Rule-making#: / 11-9-2-3
Office or Division/Program: Office of Economic Security/ Child Support Enforcement / Rule Author: Anne Seymore / Phone: 303-866-4427
E-Mail:
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
Summary of the basis and purpose for the rule or rule change. (State what the rule says or does, explain why the rule or rule change is necessary and what the program hopes to accomplish through this rule.)
These proposed rules are reorganized so that the rules follow the same order as the flow of collections through payment processing, administrative reviews, disbursement on hold, and incentives to make the child support rules more user friendly.
Specifically, revisions are being made to the financial section of the Child Support Enforcement rules (sections 6.802 through 6.805) to:
● Replace “state share” with “state half share” in section 6.804
● Replace “interstate” with “intergovernmental” in section 6.803, 6.805.8, and 6.805.9; and
● Eliminate the procedural part of the rule in 6.805.4
State and county users have long found the financial rules to be difficult to read and research. The decision was made to take advantage of the rule review process to reorganize at the same time as rules directing state staff were being eliminated.
An emergency rule-making (which waives the initial Administrative Procedure Act noticing requirements) is necessary:
to comply with state/federal law and/orto preserve public health, safety and welfare
Explain:
Initial Review / 06/01/2012 / Final Adoption / 07/13/2012Proposed Effective Date / 09/15/2012 / EMERGENCY Adoption / N/A
DOCUMENT 1
______
[Note: “Strikethrough” indicates deletion from existing rules, “all caps” indicates addition of new rules,
and brackets denote changes since initial review.]
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE (continued)
Authority for Rule:
State Board Authority: §24-4-102, C.R.S. (2011) – definitions for rule and rule-making; §24-4-103, C.R.S. (2011) –the rule-making procedure; §26-1-107, C.R.S. (2011) – State Board to promulgate rules; §26-1-109, C.R.S. (2011) – State Board rules to coordinate with federal programs; §26-1-111, C.R.S. (2011) - State Board to promulgate rules for public assistance and welfare activities; §26-13-109, C.R.S. (2011) – adoption of rules to carry out the purpose of the Child Support Enforcement program; §26-13-114(11), C.R.S. (2011) – state board to promulgate rules for the family support registry; §26-13-128(4), C.R.S. (2011) – state board to promulgate rules for agreements with financial institutions.
Program Authority: §5-12-101, C.R.S. (2011) – interest; §14-14-106, C.R.S. (2011) – interest; §26-5-102, C.R.S. (2011) – foster care fees; §26-13-108, C.R.S. (2011) – recovery of public assistance; §26-13-109, C.R.S. (2011) – UIFSA support; §26-13-111, C.R.S. (2011) – state tax refund offset; §26-13-112.5, C.R.S. (2011) – child support incentives; §26-13-113, C.R.S. (2011) – foster care assignment of rights; §26-13-114(4), C.R.S. (2011) – family support registry; § 26-13-119, C.R.S. (2011) – distribution of amounts collected; §26-13-122.5, C.R.S. (2011) – administrative lien and attachment of inmate accounts; §26-13-128, C.R.S. (2011) – agreements with financial institutions.
45 CFR §302.15 – reports and maintenance of records; 45 CFR §302.32 – collection and disbursement of support payments; 45 CFR §302.35 – state parent locater service; 45 CFR §302.51 – distribution of support payments; 45 CFR §303.7 – provisions of services in interstate IV-D cases; 45 CFR §303.72 – federal tax refund offset; 45 CFR §303.100 – income withholding; 45 CFR §305.2 – performance measures; 45 CFR §305.31 – incentive payments; 45 CFR §305.33 – performance measures; 45 CFR §305.34 – incentive payments; 45 CFR §305.35 – incentive reinvestment.
Yes / X / NoYes / X / No
Does the rule incorporate material by reference?
Does this rule repeat language found in statute?
If yes, please explain.
State Board Administration will send this rule-making package to Colorado Counties, Inc., Office of State Planning and Budgeting, and the Joint Budget Committee. The program has sent this proposed rule-making package to which stakeholders?
IV-D Administrators; IV-D Task Force; Colorado Legal Services; Office of Economic Security Sub-PAC; Ken Sanders, Betsy Sweetland, and Mark Kling as members of Fatherhood Groups; CDHS Divisions of Child Welfare and Colorado Works; REAL Colorado; County Human Services Director’s Association.
Attachments:
Regulatory Analysis
Overview of Proposed Rule
Stakeholder Comment Summary
Rule-making Form SBA-3a (08/09)
Title of Proposed Rule: / Reorganize the Financial Section of the Child Support Enforcement Rules to Follow Payment Processing FlowRule-making#: / 11-9-2-3
Office or Division/Program: Office of Economic Security/ Child Support Enforcement / Rule Author: Anne Seymore / Phone: 303-866-4427
REGULATORY ANALYSIS
1. List of groups impacted by this rule:
Which groups of persons will benefit, bear the burdens or be adversely impacted by this rule?
State and county Child Support Enforcement staff will benefit from this rule because the proposed changes will make it easier for staff to locate specific areas of the rule.
No one will be affected negatively by this proposed rule, as there are no substantial changes being made.
2. Describe the qualitative and quantitative impact:
How will this rule-making impact those groups listed above? How many people will be impacted? What are the short-term and long-term consequences of this rule?
This proposed rule will impact approximately 100 county and state staff because the financial rules largely affect the bookkeepers and accounting staff. The long-range impact is the same as the short-range impact, which is to make the financial section easier to follow and more user friendly.
3. Fiscal Impact:
For each of the categories listed below explain the distribution of dollars; please identify the costs, revenues, matches or any changes in the distribution of funds even if such change has a total zero effect for any entity that falls within the category. If this rule-making requires one of the categories listed below to devote resources without receiving additional funding, please explain why the rule-making is required and what consultation has occurred with those who will need to devote resources.
State Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact as the process remains the same with this proposed rule change. Only the order of the rules is changing.
County Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact as the process remains the same with this proposed rule change. Only the order of the rules is changing.
Federal Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact as the process remains the same with this proposed rule change. Only the order of the rules is changing.
Other Fiscal Impact (such as providers, local governments, etc.)
There is no fiscal impact as the process remains the same with this proposed rule change. Only the order of the rules is changing.
REGULATORY ANALYSIS (continued)
4. Data Description:
List and explain any data, such as studies, federal announcements, or questionnaires, which were relied upon when developing this rule?
None
5. Alternatives to this Rule-making:
Describe any alternatives that were seriously considered. Are there any less costly or less intrusive ways to accomplish the purpose(s) of this rule? Explain why the program chose this rule-making rather than taking no action or using another alternative.
Financial processing needs to be in rule because the federal guidance, both in law and regulations, are very broad. In order to make the federal guidance appropriate for Colorado’s processes and automated system, there needs to be rules specific to Colorado.
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED RULE
Compare and/or contrast the content of the current regulation and the proposed change.
Section Numbers / Current Regulation / Proposed Change /Stakeholder Comment
6.260.22 and .23 / Case initiation and maintenance. / Include the requirement that a ledger be initiated when an order exists. / __ / Yes / X_ / No6.801.1, A and B / Family Support Registry / Renumber from 6.805.1, A and D / __ / Yes / X / No
6.801.2 / Colorado Date of Receipt / Renumber from 6.805.1, B / __ / Yes / X_ / No
6.801.3 / County Processes / Renumber from 6.802; slight wording change to make more readable. / __ / Yes / X_ / No
6.801.4 / Information on Automated Systems / Renumber from 6.805.2; combine IV-A rule with foster care and delete the foster care rule. / __ / Yes / X_ / No
6.802, A / Allocation / Renumber from 6.805.1 G; clarify when MSO shall be posted. / __ / Yes / X_ / No
6.802, B / Allocation / Renumber from 6.805.1 H; add “medical” as this pertains to medical support orders. / __ / Yes / X_ / No
6.802, C / Allocation / Add new statement codifying current automated process. / __ / Yes / X_ / No
6.802, D / Allocation / Renumber from 6.805.1, C; remove statement about time frames, as the statement belongs in the distribution and disbursement sections. / __ / Yes / X_ / No
6.802, F / Allocation / Add new statement to help clarify how allocations to multiple arrears obligations are handled. / __ / Yes / X_ / No
6.802, G and H / Allocation / Renumber from 6.805.1 F. / __ / Yes / X / No
6.802.1 / Allocations on cases with no support orders / Renumber from 6.805.12; clarify the process. / __ / Yes / X / No
6.802.2 / Allocations on cases with a support order. / Renumber from 6.805.14, 6.805.15, A to EE, and 6.805.2; reword so the allocation hierarchy is clear; combine several statements into one to make the rules less confusing; separate over collect allocations from pre-pay allocations; require that counties research the case when there is an allocation to pre-pay or over collect. / __ / Yes / X / No
6.802.3 / Allocations from IRS collections / Renumber from 6.805.13, A to N; reword so the allocation hierarchy is clear; combine several statements into one to make the rules less confusing. / __ / Yes / X / No
6.802.4 / Allocations from judgment collections / Renumber from 6.805.11, A to H; reword so the allocation hierarchy is clear; combine several statements into one to make the rules less confusing; require that counties research the case when there is an allocation to over collect. / __ / Yes / X / No
6.803.1 through 6.803.4 / Distribution / Renumber from 6.805.2; reword to move language that applies to disbursement to the disbursement section (6.804); add that distributions on a PA or non-PA allocation first repay any obligee unfunded disbursement balance; reorganize so that distributions are made based on an allocation to a class of arrears, not on a case type; clarify what happens to a foster care excess over unreimbursed maintenance payment. / __ / Yes / X / No
6.804 through 6.804.6 / Disbursements / Renumber from 6.805, 6.805.2, and 6.805.3; add that any disbursement to a family shall be made to the person having custody of the child(ren); add the disbursement time frame language from the “old” distribution section; reorganize so that disbursements are made based on an allocation to a class of arrears, not on a case type; change “interstate” to “intergovernmental” and “state” to “tribunal” as changed by federal regulation; remove all of “old” 6.805.31 because a separate schedule is not needed. / __ / Yes / X / No
6.804.7 / Erroneous intercept collection / Renumber from 6.805.33. / __ / Yes / X / No
6.804.8 / Erroneous collection / Renumber from 6.805.34; remove the examples so that it is clear the rule can apply to any situation. / __ / Yes / X / No
6.805 through 6.805.3 / Administrative review of arrears balances / Renumber from 6.803; reword to use correct terms and clarify process; add requirement that the automated system be updated with the review results; require that the county adjust the ledger to agree with a state level decision; remove all rules directing state staff. / __ / Yes / X / No
6.805.4 through 6.805.42 / Administrative review of distribution / Renumber from 6.803.4 through 6.803.48; change “custodial party” to “obligee; reword to make clearer; remove all rules directing state staff. / __ / Yes / X / No
6.805.5 / Appeal of a joint account / Renumber from 6.805.35. / __ / Yes / X / No
6.806 / Interest / Renumber from 6.805.4; add requirement that counties collect interest on responding jurisdictional cases according to federal regulations. / __ / Yes / X / No
6.807 / Disbursements on hold / Renumber from 6.805.8 through 6.805.89; add the requirement that all disbursements for a ledger be put on hold in certain circumstances; remove the procedural or automated sections; change “custodial party” to “obligee; require that a payment be allocated first to obligor unfunded disbursement balances if the obligee cannot be located. / __ / Yes / X / No
6.808 through 6.808.4 / Unfunded disbursements / Renumber from 6.805.9 through 6.805.97; strike the definition, as it belongs in the definitions section; change “custodial party” to “obligee; remove rules pertaining to any automated processes. / __ / Yes / X / No
6.809 through 6.809.6 / Incentives / Renumber from 6.804 through 6.804.82; reword to clarify; add information about the state half share as required by statutory changes. / __ / Yes / X / No
STAKEHOLDER COMMENT SUMMARY
DEVELOPMENT
The following individuals and/or entities were included in the development of these proposed rules (such as other Program Areas, Legislative Liaison, Sub-PAC, and the Child Welfare Action Committee):