comply with a subpoena or warrant, a copy of the court order and a copy of the subpoena or warrant; or (b) If the person is in arrears in the payment for the support of one or more children: (1) A copy of the court order; (2) A statement of the amount of the arrearage; and (3) A statement of the action that the person may take to satisfy the arrearage pursuant to NRS 425.560. (Added to NRS by 1997, 2026; A 2003, 1563; 2005, 2806, 2807, 2815, effective on the date of the repeal of the federal law requiring each state to establish procedures for withholding, suspending and

15

restricting the professional, occupational and recreational licenses for child support arrearages and for noncompliance with certain processes relating to paternity or child support proceedings)

ACTIONS RELATING TO PATERNITY OR SUPPORT OF CHILDREN NRS 3.405 Masters: Appointment; powers and duties; findings. 1. In an action to establish paternity, the court may appoint a master to take testimony and recommend orders. 2. The court may appoint a master to hear all cases in a county to establish or enforce an obligation for the support of a child, or to modify or adjust an order for the support of a child pursuant to NRS 125B.145. 3. The master must be an attorney licensed to practice in this State. The master: (a) Shall take testimony and establish a record; (b) In complex cases shall issue temporary orders for support pending resolution of the case; (c) Shall make findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations for the establishment and enforcement of an order; (d) May accept voluntary acknowledgments of paternity or liability for support and stipulated agreements setting the amount of support; (e) May, subject to confirmation by the district court, enter default orders against a responsible parent who does not respond to a notice or service within the required time; and (f) Has any other power or duty contained in the order of reference issued by the court. If a temporary order for support is issued pursuant to paragraph (b), the master shall order that the support be paid to the Division of Welfare and Supportive Services of the Department of Health and Human Services, its designated representative or the district attorney, if the Division of Welfare and Supportive Services or district attorney is involved in the case, or otherwise to an appropriate party to the action, pending resolution of the case. 4. The findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations of the master must be furnished to each party or his attorney at the conclusion of the proceeding or as soon thereafter as possible. Within 10 days after receipt of the findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations, either party may file with the court and serve upon the other party written objections to the report. If no objection is filed, the court shall accept the findings of fact, unless clearly erroneous, and the judgment may be entered thereon. If an objection is filed within the 10-day period, the court shall review the matter upon notice and motion. (Added to NRS by 1987, 2248; A 1989, 956, 1642; 1997, 2268) NRS 3.415 Time for disposition of cases. To the extent necessary to comply with the requirements of the Federal Government concerning the enforcement of the obligation of support of a child, to avoid jeopardizing the receipt by the Division of Welfare and Supportive Services of the Department of Health and Human Services of money from the Federal Government and to avoid subjecting the Division of Welfare and Supportive Services to other sanctions by the Federal Government, the disposition of cases to establish an obligation for support of a child must: 1. Be 75 percent completed within 6 months after service of the notice of the proceedings; and 2. Be 90 percent completed within 12 months after the service of the notice of the proceedings. (Added to NRS by 1987, 2249; A 1995, 2422) NRS 130.102 Tribunal of state. The district court and, within the limitations of authority granted pursuant to NRS 3.405, 125.005 or 425.381 to 425.3852, inclusive, a master [or], referee, or Administrative Law Judge appointed pursuant to any of those sections, are the tribunals of this state.

16

APPENDIX L
DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES BUDGET ACCOUNT 3238 - CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT FISCAL ANALYSIS OF ADDING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES & REDUCING HEARING MASTER COSTS BY 75% 1-CHIEF & 6-ADMIN LAW JUDGES (ALL UNCLASSIFIED) AND 2-AA II (GR 25)

SUMMARY REVENUE PROGRAM ALLOCATION 66.00% 34.00% FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING COSTS) 880,593 453,639 1,334,231 (839,080) (839,080) 41,512 453,639 495,151 (432,254) $ 62,897

G.L. # 3533 4261 3238 SUBTOTAL 3533 3239 SUBTOTAL

BA 3238 3238

DESCRIPTION FED CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM STATE SHARE OF COLLECTIONS

FY10 364,653 187,852 552,504 (302,553) (302,553) 62,100 187,852 249,951 (155,861) $ 94,091 $

FY11 440,296 226,819 667,116 (419,540) (419,540) 20,756 226,819 247,575 (216,127) 31,449

3239

FED CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM

100.00%

3533 BOTH FED CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM 4261 BOTH STATE SHARE OF COLLECTIONS TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE REVENUE COUNTY REVENUE COUNTY SHARE OF B/A 3239 COSTS/(SAVINGS)

N/A N/A $

TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE/COUNTY REVENUE EXPENDITURES

CAT 01 04 04 05 10 26 3238 SUBTOTAL 16 3239 SUBTOTAL

BA 3238 3238 3238 3238 3238 3238

DESCRIPTION PERSONNEL OPERATING NON-STATE OWNED BUILDING RENT EQUIPMENT HEARING MASTERS INFORMATION SERVICES

FY10 858,373 $ 49,807 38,070 29,800 (452,065) 28,519 552,504 (302,553) (302,553)

FY11 1,177,027 61,206 50,760 (626,863) 4,986 667,116 (419,540) (419,540)

FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING COSTS) $ 2,354,053 122,412 101,520 (1,253,727) 9,972 1,334,231 (839,080) (839,080) $ 495,151 (432,254)

3239

HEARING MASTERS

TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE EXPENDITURES COUNTY EXPENDITURES COUNTY SHARE OF B/A 3239 COSTS/(SAVINGS)

249,951 (155,861)

247,575 (216,127)

1 of 4

Revised on: 05/15/2008 Printed on: 8/29/2008 at 10:15 AM

APPENDIX L
DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES BUDGET ACCOUNT 3238 - CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT FISCAL ANALYSIS OF ADDING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES & REDUCING HEARING MASTER COSTS BY 75% 1-CHIEF & 6-ADMIN LAW JUDGES (ALL UNCLASSIFIED) AND 2-AA II (GR 25)

DETAIL PERSONNEL - CATEGORY 01 NOTE: PERSONNEL COSTS PROJECTED

MONTH FILLED FY10 Oct-09 Oct-09 Oct-09

GRADE STEP 42-1 40-1 25-1 CHIEF ADMIN LAW JUDGE ADMIN ASST II

TITLE

# POSITION 1 6 2 9 9

FTE 0.75 4.50 1.50 6.75 6.75

MONTHS REMAINING IN FY 9 9 9

FY10 COST PER POS $ $ $ 122,970 111,719 32,545

FY10 COST $122,970 $670,313 $65,090 $858,373

FY11 COST PER POS $ $ $ 168,678 153,227 44,494

FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING FY11 COST COSTS) $168,678 $919,359 $88,989 $1,177,027 $337,357 $1,838,719 $177,977 $2,354,053

TOTAL NEW FY10 NO. OF POSITIONS/FTE = TOTAL FY10 NO. OF POSITIONS/FTE = FY11 TOTAL NEW FY11 NO. OF POSITIONS/FTE = TOTAL FY11 POSITIONS/FTE =

0 0 POS 9 9

0.00 9.00 FTE 6.75 9.00

$0 1,177,027

$0 2,354,053

GRAND TOTAL POSITIONS/FTE FY10 GRAND TOTAL POSITIONS/FTE FY11

OPERATING - CATEGORY 04 Operating Costs obtained from SFY06 Actuals divided by the average number of FTEs employed ANNUAL COST PER FTE FY10 FTE OR POS FY10 COST $ 117.82 6.75 $ 795 110.08 6.75 743 24.01 6.75 162 29.35 6.75 198 3.11 9.00 28 96.20 9.00 866 31,309 38,070 N/A 4,546 79,498 12,267 1,077 N/A 69 69 69 69 66.24 1,158.36 178.74 15.69 190 447 7,819 1,207 106 FUTURE BIENNIA (FTE ONGOING COSTS) FY11 FTE OR POS FY11 COST 9.00 $ 1,060 $ 2,121 9.00 991 $ 1,981 9.00 216 $ 432 9.00 264 $ 528 9.00 28 $ 56 9.00 866 $ 1,732 43,283 $ 86,566 50,760 101,520 254 596 10,425 1,609 141 508 1,192 20,850 3,217 282

CAT 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04

G/L 7020 7040 7044 7045 7050 7054 7060 7071 7110 7255 7280 7285 7290 7296

OPERATING SUPPLIES PRINTING AND COPYING PRINTING AND COPYING PRINTING & COPYING - STATE PRINTING INSURANCE EXPENSE - EMPLOYEE BOND INSURANCE EXPENSE - AG TORT CONTRACTS - WACKENHUT SECURITY HARDWARE MAINTENANCE (Netversant) NONSTATE OWNED BUILDING RENT 235 Sq. ft X 9 @ $2.00 per sq ft (full service lease) B&G 1/2% OF NON-STATE OWNED RENT POSTAGE POSTAGE PAID TO STATE MAIL ROOM TELEPHONE DoIT LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHARGES

FY06 COST 8,086 7,555 1,648 2,014 N/A N/A N/A $

FY 06 FTE 69 69 69 69 N/A N/A N/A

6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75

9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00

04 7299 DoIT TELEPHONE AND DATA WIRING 04 7460 EQUIPMENT UNDER $1,000 (Telephone sets) 04 7980 COPIER LEASES TOTAL OPERATING - CAT 04

N/A N/A 11,232

N/A N/A 69

200.00 337.00 163.66

9.00 9.00 6.75 $

1,800 3,033 1,105 87,877

9.00 $

1,473 111,966

2,946 223,932

2 of 4

Revised on: 05/15/2008 Printed on: 8/29/2008 at 10:15 AM

APPENDIX L
DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES BUDGET ACCOUNT 3238 - CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT FISCAL ANALYSIS OF ADDING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES & REDUCING HEARING MASTER COSTS BY 75% 1-CHIEF & 6-ADMIN LAW JUDGES (ALL UNCLASSIFIED) AND 2-AA II (GR 25)

EQUIPMENT - CATEGORY 05 FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING COSTS) FY11 COST -

CAT 05

GL 8241

ITEM Supervisor's Modular Unit Professional's Modular Unit

$ $

COST 3,400 3,000

FY10 POS 7 2

FY10 COST 23,800 6,000

FY11 POS

TOTAL EQUIPMENT - CAT 05 HEARING MASTERS - CATEGORY 10 ALTERNATIVE PRIMARY PATH ADJUSTMENT:

29,800

10 10 10

7070 7071 7072

OTHER CONTRACT SERVICES (1ST & 4TH) OTHER CONTRACT SERVICES (8TH) OTHER CONTRACT SERVICES (2ND)

FY 08 FY07 ACTUAL AUTHORITY 214,747 236,791 353,557 389,851 105,561 116,397 673,865 743,039

TOTAL HEARING MASTERS - CAT 10

75% 75% FY09 AUTHORITY FY09 AUTHORITY + 4% FOR FY10 & + 4%, DIV BY 12 4% FOR FY11, TIMES 9 MO, TIMES TIMES ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE FUTURE BIENNIA PRIMARY PATH PRIMARY PATH ADJUSTMENT ADJUSTMENT (2*FY11 ONGOING FY 09 ABOVE TOTAL FY11 ABOVE COSTS) AUTHORITY TOTAL FY10 246,263 (144,064) (199,769) (399,537) 405,445 (237,185) (328,897) (657,794) 121,053 (70,816) (98,198) (196,396) 772,760 $ (452,065) $ (626,863) $ (1,253,727)

INFORMATION SERVICES - CATEGORY 26 FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING FY11 FTE OR POS FY11 COST COSTS) 9.00 183 $ 366 9.00 9.00 9.00 900 225 180 1,800 450 360

CAT 26

GL 7021 7073

ITEM OPERATING SUPPLIES - TONER SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE Novelle Suite Hummingbird Norton AV TOTAL SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE DoIT TELEPHONE AND DATA WIRING DoIT Assessments DoIT E-MAIL CHARGES SOFTWARE (FOR NEW POSITIONS) PC Suite - Norton AV PC Suite - Hummingbird PC Suite - Microsoft Office XP PC Suite - Novell TOTAL SOFTWARE (FOR NEW POSITIONS)

FY06 COST 1,616

FY 06 FTE 80

ANNUAL COST PER FTE FY10 FTE OR POS FY10 COST 20.32 6.75 137 $ 100 25 20 145 200.00 318.50 70.20 9.00 6.75 6.75 -

$ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

26 26 26 26

7299 7392 7533 7771

1,800 2,150 474

9.00 9.00

2,867 632

5,733 1,264

44 216 300 250 810

9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00

396 1,944 2,700 2,250

3 of 4

Revised on: 05/15/2008 Printed on: 8/29/2008 at 10:15 AM

APPENDIX L
DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES BUDGET ACCOUNT 3238 - CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT FISCAL ANALYSIS OF ADDING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES & REDUCING HEARING MASTER COSTS BY 75% 1-CHIEF & 6-ADMIN LAW JUDGES (ALL UNCLASSIFIED) AND 2-AA II (GR 25)

26

8371 8371 8371 8371

HARDWARE (FOR NEW POSITIONS) Desktop PC* Flat Panel Monitor Surge Protector w/ Battery Backup

1,500 298 54 1,852

9.00 9.00 9.00 $

13,500 2,682 486 28,519 $552,504

4,986 $667,116 $ 9,972 $1,334,231

TOTAL INFORMATION SERVICES - CAT 26 TOTAL EXPENDITURES - B/A 3238

BUDGET ACCOUNT 3238 - CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT CATEGORY 16 HEARING MASTERS - ALTERNATIVE PATH ADJUSTMENT

ALTERNATIVE PRIMARY PATH ADJUSTMENT:

16 8503 CLARK COUNTY 16 8505 ELKO COUNTY 16 8516 WASHOE COUNTY TOTAL HEARING MASTERS - BA 3239 CAT 16

FY 08 FY07 AUTHORITY 145,812 250,747 41,989 53,925 99,988 192,621 287,788 497,293

75% 75% FY09 AUTHORITY FY09 AUTHORITY + 4% FOR FY10 & + 4%, DIV BY 12 4% FOR FY11, TIMES 9 MO, TIMES TIMES ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE FUTURE BIENNIA PRIMARY PATH PRIMARY PATH ADJUSTMENT ADJUSTMENT FY 09 (2*FY11 ONGOING ABOVE TOTAL FY11 ABOVE AUTHORITY COSTS) TOTAL FY10 260,777 (152,554) (211,542) (423,084) 56,082 (32,808) (45,494) (90,987) 200,326 (117,191) (162,504) (325,009) 517,185 $ (302,553) $ (419,540) $ (839,080)

4 of 4

Revised on: 05/15/2008 Printed on: 8/29/2008 at 10:15 AM

APPENDIX K STATE BY STATE PERFORMANCE BY NATURE OF CHILD SUPPORT ORDER ESTABLISHMENT


STATES LEWIN GROUP DETAIL TAXONOMY 4 6 5 5 5 6 6 DWSS CATEGORIZATION OF LEWIN GROUP TAXONOMY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HIGHLY ADMINISTRATIVE 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ADMINISTRATIVE 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 MIXED 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 QUASI JUDICIAL 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 HIGHLY JUDICIAL PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT RANKING 2006 1 32 13 43 16 23 47 25 7 4 19 21 35 18 12 24 18 6 14 2 8 3 10 38 33 40 52 21 25 15 48 45 29 26 46 41 17 20 51 49 34 5 9 31 30 39 28 27 34 42 22 44 36 50 53 32 SUPPORT ORDER ESTABLISHMENT RANKING 2006 14 37 1 9 3 15 45 18 46 4 2 5 28 12 33 30 20 10 6 18 7 8 22 19 50 49 40 23 13 17 16 21 24 35 53 31 39 23 52 43 31 29 11 27 25 34 47 26 32 41 36 38 20 44 54 33 CURRENT COLLECTIONS RANKINGS 2006 22 5 39 21 24 35 26 25 4 19 17 28 18 29 36 51 25 1 10 16 7 15 11 12 27 31 45 18 9 6 20 14 23 40 41 25 38 50 44 54 30 2 3 8 32 13 34 33 47 43 52 42 49 48 46 32 ARREARAGE COLLECTION RANKING 2006 15 11 13 36 42 45 24 27 6 7 9 10 18 23 22 46 18 1 12 2 3 27 21 17 35 54 30 20 5 14 8 33 43 19 26 25 37 39 20 49 27 4 31 16 38 34 28 44 29 32 41 40 47 50 53 35 COST EFFECTIVENESS RANKING 2006 37 9 36 6 38 18 13 22 3 35 32 42 22 39 47 5 28 7 15 28 44 23 25 31 27 24 41 27 8 40 4 26 21 29 1 49 46 53 51 48 31 14 16 45 11 17 12 20 10 2 34 30 33 43 50 24 AVERAGE RANKING 17.80 18.80 20.40 23.00 24.60 27.20 31.00 23.26 13.20 13.80 15.80 21.20 24.20 24.20 30.00 31.20 21.70 5.00 11.40 13.20 13.80 15.20 17.80 23.40 34.40 39.60 41.60 21.54 12.00 18.40 19.20 27.80 28.00 29.80 33.40 34.20 35.40 37.00 43.60 48.60 30.62 10.80 14.00 25.40 27.20 27.40 29.80 30.00 30.40 32.00 37.00 38.80 37.00 47.00 51.20 31.29

MONTANA OHIO ALASKA VIRGINIA MAINE MISSOURI OREGON

SOUTH DAKOTA UTAH WASHINGTON COLORADO MARYLAND ARKANSAS KANSAS SOUTH CAROLINA PENNSYLVANIA IOWA NEW HAMPSHIRE VERMONT WEST VIRGINIA NORTH CAROLINA NEW JERSEY RHODE ISLAND HAWAII OKLAHOMA WYOMING MINNESOTA TEXAS NEW YORK MICHIGAN FLORIDA MISSISSIPPI DELAWARE CONNECTICUT CALIFORNIA NEW MEXICO NEVADA NORTH DAKOTA WISCONSIN NEBRASKA KENTUCKY MASSACHUSETTS TENNESSEE IDAHO GEORGIA INDIANA ARIZONA LOUISIANA ALABAMA ILLINOIS DIST. OF COL.

9 8 9 9 10 9 10 10 12 11 12 12 12 11 12 12 12 11 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 14 14 14 16 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 15 16 15 16

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 53 appendixes\Appendix K - State rankings by admin process

Page 1 of 1

Printed on 8/29/2008 at 10:14 AM

APPENDIX J DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES B/A 3238 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT MAXIMUS RECOMMENDATION #1 - RESTRUCTURE THE PROGRAM

CENTRAL OFFICE POSITIONS AS PROPOSED BY DWSS


REVENUE PROGRAM ALLOCATION 66.00% 34.00% $ FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING COSTS) 623,288 321,088 944,376

G.L. #

BA

DESCRIPTION

FY10 251,931 129,783 381,714

FY11 312,304 160,884 473,188

3533 3238 FED CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM 4261 3238 STATE SHARE OF COLLECTIONS TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE REVENUE

EXPENDITURES FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING COSTS) $ 862,521 19,915 56,400 5,540 $ 944,376

CAT BA DESCRIPTION 01 3238 PERSONNEL 04 3238 OPERATING 04 3238 NON-STATE OWNED BUILDING RENT 05 3238 EQUIPMENT 26 3238 INFORMATION SERVICES TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE EXPENDITURES

FY10 318,643 10,277 21,150 15,800 15,844 381,714

FY11 431,261 9,957 28,200 3,770 473,188

CENTRAL OFFICE POSITIONS AS PROPOSED BY MAXIMUS


REVENUE G.L. # BA DESCRIPTION PROGRAM ALLOCATION 66.00% 34.00% $ FY10 451,546 232,614 684,160 FY11 557,961 287,435 845,396 FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING 1,113,282 573,509 1,686,791

3533 3238 FED CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM 4261 3238 STATE SHARE OF COLLECTIONS TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE REVENUE

EXPENDITURES CAT BA DESCRIPTION 01 3238 PERSONNEL 04 3238 OPERATING 04 3238 NON-STATE OWNED BUILDING RENT 05 3238 EQUIPMENT 26 3238 INFORMATION SERVICES TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE EXPENDITURES FY10 559,723 19,156 42,300 31,600 31,381 684,160 FUTURE BIENNIA FY11 (2*FY11 ONGOING 761,541 $ 1,523,082 19,915 39,829 56,400 112,800 7,540 11,080 845,396 $ 1,686,791

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 536 appendixes\Appendix J - Restructuring Analysis

1 of 1

APPENDIX J DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES B/A 3238 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT CENTRAL OFFICE POSITIONS AS PROPOSED BY MAXIMUS

SUMMARY REVENUE PROGRAM ALLOCATION 66.00% 34.00% $ FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING COSTS) 1,113,282 573,509 1,686,791

G.L. #

BA

DESCRIPTION

FY10 451,546 232,614 684,160

FY11 557,961 287,435 845,396

3533 3238 FED CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM 4261 3238 STATE SHARE OF COLLECTIONS TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE REVENUE

EXPENDITURES FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING COSTS) $ 1,523,082 39,829 112,800 11,080 $ 1,686,791

CAT BA DESCRIPTION 01 3238 PERSONNEL 04 3238 OPERATING 04 3238 NON-STATE OWNED BUILDING RENT 05 3238 EQUIPMENT 26 3238 INFORMATION SERVICES TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE EXPENDITURES

FY10 559,723 19,156 42,300 31,600 31,381 684,160

FY11 761,541 19,915 56,400 7,540 845,396

DETAIL PERSONNEL - CATEGORY 01 Months Remaining to End of FY 9 9 9 9 9 9 FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING COSTS) $ 226,229 190,783 413,471 337,214 323,347 122,701 1,491,043

MONTH FILLED FY10 Oct-09 Oct-09 Oct-09 Oct-09 Oct-09 Oct-09

GRADE STEP 45-05 41-05 33-05 38-05 37-05 37-05

TITLE SOCIAL SERVICES MANAGER V SOCIAL SERVICES CHIEF III PROGRAM OFFICER II SOCIAL SERVICES CHIEF II SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC III MANAGEMENT ANALYST III

# POSITION 1 1 3 2 2 1 10 10

FTE 0.75 0.75 2.25 1.50 1.50 0.75 6.75 6.75

FY10 COST PER POS $ 110,015 92,808 67,099 82,043 78,677 78,677

FY10 COST $ 82,511 69,606 150,974 123,064 118,015 59,008 544,170

FY11 COST PER POS $ 113,114 95,391 68,912 84,303 80,837 61,350

FY11 Sal & Ben Cost $ 113,114 95,391 206,735 168,607 161,673 61,350 745,521

TOTAL NEW FY10 NO. OF POSITIONS/FTE = TOTAL FY10 NO. OF POSITIONS/FTE = UPGRADE POSITIONS

NEW GRADE/STEP NEW TITLE 36-06 QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST II 42-09 SOCIAL SERVICES MANAGER V

OLD GRADE/STEP 34-06 39-10

FY10 COST PER POS

FY10 COST/ (SAVINGS) 6,064 9,488

FUTURE BIENNIA FY11 COST/ (2*FY11 ONGOING (SAVINGS) COSTS) 6,246 12,493 9,773 19,546

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 536 appendixes\Appendix J - Restructuring Analysis

1 of 3

APPENDIX J DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES B/A 3238 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT CENTRAL OFFICE POSITIONS AS PROPOSED BY MAXIMUS

25-05

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II

27-03 0 POS 10 10 0.00 FTE 6.75 10.00 $

TOTAL FY11 POSITIONS/FTE =

15,553 559,723

16,019 761,541

32,039 1,523,082

GRAND TOTAL POSITIONS/FTE FY10 GRAND TOTAL POSITIONS/FTE FY11

OPERATING - CATEGORY 04 Operating Costs obtained from SFY06 Actuals divided by the average number of FTEs employed ANNUAL COST PER FTE FY10 FTE OR POS FY10 COST $ 117.82 6.75 $ 795 110.08 6.75 743 24.01 6.75 162 29.35 6.75 198 3.11 10.00 31 96.20 10.00 962 42,300 N/A 4,546 79,498 12,267 1,077 N/A N/A 11,232 N/A N/A 69 N/A 69 69 69 69 66.24 1,158.36 178.74 15.69 200.00 337.00 163.66 212 447 7,819 1,207 106 2,000 3,370 1,105 61,456 FY11 FTE OR POS FY11 COST 10.00 $ 1,178 10.00 1,101 10.00 240 10.00 293 10.00 31 10.00 962 56,400 282 662 11,584 1,787 157 1,637 76,315 FUTURE BIENNIA (FTE ONGOING COSTS) $ 2,356 $ 2,202 $ 480 $ 587 $ 62 $ 1,924 112,800 564 1,325 23,167 3,575 314

CAT 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04

G/L 7020 7040 7044 7045 7050 7054 7071 7110

04 7255 04 7280 04 7285 04 7290 04 7296 04 7299 04 7460 04 7980 TOTAL OPERATING - CAT 04 Equipment

OPERATING SUPPLIES PRINTING AND COPYING PRINTING AND COPYING PRINTING & COPYING - STATE PRINTING INSURANCE EXPENSE - EMPLOYEE BOND INSURANCE EXPENSE - AG TORT HARDWARE MAINTENANCE (Netversant) NONSTATE OWNED BUILDING RENT 235 Sq. ft X 9 @ $2.00 per sq ft (full service lease) B&G 1/2% OF NON-STATE OWNED RENT POSTAGE POSTAGE PAID TO STATE MAIL ROOM TELEPHONE DoIT LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHARGES DoIT TELEPHONE AND DATA WIRING EQUIPMENT UNDER $1,000 (Telephone sets) COPIER LEASES

FY06 COST 8,086 7,555 1,648 2,014 N/A N/A $

FY 06 FTE 69 69 69 69 N/A N/A

6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 10.00 10.00 6.75 $

10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 $

3,273 152,629

CAT 05

GL 8241

ITEM Supervisor's Modular Unit Professional's Modular Unit

$ $

COST 3,400 3,000

FY10 POS 4 6

FY10 COST FY11 POS 13,600 18,000

FY11 COST -

FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING COSTS)

TOTAL EQUIPMENT - CAT 05

31,600

Information Svcs

Cost obtained from NEBS Equipment Schedule ANNUAL COST PER FTE FY10 FTE OR POS FY10 COST 20.32 6.75 137 FUTURE BIENNIA FY11 FTE OR (2*FY11 ONGOING POS COSTS) FY11 COST 10.00 203 $ 406

CAT 26

GL 7021 7073

ITEM OPERATING SUPPLIES - TONER SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE

FY06 COST 1,616

FY 06 FTE 80

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 536 appendixes\Appendix J - Restructuring Analysis

2 of 3

APPENDIX J DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES B/A 3238 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT CENTRAL OFFICE POSITIONS AS PROPOSED BY MAXIMUS

Novelle Suite Hummingbird Norton AV TOTAL SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 26 26 26 26 7299 7392 7533 7771 DoIT TELEPHONE AND DATA WIRING DoIT Assessments DoIT E-MAIL CHARGES SOFTWARE (FOR NEW POSITIONS) PC Suite - Norton AV PC Suite - Hummingbird PC Suite - Microsoft Office XP PC Suite - Novell TOTAL SOFTWARE (FOR NEW POSITIONS) HARDWARE (FOR NEW POSITIONS) Desktop PC* Flat Panel Monitor Surge Protector w/ Battery Backup N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

100 25 20 145 200.00 318.50 70.20 10.00 6.75 6.75

10.00 10.00 10.00

1,000 250 200

2,000 500 400

2,000 2,150 474

10.00 10.00 10.00

2,000 3,185 702

6,370 1,404

44 216 300 250 810

10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

440 2,160 3,000 2,500

26

8371 8371 8371 8371

1,500 298 54 1,852

10.00 10.00 10.00 $ $

15,000 2,980 540 31,381 684,160

$ $

7,540 845,396 $ $ 11,080 1,686,791

TOTAL IS - CAT 26 TOTAL EXPENDITURES

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 536 appendixes\Appendix J - Restructuring Analysis

3 of 3

APPENDIX J DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES B/A 3238 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT CENTRAL OFFICE POSITIONS AS PROPOSED BY DWSS

SUMMARY REVENUE PROGRAM ALLOCATION 66.00% 34.00% $ FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING COSTS) 623,288 321,088 944,376

G.L. #

BA

DESCRIPTION

FY10 251,931 129,783 381,714

FY11 312,304 160,884 473,188

3533 3238 FED CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM 4261 3238 STATE SHARE OF COLLECTIONS TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE REVENUE

EXPENDITURES FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING COSTS) $ 862,521 19,915 56,400 5,540 $ 944,376

CAT BA DESCRIPTION 01 3238 PERSONNEL 04 3238 OPERATING 04 3238 NON-STATE OWNED BUILDING RENT 05 3238 EQUIPMENT 26 3238 INFORMATION SERVICES TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE EXPENDITURES

FY10 318,643 10,277 21,150 15,800 15,844 381,714

FY11 431,261 9,957 28,200 3,770 473,188

DETAIL PERSONNEL - CATEGORY 01 Months Remaining to End of FY 9 9 9 FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING COSTS) $ 226,229 190,783 413,471

MONTH FILLED FY10 Oct-09 Oct-09 Oct-09

GRADE STEP 45-05 41-05 33-05

TITLE SOCIAL SERVICES MANAGER V SOCIAL SERVICES CHIEF III PROGRAM OFFICER II

# POSITION 1 1 3

FTE 0.75 0.75 2.25

FY10 COST PER POS $ 110,015 92,808 67,099

FY10 COST $ 82,511 69,606 150,974

FY11 COST PER POS $ 113,114 95,391 68,912

FY11 Sal & Ben Cost $ 113,114 95,391 206,735

TOTAL NEW FY10 NO. OF POSITIONS/FTE = TOTAL FY10 NO. OF POSITIONS/FTE = UPGRADE POSITIONS

5 5

3.75 3.75

303,091

415,241

830,482

NEW GRADE/STEP NEW TITLE 36-06 QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST II 42-09 SOCIAL SERVICES MANAGER V 25-05 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II

OLD GRADE/STEP 34-06 39-10 27-03

FY10 COST PER POS

FY10 COST/ (SAVINGS) 6,064 9,488 15,553

FUTURE BIENNIA FY11 COST/ (2*FY11 ONGOING (SAVINGS) COSTS) 6,246 12,493 9,773 19,546 16,019 32,039

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 536 appendixes\Appendix J - Restructuring Analysis

1 of 3

APPENDIX J DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES B/A 3238 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT CENTRAL OFFICE POSITIONS AS PROPOSED BY DWSS

TOTAL FY11 POSITIONS/FTE =

0 POS 5 5

0.00 FTE 3.75 5.00

318,643

431,261

862,521

GRAND TOTAL POSITIONS/FTE FY10 GRAND TOTAL POSITIONS/FTE FY11

OPERATING - CATEGORY 04 Operating Costs obtained from SFY06 Actuals divided by the average number of FTEs employed ANNUAL COST PER FTE FY10 FTE OR POS FY10 COST $ 117.82 3.75 $ 442 110.08 3.75 413 24.01 3.75 90 29.35 3.75 110 3.11 5.00 16 96.20 5.00 481 21,150 N/A 4,546 79,498 12,267 1,077 N/A N/A 11,232 N/A N/A 69 N/A 69 69 69 69 66.24 1,158.36 178.74 15.69 200.00 337.00 163.66 106 248 4,344 670 59 1,000 1,685 614 31,427 FY11 FTE OR POS FY11 COST 5.00 $ 589 5.00 550 5.00 120 5.00 147 5.00 16 5.00 481 28,200 141 331 5,792 894 78 818 38,157 FUTURE BIENNIA (FTE ONGOING COSTS) $ 1,178 $ 1,101 $ 240 $ 293 $ 31 $ 962 56,400 282 662 11,584 1,787 157

CAT 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04

G/L 7020 7040 7044 7045 7050 7054 7071 7110

04 7255 04 7280 04 7285 04 7290 04 7296 04 7299 04 7460 04 7980 TOTAL OPERATING - CAT 04 Equipment

OPERATING SUPPLIES PRINTING AND COPYING PRINTING AND COPYING PRINTING & COPYING - STATE PRINTING INSURANCE EXPENSE - EMPLOYEE BOND INSURANCE EXPENSE - AG TORT HARDWARE MAINTENANCE (Netversant) NONSTATE OWNED BUILDING RENT 235 Sq. ft X 9 @ $2.00 per sq ft (full service lease) B&G 1/2% OF NON-STATE OWNED RENT POSTAGE POSTAGE PAID TO STATE MAIL ROOM TELEPHONE DoIT LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHARGES DoIT TELEPHONE AND DATA WIRING EQUIPMENT UNDER $1,000 (Telephone sets) COPIER LEASES

FY06 COST 8,086 7,555 1,648 2,014 N/A N/A $

FY 06 FTE 69 69 69 69 N/A N/A

3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 5.00 5.00 3.75 $

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 $

1,637 76,315

CAT 05

GL 8241

ITEM Supervisor's Modular Unit Professional's Modular Unit

$ $

COST 3,400 3,000

FY10 POS 2 3

FY10 COST FY11 POS 6,800 9,000

FY11 COST -

FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING COSTS)

TOTAL EQUIPMENT - CAT 05

15,800

Information Svcs

Cost obtained from NEBS Equipment Schedule ANNUAL COST PER FTE FY10 FTE OR POS FY10 COST 20.32 3.75 76 $ 100 25 FUTURE BIENNIA FY11 FTE OR (2*FY11 ONGOING POS COSTS) FY11 COST 5.00 102 $ 203 5.00 5.00 500 125 1,000 250

CAT 26

GL 7021 7073

ITEM OPERATING SUPPLIES - TONER SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE Novelle Suite Hummingbird

FY06 COST 1,616

FY 06 FTE 80

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 536 appendixes\Appendix J - Restructuring Analysis

2 of 3

APPENDIX J DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES B/A 3238 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT CENTRAL OFFICE POSITIONS AS PROPOSED BY DWSS

Norton AV TOTAL SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 26 26 26 26 7299 7392 7533 7771 DoIT TELEPHONE AND DATA WIRING DoIT Assessments DoIT E-MAIL CHARGES SOFTWARE (FOR NEW POSITIONS) PC Suite - Norton AV PC Suite - Hummingbird PC Suite - Microsoft Office XP PC Suite - Novell TOTAL SOFTWARE (FOR NEW POSITIONS) HARDWARE (FOR NEW POSITIONS) Desktop PC* Flat Panel Monitor Surge Protector w/ Battery Backup N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

20 145 200.00 318.50 70.20 5.00 3.75 3.75

5.00

100

200

1,000 1,194 263

5.00 5.00 5.00

1,000 1,593 351

3,185 702

44 216 300 250 810

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

220 1,080 1,500 1,250

26

8371 8371 8371 8371

1,500 298 54 1,852

5.00 5.00 5.00 $ $

7,500 1,490 270 15,844 381,714

$ $

3,770 473,188 $ $ 5,540 944,376

TOTAL IS - CAT 26 TOTAL EXPENDITURES

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 536 appendixes\Appendix J - Restructuring Analysis

3 of 3

APPENDIX J DWSS CSEP CENTRAL OFFICE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AS PROPOSED BY MAXIMUS


DWSS ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR UNCLASSIFIED

OTHER DWSS FUNCTIONS PERSONNEL PRE

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 44

INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 44

IV-D DEPUTY DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 45

PROGRAM & FIELD DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 45

OTHER PROGRAM & FIELD UNITS E&P, E&SS, CHILD CARE FIELD OPERATIONS, I&R

POLICY & PLANNING MGR SOCIAL SERVICES CHIEF III 41

ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER SOCIAL SERVICES CHIEF III 41

CHIEF OF FIELD OPERATIONS SOCIAL SERVICES MANAGER V 42

PLANNING UNIT CHIEF SOCIAL SERVICES CHIEF II 38

POLICY UNIT CHIEF SOCIAL SERVICES CHIEF II 38

POSITION CHANGED TO STATE TRAINING MANAGER

PERFORMANCE UNIT SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC III 37

POLICY UNIT SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC II 35

STATE TRAINING MANAGER SOCIAL SERVICES CHIEF I 37

QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGER QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST II 36

NOMADS/NEW SYSTEM MGR SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC II 37

REG OFFICE ADMIN - LAS VEGAS SOCIAL SERVICES MANAGER IV 40

DATA ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT ANALYST III 37

POLICY UNIT SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC II 35

REGIONAL TRAINER - LAS VEGAS PROGRAM OFFICER II 33

REGIONAL QA SPEC - LAS VEGAS QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST I 34

CONTRACTS/QA SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC II 33

REG OFFICE ADMIN - RENO SOCIAL SERVICES MANAGER III 39

IV-D PLANNING SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC III 37

POLICY UNIT SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC I 33

REGIONAL TRAINER - RENO PROGRAM OFFICER II 33

REGIONAL QA SPEC - RENO QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST I 34

CONTRACTS/QA ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT IV 29

REG OFFICE ADMIN - ELKO SOCIAL SERVICES MANAGER II 38

SPLS/ICR UNIT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III 27

FIDM & LIENS UNIT FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST II 31

REGIONAL TRAINER - ELKO PROGRAM OFFICER II 33

REGIONAL QA SPEC - ELKO QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST I 34

CONTRACTS/QA ADMIN ASSIST III 27

SPLS/ICR UNIT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III 27

FIDM & LIENS UNIT FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST II 31

ENFORCEMENT UNIT FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST II 31

CENTRALIZED MAILROOM ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT IV 29

CONTRACTS/QA ADMIN ASSIST III 27

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT ADMIN ASSIST II 25

FUNCTION STATE JOB TITLE STATE GRADE

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 536 appendixes\Appendix J - Restructuring Analysis

Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX J DWSS CSEP CENTRAL OFFICE ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION
DWSS ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR UNCLASSIFIED

OTHER DWSS FUNCTIONS PERSONNEL PRE

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 44

INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 44

IV-D DEPUTY DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 45

PROGRAM & FIELD DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 45

OTHER PROGRAM & FIELD UNITS E&P, E&SS, CHILD CARE FIELD OPERATIONS, I&R

POLICY & PLANNING MGR SOCIAL SERVICES CHIEF III 41-UPGRADE

ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER SOCIAL SERVICES CHIEF III 41

CHIEF OF FIELD OPERATIONS SOCIAL SERVICES MANAGER V 42

POSITION CHANGED TO STATE TRAINING MANAGER

POLICY UNIT SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC II 35

STATE TRAINING MANAGER SOCIAL SERVICES CHIEF I 37

QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGER QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST II 36

NOMADS/NEW SYSTEM MGR SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC II 37

REG OFFICE ADMIN - LAS VEGAS SOCIAL SERVICES MANAGER IV 40

POLICY UNIT SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC II 35

REGIONAL TRAINER - LAS VEGAS PROGRAM OFFICER II 33

REGIONAL QA SPEC - LAS VEGAS QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST I 34

CONTRACTS/QA SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC II 33

REG OFFICE ADMIN - RENO SOCIAL SERVICES MANAGER III 39

POLICY UNIT SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC I 33

REGIONAL TRAINER - RENO PROGRAM OFFICER II 33

REGIONAL QA SPEC - RENO QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST I 34

CONTRACTS/QA ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT IV 29

REG OFFICE ADMIN - ELKO SOCIAL SERVICES MANAGER II 38

SPLS/ICR UNIT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III 27

FIDM & LIENS UNIT FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST II 31

REGIONAL TRAINER - ELKO PROGRAM OFFICER II 33

REGIONAL QA SPEC - ELKO QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST I 34

CONTRACTS/QA ADMIN ASSIST III 27

SPLS/ICR UNIT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III 27

FIDM & LIENS UNIT FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST II 31

ENFORCEMENT UNIT FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST II 31

CONTRACTS/QA ADMIN ASSIST III 27

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT ADMIN ASSIST II 25

FUNCTION STATE JOB TITLE STATE GRADE

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 536 appendixes\Appendix J - Restructuring Analysis

Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX J DWSS CSEP CENTRAL OFFICE ORGANIZATIONAL CHART AS OF JUNE 1, 2008


DWSS ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR UNCLASSIFIED

OTHER DWSS FUNCTIONS PERSONNEL PRE

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 44

INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 44

CSEP CHIEF SOCIAL SERVICES CHIEF III 41

PROGRAM & FIELD DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 45

OTHER PROGRAM & FIELD UNITS E&P, E&SS, CHILD CARE FIELD OPERATIONS, I&R

POLICY UNIT SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC III 37

POSITION CHANGED TO A DIRECT REPORT TO THE DWSS ADMINISTRATOR

FIELD OPERATION MGR SOCIAL SERVICES MGR III 39

POSITION MOVED TO CONTRACTS/QA

CONTRACTS/QA SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC III 37

POSITION CHANGED TO REPORT TO AA IV IN SAME UNIT

POLICY UNIT SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC II 35

POSITION TRANSFERRED TO RENO PAO

REGIONAL QA SPEC - LAS VEGAS QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST I 34

CSEP/IS LIAISON SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC II 35

LAS VEGAS PAO MANAGER SOCIAL SERVICES MGR II 37

POLICY UNIT SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC II 35

REGIONAL QA SPEC - LAS VEGAS QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST I 34

CONTRACTS/QA SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC II 33

RENO PAO MANAGER SOCIAL SERVICES MGR II 37

POLICY UNIT SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC I 33

REGIONAL QA SPEC - RENO QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST I 34

CONTRACTS/QA ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT IV 29

ELKO PAO MANAGER SOCIAL SERVICES MGR I 34

POSITION MOVED TO CONTRACTS/QA

REGIONAL QA SPEC - ELKO QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST I 34

CONTRACTS/QA ADMIN ASSIST III 27

POSITION MOVED TO CONTRACTS/QA

CONTRACTS/QA ADMIN ASSIST III 27

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT ADMIN ASSIST II 25

FUNCTION STATE JOB TITLE STATE GRADE

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 536 appendixes\Appendix J - Restructuring Analysis

Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX J DWSS CSEP CENTRAL OFFICE ORGANIZATIONAL CHART PRIOR TO THE MAXIMUS AUDIT
DWSS ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR UNCLASSIFIED

OTHER DWSS FUNCTIONS PERSONNEL PRE

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 44

INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 44

PROGRAM & FIELD DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 45

OTHER PROGRAM & FIELD UNITS E&P, E&SS, CHILD CARE FIELD OPERATIONS, I&R

POLICY UNIT SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC III 37

CSEP CHIEF SOCIAL SERVICES CHIEF III 41

FIELD OPERATION MGR SOCIAL SERVICES MGR III 39

CSEP/IS LIAISON SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC II 35

CONTRACTS/QA SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC III 37

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT ADMIN ASSIST II 25

POLICY UNIT SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC II 35

POLICY UNIT FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALISTS III 32

REGIONAL QA SPEC - LAS VEGAS QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST I 34

LAS VEGAS PAO MANAGER SOCIAL SERVICES MGR II 37

POLICY UNIT SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC II 35

REGIONAL QA SPEC - LAS VEGAS QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST I 34

RENO PAO MANAGER SOCIAL SERVICES MGR II 37

POLICY UNIT SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC I 33

REGIONAL QA SPEC - RENO QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST I 34

CONTRACTS/QA ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT IV 29

ELKO PAO MANAGER SOCIAL SERVICES MGR I 34

POLICY UNIT SOCIAL SERVICES PROG SPEC I 33

REGIONAL QA SPEC - ELKO QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALIST I 34

CONTRACTS/QA ADMIN ASSIST III 27

POLICY UNIT ADMIN ASSIST III 27

FUNCTION STATE JOB TITLE STATE GRADE

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 536 appendixes\Appendix J - Restructuring Analysis

Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX J DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES B/A 3238 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT STATIZATION OF RENO DA OFFICE AND WESTERN NEVADA SUMMARY REVENUE FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING COSTS) 9,932,085 5,116,528 15,048,613

G.L. #

BA

DESCRIPTION

PROGRAM ALLOCATION 66.00% 34.00% $

FY10 5,208,463 2,683,148 7,891,611

FY11 4,966,042 2,558,264 7,524,306

3533 3238 FED CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM 4261 3238 STATE SHARE OF COLLECTIONS TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE REVENUE

EXPENDITURES

CAT BA DESCRIPTION 01 3238 PERSONNEL 02 3238 OUT OF STATE TRAVEL 03 3238 IN-STATE TRAVEL 04 3238 OPERATING 04 3238 NON-STATE OWNED BUILDING RENT 05 3238 EQUIPMENT 26 3238 INFORMATION SERVICES TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE EXPENDITURES DETAIL PERSONNEL - CATEGORY 01

FY10 6,525,244 2,347 14,360 225,410 577,254 273,400 273,597 7,891,611

FY11 6,703,145 2,347 14,360 177,617 577,254 49,584 7,524,306

FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING COSTS) $ 13,406,290 4,694 28,720 355,233 1,154,508 99,167 $ 15,048,613

MONTH FILLED FY10

GRADE STEP 23-01 25-01 25-06 25-10 25-10 25-10 25-10 25-10 25-10 25-10 25-10 25-10 25-10 25-10 25-10 25-10 25-10 25-10 25-10 32-10 32-10

TITLE ADMIN ASSIST I ADMIN ASSIST II ADMIN ASSIST II ADMIN ASSIST II ADMIN ASSIST II ADMIN ASSIST II ADMIN ASSIST II ADMIN ASSIST II ADMIN ASSIST II ADMIN ASSIST II ADMIN ASSIST II ADMIN ASSIST II ADMIN ASSIST II ADMIN ASSIST II ADMIN ASSIST II ADMIN ASSIST II ADMIN ASSIST II ADMIN ASSIST II ADMIN ASSIST II COMPLIANCE INVESTIGATOR II COMPLIANCE INVESTIGATOR II

# POSITION 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

FTE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Months Remaining to End of FY 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 1 of 4

FY10 SALARY 26,169 28,294 34,601 40,909 40,909 40,909 40,909 40,909 40,909 40,909 40,909 40,909 40,909 40,909 40,909 40,909 40,909 40,909 40,909 55,492 55,492

FY10 BENEFITS 14,468 15,099 16,975 18,850 18,850 18,850 18,850 18,850 18,850 18,850 18,850 18,850 18,850 18,850 18,850 18,850 18,850 18,850 18,850 23,185 23,185

FY10 SALARY & BENEFITS 40,637 43,393 51,576 59,758 59,758 59,758 59,758 59,758 59,758 59,758 59,758 59,758 59,758 59,758 59,758 59,758 59,758 59,758 59,758 78,677 78,677

FY11 SALARY 26,954 29,143 35,639 42,136 42,136 42,136 42,136 42,136 42,136 42,136 42,136 42,136 42,136 42,136 42,136 42,136 42,136 42,136 42,136 57,156 57,156

FY11 BENEFITS 14,701 15,352 17,283 19,215 19,215 19,215 19,215 19,215 19,215 19,215 19,215 19,215 19,215 19,215 19,215 19,215 19,215 19,215 19,215 23,680 23,680

FY11 SALARY & BENEFITS 41,655 44,494 52,922 61,350 61,350 61,350 61,350 61,350 61,350 61,350 61,350 61,350 61,350 61,350 61,350 61,350 61,350 61,350 61,350 80,837 80,837

FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING COSTS) 83,310 88,989 105,845 122,701 122,701 122,701 122,701 122,701 122,701 122,701 122,701 122,701 122,701 122,701 122,701 122,701 122,701 122,701 122,701 161,673 161,673

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 536 appendixes\Appendix J - Restructuring Analysis

APPENDIX J DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES B/A 3238 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT STATIZATION OF RENO DA OFFICE AND WESTERN NEVADA 32-10 UC UC UC 32-01 32-01 32-01 32-01 32-01 32-01 32-01 32-01 32-01 32-02 32-02 32-02 32-02 32-06 32-07 32-08 32-08 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 32-10 34-05 34-01 34-04 34-08 COMPLIANCE INVESTIGATOR II CHIEF DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL SR DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III FSS SUP I FSS SUP I FSS SUP I FSS SUP I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 2 of 4 55,492 110,386 99,873 89,360 37,598 37,598 37,598 37,598 37,598 37,598 37,598 37,598 37,598 39,298 39,298 39,298 39,298 46,567 48,603 50,817 50,817 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 55,492 48,603 40,909 46,567 55,492 23,185 39,505 36,380 33,254 17,866 17,866 17,866 17,866 17,866 17,866 17,866 17,866 17,866 18,371 18,371 18,371 18,371 20,532 21,137 21,796 21,796 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 23,185 21,137 18,850 20,532 23,185 78,677 149,891 136,253 122,614 55,464 55,464 55,464 55,464 55,464 55,464 55,464 55,464 55,464 57,669 57,669 57,669 57,669 67,099 69,740 72,613 72,613 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 78,677 69,740 59,758 67,099 78,677 57,156 113,698 102,870 92,040 38,726 38,726 38,726 38,726 38,726 38,726 38,726 38,726 38,726 40,477 40,477 40,477 40,477 47,964 50,061 52,342 52,342 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 57,156 50,061 42,136 47,964 57,156 23,680 40,490 37,271 34,051 18,201 18,201 18,201 18,201 18,201 18,201 18,201 18,201 18,201 18,721 18,721 18,721 18,721 20,947 21,571 22,249 22,249 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 23,680 21,571 19,215 20,947 23,680 80,837 154,188 140,140 126,091 56,927 56,927 56,927 56,927 56,927 56,927 56,927 56,927 56,927 59,199 59,199 59,199 59,199 68,912 71,632 74,590 74,590 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 80,837 71,632 61,350 68,912 80,837 161,673 308,375 280,280 252,183 113,854 113,854 113,854 113,854 113,854 113,854 113,854 113,854 113,854 118,397 118,397 118,397 118,397 137,824 143,263 149,181 149,181 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 161,673 143,263 122,701 137,824 161,673

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 536 appendixes\Appendix J - Restructuring Analysis

APPENDIX J DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES B/A 3238 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT STATIZATION OF RENO DA OFFICE AND WESTERN NEVADA 34-10 34-10 34-10 34-10 34-10 34-10 34-10 39-10 37-10 39-10 FSS SUP I FSS SUP I FSS SUP I FSS SUP I FSS SUP I FSS SUP I FSS SUP I IT PROFESSIONAL III SOCIAL SERVICES MGR I SOCIAL SERVICES MGR II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 60,658 60,658 60,658 60,658 60,658 60,658 60,658 76,069 69,448 76,069 24,721 24,721 24,721 24,721 24,721 24,721 24,721 29,303 27,335 29,303 85,380 85,380 85,380 85,380 85,380 85,380 85,380 105,372 96,783 105,372 62,478 62,478 62,478 62,478 62,478 62,478 62,478 78,351 71,532 78,351 25,262 25,262 25,262 25,262 25,262 25,262 25,262 29,981 27,954 29,981 87,740 87,740 87,740 87,740 87,740 87,740 87,740 108,332 99,486 108,332 175,481 175,481 175,481 175,481 175,481 175,481 175,481 216,665 198,972 216,665

TOTAL NEW FY10 NO. OF POSITIONS/FTE = TOTAL FY10 NO. OF POSITIONS/FTE =

89 89

89.00 89.00

4,571,069

1,954,175

6,525,244

4,708,201

1,994,944

6,703,145

13,406,290

TOTAL FY11 POSITIONS/FTE =

89 POS 89 89

89.00 FTE 89.00 89.00

4,571,069

$ 1,954,175

$ 6,525,244

$ 4,708,201

$ 1,994,944

$ 6,703,145

$ 13,406,290

GRAND TOTAL POSITIONS/FTE FY10 GRAND TOTAL POSITIONS/FTE FY11

OUT OF STATE TRAVEL - CATEGORY 02 CAT G/L ITEM 6200 OUT OF STATE PER DIEM 02 TOTAL OUT OF STATE TRAVEL - CAT 02

FY07 COST 2,347

FY10 COST 2,347 $ 2,347

FY11 COST 2,347 $ 2,347

FUTURE 4,694 $ 4,694

IN STATE TRAVEL - CATEGORY 03 CAT G/L ITEM 6200 OUT OF STATE PER DIEM 03 TOTAL IN STATE TRAVEL - CAT 03

FY07 COST 14,360

FY10 COST 14,360 $ 14,360

FY11 COST 14,360 $ 14,360

FUTURE 28,720 $ 28,720

OPERATING - CATEGORY 04 Operating Costs obtained from SFY06 Actuals divided by the average number of FTEs employed FUTURE BIENNIA (FTE ONGOING COSTS) $ 20,972 19,595 4,274 5,224 554 17,124 1,154,508 5,773 11,791 206,187 31,816

CAT 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04

G/L 7020 7040 7044 7045 7050 7054 7071 7110 7255 7280 7285 7290

TITLE OPERATING SUPPLIES PRINTING AND COPYING PRINTING AND COPYING PRINTING & COPYING - STATE PRINTING INSURANCE EXPENSE - EMPLOYEE BOND INSURANCE EXPENSE - AG TORT HARDWARE MAINTENANCE (Netversant) NONSTATE OWNED BUILDING RENT 235 Sq. ft X 85 @ $2.30 per sq ft (full service lease) B&G 1/2% OF NON-STATE OWNED RENT POSTAGE POSTAGE PAID TO STATE MAIL ROOM TELEPHONE

FY06 COST $ 8,086 7,555 1,648 2,014 N/A N/A

FY 06 FTE 69 69 69 69 N/A N/A

ANNUAL COST PER FTE $ 117.82 110.08 24.01 29.35 3.11 96.20

FY10 FTE OR POS FY10 COST 89.00 $ 10,486 89.00 9,797 89.00 2,137 89.00 2,612 89.00 277 89.00 8,562 577,254

FY11 FTE OR POS FY11 COST 89.00 $ 10,486 89.00 9,797 89.00 2,137 89.00 2,612 89.00 277 89.00 8,562 577,254 2,886 5,895 103,094 15,908

N/A 4,546 79,498 12,267

N/A 69 69 69

66.24 1,158.36 178.74

89.00 89.00 89.00

2,886 5,895 103,094 15,908

89.00 89.00 89.00

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 536 appendixes\Appendix J - Restructuring Analysis

3 of 4

APPENDIX J DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES B/A 3238 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT STATIZATION OF RENO DA OFFICE AND WESTERN NEVADA 04 7296 DoIT LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHARGES 04 7299 DoIT TELEPHONE AND DATA WIRING 04 7460 EQUIPMENT UNDER $1,000 (Telephone sets) 04 7980 COPIER LEASES TOTAL OPERATING - CAT 04 Equipment FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING COSTS) 1,077 N/A N/A 11,232 N/A N/A 69 69 15.69 200.00 337.00 163.66 89.00 89.00 89.00 89.00 $ 1,397 17,800 29,993 14,566 802,664 89.00 1,397 14,566 754,871 2,793

89.00 $

29,132 $ 1,509,741

CAT 05

GL 8241

ITEM Supervisor's Modular Unit Professional's Modular Unit

$ $

COST 3,400 3,000

FY10 POS 16 73

FY10 COST FY11 POS 54,400 219,000

FY11 COST -

TOTAL EQUIPMENT - CAT 05

273,400

Information Svcs

Cost obtained from NEBS Equipment Schedule FUTURE BIENNIA (2*FY11 ONGOING COSTS) $ 4,169 17,800 4,450 3,560

CAT 26

GL 7021 7073

ITEM OPERATING SUPPLIES - TONER SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE Novelle Suite Hummingbird Norton AV TOTAL SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE DoIT TELEPHONE AND DATA WIRING DoIT Assessments DoIT E-MAIL CHARGES SOFTWARE (FOR NEW POSITIONS) PC Suite - Norton AV PC Suite - Hummingbird PC Suite - Microsoft Office XP PC Suite - Novell TOTAL SOFTWARE (FOR NEW POSITIONS) HARDWARE (FOR NEW POSITIONS) Desktop PC* Flat Panel Monitor Surge Protector w/ Battery Backup

FY06 COST 1,616

FY 06 FTE 69 $

ANNUAL COST PER FTE 23.42 100 25 20 145 200.00 318.50 70.20

FY10 FTE OR POS FY10 COST 89 2,084 -

FY11 FTE OR POS FY11 COST 89 2,084 89 89 89 8,900 2,225 1,780

$ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

26 26 26 26

7299 7392 7533 7771

89 89

28,347 6,248

89 89

28,347 6,248

56,693 12,496

44 216 300 250 810

89 89 89 89

3,916 19,224 26,700 22,250

26

8371 8371 8371 8371

1,500 298 54 1,852

89 89 89 $

133,500 26,522 4,806 273,597

49,584 $ 99,167

TOTAL IS - CAT 26 TOTAL EXPENDITURES

$ 7,891,611

$ 7,524,306

$ 15,048,613

K:\WP\DTP\ADMIN\AB 536 appendixes\Appendix J - Restructuring Analysis

4 of 4