Susan Montee, CPA

Missouri State Auditor

SOCIAL SERVICES

Timeliness of Child Support

Administrative Hearings

December 2008
Report No. 2008-88

auditor.mo.gov

Susan Montee, CPA

Missouri State Auditor

YELLOW SHEET

Improvements Needed To Ensure Timely Child Support Administrative Hearings

The Department of Social Services, through its Division of Legal Services (DLS), has overall
responsibility to provide timely administrative hearings for child support cases. From January 2006
through June 2008 the DLS received approximately 24,000 requests for child support hearings. Child
support case parents may request administrative hearings to contest decisions made by the Family
Support Division. Hearing requests may relate to establishing paternity, establishing child support,
enforcing child support orders, or modifying child support obligations. Because of the importance of
ensuring timely hearings, we focused audit objectives on determining (1) whether administrative
hearings are scheduled, held, and completed in a timely manner, and (2) impediments that adversely
impacted achieving timely completion of hearings.

DLS experienced significant

delays completing hearings

Analysis of the DLS' database disclosed delays in completing

hearings and rendering decisions have increased since 2006. In 2006
the length of time from the date the DLS received a hearing request to
the date it mailed the decision averaged 4.6 months. In 2007, the
length of time increased by an average of 2 months (43 percent) to 6.6
months, and for the first 6 months of 2008, the length of time
increased again by .9 months (14 percent) for an average of 7.5
months. (See page 6)

Significant number of
hearings in a pending status

As of June 30, 2008, the DLS had 7,388 hearings in a pending status,
meaning either a hearing had not yet been scheduled or held, or a
hearing had been held, but the decision had not been mailed. The
7,388 pending cases included 2,326 establishment cases, 1,834
modification cases, 2,983 enforcement cases, and 245 other types of
cases. (See page 6)

Significant delays in
rendering decisions

The DLS has experienced significant delays in scheduling,

completing, and mailing decisions for hearings that have been held.
Of 7,388 pending cases DLS had:
733 (10 percent) cases pending for 30 days or less
850 (11 percent) cases pending from 31 to 60 days
965 (13 percent) cases pending from 61 to 90 days
1,017 (14 percent) cases pending from 91 to 120 days
1,332 (18 percent) cases pending from 121 to 180 days
2,041 (28 percent) cases pending from 181 to 365 days
442 (6 percent) cases pending from 366 to 838 days (See page
7)

Workloads, staffing, and

turnover contribute to
delays and backlog

Increasing workloads, staffing issues, and staff turnover have

contributed to delays in scheduling hearings and the backlog of
unwritten hearing decisions. Hearing referrals increased significantly
from January 2006 through June 2008, and the increased volume has
resulted in delays in scheduling hearings of 4 to 5 months. The DLS
has taken action to reduce the number of hearings held per day,
however, reducing the number of hearings from five to four per day
will likely increase the delay in holding hearings. At current staffing
levels officials estimate it will take about 7 years to eliminate the
current backlog of pending cases. (See page 8 and 10)

Outdated and inefficient

procedures contribute to
delays and backlog

DLS procedures have not always been efficient or effective. This

situation has occurred, in part, because the DLS had not maintained
up-to-date policies and procedures manuals. In June 2008, the DLS
distributed manuals to both hearing officers and clerical staff. Prior to
June 2008, officials relied on a training manual which contained
policies and procedures; however, the training manual was not
complete because it did not contain addendums or other changes
and/or updates to policies and procedures. (See page 13)

Improvements needed
in training

Discussions with hearing officers disclosed that 9 of 13 hearing

officers (69 percent) believed they did not receive adequate training
when they were hired. Training consisted of observing other officers
conducting hearings, practicing writing hearing decisions based on
observations, and asking questions of other hearing officers. (See
page 16)
All reports are available on our Web site: www.auditor.mo.gov

Contents

State Auditor's Letter

Chapter 1
Introduction

Scope and Methodology

3
4

The DLS Experienced Significant Delays Completing Hearings

Workloads, Staffing, and Turnover Contribute to Delays and Backlog
Outdated and Inefficient Procedures Contribute to Delays
Improvements Needed In Training
Conclusions
Recommendations
Agency Comments

6
6
8
13
16
17
18
18

Appendix I

Flowchart of Intake Process

22

Appendix II

Flowchart of Processes Used From the Hearing Date to the Date the
Decision Is Mailed

24

Figures and Tables

Figure 2.1: Average Monthly Change in Referrals by Quarter From

January 2006 Through June 2008
Figure I.1: Flowchart of Intake Process
Figure II.1: Flowchart of Processes Used From the Hearing
Date to the Date the Decision Is Mailed
Table 2.1: Examples of Duties of Clerical Staff

Chapter 2
Improvements Needed
to Ensure Timely
Administrative
Hearings

Abbreviations
DLS
DSS
FSD
MACSS
SAO

Page 1

Division of Legal Services

Department of Social Services
Family Support Division
Missouri Automated Child Support System
State Auditor's Office

8
22
24
11

SUSAN MONTEE, CPA

Missouri State Auditor

Honorable Matt Blunt, Governor

and
Deborah E. Scott, Director
Department of Social Services
Jefferson City, MO
The Department of Social Services, through its Division of Legal Services (DLS), has overall responsibility to
provide timely administrative hearings for child support cases. From January 2006 through June 2008 the DLS
received approximately 24,000 requests for child support hearings. Child support case parents may request
administrative hearings to contest decisions made by the Family Support Division. Hearing requests may relate to
establishing paternity, establishing child support, enforcing child support orders, or modifying child support
obligations. Because of the importance of ensuring timely hearings, we focused audit objectives on determining
(1) whether administrative hearings are scheduled, held, and completed in a timely manner, and (2) impediments
that adversely impacted achieving timely completion of hearings.
Our audit disclosed the DLS has experienced significant delays in completing child support administrative
hearings. This situation has occurred because of (1) increased workloads, staffing issues, and turnover of staff;
and (2) outdated and/or inefficient procedures. In addition, the DLS has not ensured hearing officers and clerical
staff have always been adequately trained.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards applicable to performance audits contained in
Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require
that we plan and perform our audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides such a
basis. This report was prepared under the direction of John Luetkemeyer and key contributors to this report
included Robert Spence, Brenda Richardson, and Amy Ames.

Susan Montee, CPA

State Auditor

Page 2

Chapter 1

Introduction

The Department of Social Services (DSS), through its Division of Legal

Services (DLS), has overall responsibility of providing timely
administrative hearings when a parent 1 requests a hearing to contest child
support decisions made by the Family Support Division (FSD).
FSD personnel maintain a case management and tracking system called the
Missouri Automated Child Support System (MACSS). All information
about child support cases is recorded on that system, including
administrative hearing information. Parents on child support cases, through
"due process," may request an administrative hearing. The request must be
in writing. Parents requested administrative hearings on approximately
24,000 child support cases from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2008.
Hearing requests may relate to establishing paternity, establishing child
support, enforcing child support orders, or modifying child support
obligations. Under certain circumstances, a child support obligation may be
established, or a current obligation may be modified, administratively.
Hearing decisions may change the amount of the obligation, impact
enforcement, and affect arrears balances.
When child support enforcement 2 personnel receive a written hearing
request, technicians must acknowledge receipt of the request within two
working days, and must send the request to the DLS Child Support Hearings
Unit no later than 10 calendar days after acknowledgment of receipt. 3 The
child support enforcement technicians are also responsible for recording the
date the request was referred to the DLS on the MACSS.
When DLS personnel receive requests for administrative hearings, they
record the referral on a DLS log. They schedule a hearing and record the
hearing date on the DLS database. Notice of the hearing date and time is
then sent to hearing participants. After the hearing has been held, the
hearing officer writes a decision which is then reviewed by another hearing
officer. Once a decision has been approved by the reviewer, it goes back to
the hearing officer and the decision is mailed to the participants. In addition,
DLS personnel are responsible for recording all other hearing information
on the MACSS, and ensuring the accuracy and completeness of that
information. Information recorded includes the date the referral was
received, hearing date, decision date, hearing officer, hearing resolution, and

Parents, as used in this report, are defined as a custodial parent, non-custodial parent, or
legal guardian.
2
The child support program is part of the Family Support Division.
3
Child Support Policy Manual, Chapter 1, Section II.

Page 3

date the decision was mailed. See Appendices I and II for step-by-step
processes.
The DLS has maintained a database containing information on child support
administrative requests and hearings since 1996. As of June 30, 2008, the
DLS had 76,302 hearing cases on its database. Of the 76,302 cases,
approximately 7,388 were pending as of June 30, 2008. 4
While there are no timeframes for scheduling hearings, 5 DLS management
has adopted timeframes for the review process and writing decisions once
the case record is closed (after the hearing has been held). The timeframes
are: 6

Scope and
Methodology

15 days to write decisions for cases involving defaults, withdrawals,

and agreements
60 days for cases involving all other contested decisions
3 days for reviewers to complete reviews of decisions written by
other hearing officers

To accomplish audit objectives, we conducted work at DLS offices in

Jefferson City and Independence, Missouri.
We reviewed policies and procedures, and laws and regulations governing
child support administrative hearings. We interviewed DLS hearing officers,
clerical support staff, and executive management. We also reviewed DLS
internal controls and procedures for processing administrative hearings.
To identify administrative hearing requests the FSD referred to the DLS, we
obtained an automated file of child support IV-D cases 7 with identification
numbers and referral dates on or after January 1, 2006, as recorded on the
MACSS at the end of business on May 7, 2008.

When we use the term pending in this report, it refers to cases where a hearing request has
been received and recorded on the database, but a hearing may or may not have been
scheduled or held, and a decision has not been rendered.
5
We found no federal regulations/guidelines on time frames applicable to the child support
administrative hearing process.
6
Officials included this guidance in a September 2008 update to the June 2008, Child Support
Hearing Officer Manual.
7
A IV-D case is a case where the custodial parent is receiving public assistance or applies for
child support enforcement services pursuant to Title IV-D of the federal Social Security Act.

Page 4

To identify administrative hearings recorded on DLS records, we obtained

the DLS log of incoming hearing requests and the database containing
administrative hearing records at the end of business on June 30, 2008.
We queried the DLS database to identify pending cases, decisions rendered,
types of cases still pending, and when administrative hearings had been
requested.
To determine whether administrative hearings had been scheduled for all
hearing requests on the MACSS records and case information had been
recorded on the DLS database, we conducted a data match of case
identification numbers on the MACSS records to case identification
numbers on the DLS database. For a sample of 133 of the 435 referrals not
recorded on the DLS database, we manually compared the non-custodial
parents' names on the MACSS to the non-custodial parents' names on the
DLS database.
To determine the extent of hearing information recorded on the MACSS, we
accessed hearing information records on the MACSS.
To determine the accuracy of totals of the progress of hearings, we obtained
copies of the DLS' monthly production reports generated by personnel from
the division's automated database.
To determine whether administrative hearings were scheduled and held in a
timely manner, we randomly selected 50 administrative hearings from the
MACSS database and judgmentally selected another 30 administrative
hearings for testing from the universe of approximately 24,000 requests
referred to the DLS for the period of January 2006 through June 2008. We
used information in physical case files and data recorded on the DLS
database to complete the testing.
To test the accuracy of the DLS' database records, we randomly selected 50
administrative hearings and traced 700 data elements from source records to
the information recorded on the DLS database. We found that 97 percent of
the data elements recorded on the DLS' database for these 50 cases agreed to
the information on source documents.

Page 5

Chapter 2

Improvements Needed to Ensure Timely

Administrative Hearings
Improvements are needed in the oversight of the DLS' administrative
hearings of child support cases because the DLS has experienced significant
delays in processing and completing administrative hearings. This situation
has occurred, in part, because of (1) increased workloads, staffing issues,
and turnover of staff and (2) outdated and/or inefficient procedures. In
addition, the DLS has not ensured hearing officers and administrative staff
have always been adequately trained. As a result of delayed hearings, a
custodial parent may not be receiving child support payments and/or a noncustodial parent may be waiting for an adjustment in child support owed.
DLS officials distributed new policies and procedures manuals in June
2008. However, the manuals did not address procedural weaknesses
subsequently found by SAO auditors. The DLS also has revised some
procedures since June 2008 which, if fully implemented, should help reduce
its current backlog of hearing cases.

DLS Experienced
Significant Delays
Completing Hearings

Our analysis of the DLS database disclosed delays in completing hearings

and rendering decisions have increased since 2006. For example, in 2006
the length of time from the date the DLS received a hearing request to the
date it mailed the decision averaged 4.6 months. In 2007, the length of time
increased by an average of 2 months (43 percent) to 6.6 months, and for the
first 6 months of 2008, the length of time increased again by .9 months (14
percent) for an average of 7.5 months.

Significant number
of hearings pending

From January 2006 through June 30, 2008, the DLS received approximately
24,000 requests for administrative hearings, according to DLS records. As
of June 30, 2008, the DLS had 7,388 hearings in a pending status, meaning
either a hearing had not yet been scheduled or held, or a hearing had been
held, but the decision had not been mailed. During the first 6 months of
2008, hearings had been requested for 4,586 (62 percent) cases, 2,733 cases
(37 percent) in 2007, and 69 cases (.9 percent) in 2006 or earlier.
The 7,388 pending cases included:

Page 6

2,326 establishment cases

1,834 modification cases
2,983 enforcement cases
245 other types of cases

Significant delays in
scheduling hearings
and completing decisions

The DLS has experienced significant delays in scheduling, completing and

mailing decisions for completed hearings. As of June 30, 2008, DLS had: 8

733 (10 percent) cases pending for 30 days or less

850 (11 percent) cases pending from 31 to 60 days
965 (13 percent) cases pending from 61 to 90 days
1,017 (14 percent) cases pending from 91 to 120 days
1,332 (18 percent) cases pending from 121 to 180 days
2,041 (28 percent) cases pending from 181 to 365 days
442 (6 percent) cases pending from 366 to 838 days
8 cases which could not be aged because the date the referral had
been received had not been accurately recorded on the database

Of the 7,388 pending cases, 781 had not had a hearing scheduled, 4,201 had
a hearing scheduled, but not yet held, and 2,406 had a hearing, but a
decision had not been written and/or mailed.

Delays also occurred

after hearings held

Prior to August 2008, the DLS required hearing decisions to be written and
mailed within approximately 30 days of the hearing. However, our aging of
the 2,406 pending cases for which hearings had been held disclosed 1,582
(66 percent) decisions had not been sent within 30 days. For the 2,406 cases,
the delays since case hearing dates and June 30, 2008, are as follows:

Without impediments and

backlog, decisions could be
more timely

824 (34 percent) 30 days or less

473 (20 percent) 31 to 60 days
334 (14 percent) 61 to 90 days
293 (12 percent) 91 to 120 days
321 (13 percent) 121 to 180 days
159 (6 percent) 181 to 365 days
2 (1 percent) 366 to 735 days

One official told us hearing decisions could be completed within

approximately 45 days after a hearing if the current backlog of unwritten
decisions did not exist, and if there were not impediments such as
inadequate staffing, lost case files, and rescheduled hearings. In discussing
timeframes, another official told us decisions could be completed and
mailed within 60 days, and in August 2008, officials revised the required
timeframe from approximately 30 days to 60 days.

For aging analysis, we used the date received by the DLS.

Page 7

Workloads, Staffing,
and Turnover
Contribute to Delays
and Backlog

Increasing workloads, staffing issues, and staff turnover have contributed to

delays in scheduling hearings and the backlog of unwritten hearing
decisions. For example, during 2006 the DLS received 7,341 referrals, or an
average of 612 referrals per month. During 2007, the DLS received 11,484
referrals, an increase of 56 percent, or an average of 957 referrals per
month. From January through June 2008, the DLS received an average of
930 referrals a month. Figure 2.1 shows the average change in referrals by
quarter from January 2006 through June 2008.

Administrative Hearing Referrals

ry
-M
ar
ch
A
20
pr
06
ilJu
Ju
ly
ne
-S
20
ep
O
06
te
ct
m
ob
be
er
r2
-D
00
ec
6
em
Ja
be
nu
r
ar
20
y06
M
ar
ch
20
A
pr
07
ilJu
Ju
ly
ne
-S
20
ep
O
07
te
ct
m
ob
be
er
r2
-D
00
ec
7
em
Ja
be
nu
r
ar
20
y07
M
ar
ch
A
20
pr
08
ilJu
ne
20
08

1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0

Ja
nu
a

Average Number Per Month in Period

Figure 2.1: Average Monthly Change in Referrals by Quarter From

January 2006 Through June 2008

Q uarte r
Source: SAO calculations using DLS data.

Increase in referrals
results in hearing delays

As discussed, referrals for hearings have increased significantly from

January 2006 through June 2008, and the increased volume has resulted in
delays in scheduling hearings. Because of the increased volume of referrals
for hearings, and other workload issues, DLS personnel have to schedule
hearings 4 to 5 months in the future. For instance, DLS personnel scheduled
administrative hearings in November 2008 for referrals received in June
2008.

Five hearings a
day not realistic

Prior to September 2007, the DLS implemented a specialized docket for

scheduling hearings, according to an official. A specialized docket is where
the DLS schedules certain types of hearings for each hearing officer. For
instance, a hearing officer could be scheduled to conduct only enforcement
hearings, or a combination of hearings such as modification and
establishment hearings. With the specialized docket, the DLS scheduled five

Page 8

enforcement hearings per day for the hearing officers. 9 However,

conducting five hearings a day has not been realistic with current staffing
levels, according to 11 of the 13 hearing officers. Instead, a more reasonable
workload would be to conduct four hearings a day, which would allow
hearing officers more time for writing decisions, as well as more time to
review decisions written by other hearing officers, according to an official.
Number of hearings reduced, but
decisions will be delayed longer

In September 2008, the DLS began scheduling four hearings a day, instead
of five, in order to allow hearing officers more time to write decisions,
according to one official. However, the official also acknowledged that
reducing the number of hearings from five to four per day will increase the
4 to 5 month delay in holding hearings. Because of current scheduling
delays, four hearings a day will not occur until January 2009.

Significant backlog of pending

cases with decisions not mailed

As shown on page 7, as of June 30, 2008, the 13 hearing officers conducted

hearings over 90 days earlier on 775 (32 percent) of 2,406 cases where
hearings had been held, but the decisions had not been mailed. Six of the 13
hearing officers told us they worked nights and weekends writing hearing
decisions to reduce the backlog of pending cases. For example, available
time records disclosed 4 hearing officers worked an average of
approximately 11 hours of overtime per month from January 2008 to August
2008. However, extended working hours has not enabled hearing officers to
eliminate the backlog of unwritten decisions because of the increasing
volume of hearings.

Changes may help

reduce delays

According to another DLS official, other changes have been planned or

implemented which may reduce delays in writing decisions. For instance, in
June 2008 hearing officers were notified that beginning in November 2008
the DLS plans to allow each hearing officer to take one day every two
weeks, where hearings will not be scheduled, to catch up on decision
writing. The official also notified hearing officers that when a hearing does
not take place as scheduled, hearing officers may use that time to write
decisions instead of filling that time-slot with another hearing.

Staffing changes or other

options could help hearing
officers expedite hearings

Hearing officers expressed concerns regarding workload and the lack of

staffing. For example, 4 of 13 hearing officers told us the DLS needs more
hearing officers and/or clerical staff to handle the current workload. One
hearing officer also told us the DLS should consider using law students as
interns to help with enforcement hearings and/or decisions. According to the
hearing officer, this could be done at little or no cost since the incentive for

For the other types of hearings, such as establishment or modification, officials schedule
only 4 hearings each day.

Page 9

the law students would be the experience rather than the salary. In
discussing the hearing officer's suggestion, an official told us using law
students to assist on enforcement hearings and/or decisions would not be
practical because of the time required to train them.
Another hearing officer suggested the DLS delay previously scheduled
hearings for a couple of weeks and devote that time to catching up on the
backlog of unwritten decisions, which would help eliminate that backlog 10
in a matter of weeks. The hearing officer told us some of the backlog
includes cases from 2007, and he believes those parents deserve to get
decisions expeditiously instead of enduring further delays.

Backlog will take 7 years

to clear with current staffing

The DLS increased the number of hearing officers from 7 in June 2006 to
13 in June 2008. However, despite adding more hearing officers, internal
reports disclosed the time to complete hearings and mail decisions
continued to increase. In discussing workload issues, one official told us he
would like to have more hearing officers so the DLS could increase the
number of hearings held and decrease the time it would take to clear the
backlog of pending cases. According to the official, with current staffing,
hearing officers can reduce backlog by about 100 cases a month. At that rate
it will take about 7 years to eliminate the current backlog of pending cases,
according to the official.

Assessment needed to
determine clerical
staffing needs

According to one hearing officer and four of five clerical staff, additional
clerks are needed to handle increased workloads and clerical duties. The
DLS uses temporary workers to supplement clerical staff in order to get
work done, according to an official. However, according to one clerk, the
DLS needs to hire fewer temporary workers and hire more full-time clerical
staff to eliminate constantly training temporary workers on how to do
assigned work. In discussing this issue the official told us he would like to
hire two more full time clerks.

Clerks have many duties

Discussions with clerical staff disclosed they have varying duties. Table 2.1
depicts examples of the duties of the five clerical staff.

10

The backlog represents 2,406 cases where a hearing had been held but the decision had not
been mailed.

Page 10

Table 2.1: Examples Of Duties Of Clerical Staff

Duties Performed
Clerk 1
Clerk 2
Clerk 3
Clerk 4
Clerical for three
Clerical for three
Clerical for four
Clerical for two
hearing officers
hearing officers
hearing officers
hearing officers

Clerk 5
Clerical for one
hearing officer

Logs incoming
hearing requests onto
an electronic
spreadsheet

Faxes/mail-checks fax
machine once an hour.
Opens mail three
times a day.

Records case
information onto the
database after the
hearing is scheduled

May assist clerk 5

Print/mail first
in updating the
hearing notices
MACSS with decision
information

Re-schedules
continuances/prints
and mails those
notices
Copies records in
case files and sends
to the hearing officer
in the Independence
office

Copies records in
case files and sends
to the hearing officer
in the Kansas City
office

Updates the MACSS

once a hearing
decision has been
mailed and updates
the MACSS with
decision information

Source: Discussions with five clerks.

Workload includes hundreds

of files and records

To illustrate the volume of work clerical staff may have on any given day,
we counted records and files in clerical workspaces. We found the 5 clerks
had a total of approximately 5,700 files and/or correspondence and
miscellaneous records pertaining to pending or completed cases in their
workspaces. For example, we found one clerk had 889 files and records in
her workspace. Of these files, 689 required some action by the clerk. She
identified the files and records, as follows:

Page 11

16 cases with default decisions waiting to be written

42 decisions from 2 hearing officers waiting for the administrative
assistant to make minor corrections
41 decisions needed to be mailed
38 cases with decisions that needed corrections to be made in the
database
35 cases where the administrative assistant was unsure of what
needed to be done
8 cases where parent requested the case to be withdrawn and the
withdrawals needed processing
423 copies of original case files that had been sent to an out-of-town
hearing officer
45 case files where the hearing had been continued, but not
rescheduled, and notices not sent
20 unidentified cases left in the workspace by a predecessor
21 returned hearing notices that needed to be put in case files

200 completed cases that needed to be sent to storage (no further

work required)

We also found another clerk with 582 case files on hand, as follows:

Workload analysis
needed

32 files that needed some type of action to be taken right away, but
the clerk was not sure what action was needed
77 decisions that needed to be mailed
99 decisions that needed to be signed by a hearing officer
1 decision that needed to go to a reviewer
21 miscellaneous mail and faxed documents which needed to be put
in case files
303 copies of original case files that had been sent to an out-of-town
hearing officer
28 case files where the hearing had been continued, but not
rescheduled, and notices not sent
18 returned notices that needed to be put in case files
3 case files waiting for additional required information before the
decision can be written

As discussed above, duties vary among the clerical staff and the workload
includes handling hundreds of case files and/or correspondence. Sound
business practices dictate that management determine optimum clerical
workloads and balance workloads in order to achieve the most efficient flow
of work.
In discussing workload issues, an official told us clerical workloads may be
adjusted when someone is sick, on leave, or leaves the agency. The DLS has
not conducted a workload analysis to determine the most effective workload
distribution for clerical staff because the workload is constantly shifting
among the clerks, according to another official.

Staff lack experience due

to turnover

Discussions with hearing officers disclosed turnover for hearing officers has
been high. For example, 7 of 13 (54 percent) hearing officers have been in
their jobs less than 1 year, as of June 30, 2008. According to an official,
high turnover also has been caused, in part, by increased workloads, low
salaries, and inexperienced clerical staff.
One clerk told us the turnover for clerical staff has also been high. For
example, we found the longest term of employment for clerks, as of
June 30, 2008, has been approximately 18 months. According to an official,
high turnover of clerical staff has been caused, in part, by increased
workload and low pay. The official also told us clerical staff tend to move to
higher paying jobs.

Page 12

Outdated and
Inefficient Procedures
Contribute to Delays

The DLS procedures have not always been efficient or effective. This
situation has occurred, in part, because the DLS had not maintained up-todate policies and procedures manuals. In June 2008, the DLS distributed upto-date manuals to both hearing officers and clerical staff. Sound business
practices dictate management provide current and comprehensive written
policies and procedures manuals for staff to follow and ensure that staff are
aware of all guidance.
The DLS hired 7 of 13 hearing officers within the last year and, according to
those hearing officers, they did not receive, nor were they aware of, any
formal policies and procedures. Instead, they relied primarily on other
hearing officers for instructions for processing hearing cases. One hearing
officer employed by the DLS for over 10 years said he thought a manual
had existed sometime in the past. Further review disclosed the hearing
officers received a training manual in September 2007 that contained
policies and procedures.
According to the five clerical staff, all of which have been employed 18
months or less, the DLS did not provide them with written procedures until
June 2008. Prior to that time, they told us they generally received on-the-job
training and were verbally told procedures.

Training manual used as

policies and procedures
manual

In discussing this issue, DLS officials told us a policies and procedures

manual did exist and provided us with a training manual that included
general policies and procedures. However, that manual did not include a
comprehensive discussion of some policies and procedures. According to
officials, the training manual was the only manual available that contained
policies and procedures prior to the issuance of the June 2008 policies and
procedures manual. However, the undated training manual was not complete
because it did not contain addendums or other changes/updates to policies
and procedures.

The DLS issued formal

guidance in June 2008

The policies and procedures manuals the DLS distributed in June 2008
documented many of the procedures used by DLS personnel. According to
officials, the new manual distributed to hearing officers had been a "work in
progress" for approximately 2 years. Our review of the new manual
disclosed it contained nine chapters covering a variety of subjects related to
child support administrative hearings, guidelines and policies. For example,
the June 2008 policies and procedure manual addressed, in part, the
following:

Page 13

New employees will be given a copy of job expectations detailing

what is expected in the performance of their job as a hearing officer

Each hearing officer will be scheduled for 4 to 6 hearings per day 11

depending on the type of hearings they are holding in a given month
Notification of the administrative hearing must be mailed at a
minimum of 10 days prior to the date of the hearing
Step-by-step instructions for conducting the hearing
All incoming faxes and mail must be processed and distributed the
same day it is received

Our review of the policies and procedures manual for the hearing officers
disclosed the DLS did not address certain procedures, discussed in the
following sections, the lack of which contributed to problems we identified.

Lack of, or inefficient

procedures may contribute
to delays

In reviewing procedures used by personnel, and dates recorded on the DLS'

database, we found hearings had not always been scheduled and delays in
scheduling occurred. For example, in comparing case identification numbers
on child support referrals to case identification numbers on the database, we
found 435 referrals had not been recorded. Further manual review of 133
sampled cases disclosed 24 (18 percent) referrals had been made; however,
hearings had not been scheduled or the case had been withdrawn. 12 This
situation occurred because the DLS had not established procedures to
reconcile incoming referrals to hearings recorded on the DLS database.
In discussing this issue, officials told us the referrals had not been recorded
because of administrative errors and agreed that incoming referrals should
be reconciled with hearings recorded on the database. One of the officials
told us, "reconciliation is a good idea", and the division is developing
procedures to reconcile the incoming referrals to scheduled hearings
recorded on the database.

Delays occurred in
holding hearings

Our review of records for 80 child support hearing requests disclosed the
DLS incurred significant delays in holding hearings on 27 cases (34
percent). Hearings were delayed primarily because personnel did not
schedule the hearing in a timely manner or personnel had to reschedule a
hearing because they did not notify one or more hearing participants of the
date and time of the hearing. For example:

11

In August 2008, the Deputy Director told us they will begin scheduling only four hearings
per day for each hearing officer. We suggested an addendum be added to the new policy
manual to reflect this and other changes.
12
Of the 133 cases, we found 109 cases were not errors because 21 cases had been scheduled
and recorded on the DLS database under another case number. For 88 cases, the hearing
packet either had not been sent to the DLS or the request had been entered on the MACSS in
error.

Page 14

The hearings on 20 cases had not been scheduled timely, with

delays of 3 months to 19 months from the date the request was
received to the hearing date. According to officials, the delays
occurred because of administrative errors.
Hearings had to be rescheduled on 7 other cases because the DLS
failed to notify one or more participants of the hearing date/time.
The additional delays on these 7 cases ranged from 4 months to
approximately 18 months. According to officials, these delays also
occurred because of administrative errors.

No procedure to
account for case files

Officials could not produce the case files for 4 of 80 cases (5 percent).
Sound business practices dictate the DLS establish and maintain internal
controls over cases files. In discussing this issue, one official told us having
a method to account for case files is important and there should be a
standard procedure to do so.

One clerk accounts

for case files

One clerk told us she routinely accounts for case files assigned to her.
According to the clerk, she pulls the files for the next week's hearings and
puts them in date order. She then compares the parents' names on the files to
names on hearings recorded on the scheduling book. If she cannot find
information on the scheduling book, she asks the hearing officer about the
files. If the hearing officer does not have the file, she then contacts other
clerical staff to locate the file.
In discussing this issue, an official told us that while personnel may have
their own personal case management tools, the division does not necessarily
adopt them because the tools may not work well for other individuals.

Timeframes needed for

passing case files and
decisions

The DLS had not ensured decisions under review were passed on to the
intended reviewer by clerical staff in a timely manner. For example, one
hearing officer told us he may receive as many as 60 hearing decisions to
review at one time. He believes these decisions are being delayed by clerical
staff. Another hearing officer told us this is also a factor in delaying the
completion and mailing of decisions.
In addressing this issue, a DLS official told us the division had not
established timeframes for clerical staff in passing decisions and files under
review. However, in August 2008 the DLS corrected this oversight and
started requiring hearing officers to pass decisions under review directly to
the intended recipient at the end of each day. In follow-up discussions with
four hearing officers, all four told us they were not aware of this change
even though officials sent an email, dated August 19, 2008, notifying all
hearing officers of the change.

Page 15

Inefficiencies exist in
the intake process

In reviewing intake procedures, we found three clerks and a temporary

worker handle hearing packets 13 before the hearing officer receives the files.
For example, one clerk responsible for recording case information on the
DLS database does not record some needed information when she receives
the hearing packet the first time. Instead, she only records names and
addresses, then passes the packet to a temporary worker for additional
processing. This worker then passes it back to the original clerk, at which
time she records the hearing date and time. Because the hearing date is not
recorded on the database at the same time the names and addresses are
recorded, there is potential risk that hearing dates will not be recorded and
notices will not be mailed timely when files are misplaced, forgotten or lost.
(See steps 4 through 6 on Appendix I).
We discussed changes to the procedures of recording case and hearing
information on the database with an official and suggested recording all
information at one time before passing the file to the temporary worker. As
a result of that discussion, officials told us they have changed intake
procedures so that, as of September 2008, the data entry clerk will record all
case information at the same time.

Improvements
Needed In Training

Discussions with hearing officers disclosed that 9 of 13 hearing officers (69

percent) did not believe they received adequate training when they were
hired. According to hearing officers, training consisted of observing other
officers conducting hearings, practicing writing hearing decisions based on
observations, and asking questions of other hearing officers. One of the
hearing officers also told us he had been given statutes to review that
governed child support law.
According to clerical staff, their training had been verbal, on-the-job
training. They did not receive a policies and procedures manual until June
2008. For example, one clerk told us when she started working at the DLS
she did not receive any job expectations or formal training. Instead, she said
her training consisted of on-the-job training and her ability to ask questions.
Another clerk, that started her position in mid-June 2008, told us she has
approximately 2,700 final decisions to record on the MACSS. However, as
of July 31, 2008, she had not received training on the MACSS, so decision
information for those 2,700 hearings has not been recorded on the MACSS.
Sound business practices dictate that division officials provide an adequate

13

A hearing packet consists of documents and records child support personnel prepare and
send to the DLS when an administrative hearing is requested.

Page 16

training program for employees. In discussing training for hearing officers,

an official provided information which showed one official had been in
charge of training new hearing officers during 2007, and set up a training
program for the division. However, that individual left the DLS in
November 2007, and the training responsibility was transferred to another
official that relied more on informal training. For example, new hires would
read statutes, practice writing decisions, and observe actual hearings. In
March 2008, officials decided to start a mentoring program in which new
hearing officers were assigned to more experienced hearing officers for
guidance and questions.

Conclusions

The DLS has not ensured child support administrative hearings have been
scheduled, held, and completed in a timely manner. The DLS workload has
increased significantly since 2006 and at current staffing levels, DLS
personnel have not kept up with the workload or significantly reduced the
backlog of unwritten decisions. As a result, parents who requested
administrative hearings are currently waiting 4 to 5 months for a hearing to
occur and, in some cases, over 2 years for the written results of the hearings.
Therefore, a custodial parent may not be receiving child support payments
and/or a non-custodial parent may be waiting for an adjustment in child
support owed. In September 2008, the DLS reduced the number of
scheduled enforcement hearings from 5 to 4 a day for hearing officers which
should allow hearing officers more time to write decisions. However, that
action will likely result in further delays before hearings can occur.
Although the DLS has increased the number of hearing officers since 2006,
the time to complete hearings and mail decisions has increased. DLS
personnel and officials believe more hearing officers and clerical staff are
needed. However, officials may not have adequately considered other
options suggested by staff that could possibly help in coping with the
increased workload.
Personnel and officials recognize the workload for clerical staff has
increased and rebalance workloads when clerks are not available or leave
employment. Officials also use temporary clerks to supplement clerical staff
and want to hire two additional clerks. However, officials have not
conducted a workload analysis for clerks in order to determine all duties
clerks perform. The analysis could be used to determine whether additional
changes should be made to ensure uniform and efficient procedures are in
place and/or whether additional clerks are needed.
The lack of updated, formal policies and procedures manuals for hearing
officers and clerical staff has also contributed to the DLS' inability to
conduct and complete administrative hearings in a timely manner. Prior to

Page 17

June 2008, officials assumed hearing officers were aware of policies and
procedures contained in a training manual. However, hearing officers
generally were not aware that document served as a policies and procedures
manual. The DLS updated and distributed policies and procedures manuals
in June 2008. However, those procedures did not address some weaknesses
noted during our audit. We also found the DLS has not established formal
procedures to account for case files and as a result, case files have been lost
and hearings delayed or not held. All changes to policies and procedures
should be incorporated in the DLS manuals for future reference.
The DLS also needs to improve its training program. The DLS should
evaluate its informal training program and establish a formal training
program. Doing so would help ensure personnel know procedures and
processes used by the DLS and help ensure more timely processing of
administrative hearing requests.

Recommendations

We recommend the Director of the Department of Social Services:

2.1 Evaluate staffing levels needed, methods to reduce employee turnover,
and other options suggested by DLS staff, to improve the overall
timeliness of the hearing process and eliminate the backlog of pending
cases.
2.2 Establish timeframes for scheduling hearings.
2.3 Conduct a workload analysis of clerical duties in order to ensure all
duties and activities are identified and to establish appropriate clerical
staffing levels.
2.4 Ensure all procedures are included in policies and procedures manuals
and establish formal procedures to account for case files.
2.5 Evaluate methods to improve training and develop a formal training
program for personnel.

Agency Comments

The Department of Social Services provided the following response:

2.1 The department agrees with the auditor's recommendation.
As the auditor noted, the number of requests to the DLS for child
support hearings has increased in recent years. In response, the
department more than doubled the number of hearing officers dedicated
to holding child support hearings.

Page 18

What is not clearly set out in the audit is that in addition to holding
child support hearings, the hearing officers must write a legal decision
in each case and review an almost equal number of decisions written by
other hearing officers. The decisions rendered by the hearing officers
are equivalent in nature to judicial decisions issued by a court, and
therefore, each hearing officer must engage in substantive legal
analysis. Just as the legal decision is important, having each decision
reviewed prior to its being issued is necessary to the process of ensuring
correct and accurate decisions. The review process helps to ensure the
integrity of the entire process and results in a very low number of the
decisions being rejected by the courts.
Turnover has hindered progress in addressing the backlog. As the
auditor notes, there was a turnover rate of 25 percent between June
2006 and September 2007. Not only does turnover disrupt scheduling
and delay the completion of hearings, productivity suffers from
resources being diverted to the recruiting, hiring and training process.
Newly hired attorneys need time for their productivity to increase to
that of their experienced peers.
Starting salaries are modestly competitive with other state agencies,
and are well behind compensation offered in the private sector. In short,
often young attorneys hired into the DLS can parlay their experience
into more attractive employment opportunities outside of the
department. The DLS has implemented flexible work scheduling for its
hearing officers to allow them to better balance the unique demands of
managing a hearing docket and rendering decisions. It is hoped that
this will be seen as an attractive benefit to hearing officer employment,
as well as a tool that will help hearing officers manage their dockets
more efficiently.
Promoting efficient workflow processes increases productivity, reduces
stress caused by backlogged schedules and reduces turnover through
increased job satisfaction. The DLS has conducted various workflow
analyses over the past two years, but will conduct another thorough
work flow analysis to recommend changes that will optimize efficient
handling of the large number of hearing requests, cases opened,
hearings held and decisions written, reviewed and issued.
Today, the DLS has a cadre of skillful and capable attorneys under a
new management and team structure, supervised by new managers.
These teams are making steady progress towards reducing the backlog
created by the significant increase in the number of cases. The turnover
that accompanied the increase in caseload has moderated, although it

Page 19

remains a condition that must be carefully managed. Productivity

across the unit is increasing and is well positioned to take maximum
advantage of the workflow improvements we expect to discern from the
workflow analysis.
2.2 The department agrees with this recommendation and the DLS already
implemented this as of July 2008. Guidelines have been set and are
being used by staff responsible for scheduling.
2.3 The department agrees with this recommendation. As noted in our
response to recommendation 2.1, a workflow analysis will be included
in every aspect of the hearing process, including all clerical functions
as recommended.
2.4 The department agrees with this recommendation. The DLS has a
current procedures and training manual for all positions (attorneys and
clerical). The DLS has also established set procedures for updating the
manual as necessary.
Ongoing improvements in procedures for managing case files will be
incorporated into the manual as appropriate.
2.5 The department agrees with this recommendation. The DLS presently
trains its hearing officers and support staff by use of the following
methods:
HEARING OFFICER TRAINING
The first step is to provide the new hearing officers a copy of the Child
Support Hearing Officer Manual, which they are to read and review.
This provides a general overview of the Administrative Hearings
Section. Additionally, new child support hearing officers are provided
copies and cites to the applicable Missouri statutes, as well as the
templates used for all of the different types of hearings conducted. New
hearing officers are instructed in the reading, reviewing and
comprehension of the Directions, Comments for Use and Examples for
Completion of Form No. 14. (Child Support Guidelines issued by the
Missouri Supreme Court). New hearing officers are trained in the use of
all applicable computer programs and equipment, such as the headset
and digital recorder necessary to conduct and write hearing decisions.
To further facilitate the new hearing officer's understanding of the
position, each is assigned a mentor to whom questions can be asked
regarding all applicable aspects of the position. The mentor is one of
the more experienced hearing officers in the office. New hearing

Page 20

officers observe their mentor's hearings and assist them in reviewing

and writing decisions in order to gain an understanding of the process.
When the new hearing officers begin to conduct their own hearings,
they can bring questions or issues to their mentor, as well as the
managing attorneys.
New hearing officers also observe other hearing officers' hearings to
see the different approach and styles taken regarding hearings. New
hearing officers observe hearings for at least two weeks before they
conduct their own. Also, before beginning to conduct their own
hearings, new hearing officers are required to read and review several
decisions written by other hearing officers for content and style to gain
an understanding of how decisions are written. When hearing officers
begin to conduct their own hearings, they begin gradually with only one
hearing per day for the first week. As they gain confidence and
experience, new hearing officers move to two per day, then three, and
finally a full docket of four hearings per day. The DLS's annual
Continuing Legal Education offerings include job specific offerings on
all subjects, such as court cases, legislative changes, and changes to the
hearing process.
SUPPORT STAFF TRAINING
Presently, new members of the support staff (clerical) are presented
with the child support manual designed for the support staff to read and
review. They are presented a form for his or her signature stating that
they have been given the manual and have read it. The manual remains
available to all clerical for purposes of reference and review.
The clerical is assigned a mentor (another member of the support staff)
with whom to train. The new worker will shadow the mentor for two
days. During this two day period, the mentor will train him or her on
typing decisions, answering telephones, mailing decisions, logging data
into the database, filing, typing and reviewing transcripts. Due to the
nature of the work, this is on the job training. The Administrative Office
Support Assistant (supervisor) oversees the entire process and routinely
checks for progress and offers assistance whenever needed.
The new worker is also being sent to formal training in areas where
they need to improve their technical skills, as may be identified by the
mentor and the supervisor. In addition, there is formal training in the
use of any computer equipment or systems necessary for their job
performance and training in any automated systems used to gather and
record data and case records.

Page 21

Appendix I

Flowchart of Intake Process

Figure I.1 depicts the DLS's intake process once child support enforcement
staff record a parent's request onto the MACSS, gather applicable records,
and mail the DLS a hearing packet of records.

Figure I.1: Flowchart of

Intake Process

1. A clerk opens mail, date

stamps the hearing requests
and records it on
spreadsheet.
3. The managing attorney
assigns the case to a hearing
officer; sets a date and time
for the hearing; writes the
hearing officer, date and time
on the front of the file folder;
records the hearing
information on an electronic
calendar; manually records
the hearing information in the
scheduling book; and gives
the packet to clerk.

A clerk
clerkrecords
recordsthethe
hearing
6. A
hearing
date,time
timeand
andthe
thedate
date
date,
thethe
notice
notice
beonto
mailed
onto the
will
be will
mailed
the database.
database.
Thehearing
clerk then
She
then prints
notices
prints
hearing
(in
batches)
andnotices
a hearing(in
sheet.
batches)
hearingShe
sheets.
She
mails and
the notices.
puts a
The clerk
thenotice
notices
copy
of themails
hearing
and the
and putssheet
a copy
ofcase
the file,
hearing
hearing
in the
and
noticeit and
the
hearingHearing
sheet in
gives
to the
assigned
the case file,
andassistant.
gives it to
Officers
clerical
the assigned hearing officers
clerical assistant.

Page 22

2. A clerk looks for the

family violence indicator on
the MACSS, and marks on
the information packet if
there is a history of family
violence. The file is then
given to the managing
attorney for scheduling.

4. A clerk records the

names, addresses and
attorney information on the
database. The packet is then
given to a temporary worker.

5. The temporary worker

prepares a file folder for
documents, writes the
hearing officers name, and
the date and time of the
hearing on the front of the
folder. The temporary
worker then prints labels and
affixes to the front of the
file. The file is returned to
the clerk.

Appendix I

7. The clerical assistant files

the file folder. The week before
the hearing, the assistant gives
the folder(s) to the hearing
officer.
If the hearing officer is
domiciled out-of-town, the
clerical assistant is required to
create a duplicate file, making
copies of all documents in the
file. The assistant then boxes up
the original files and mails to
the hearing officer. The copies
are kept at the clerical
assistants desk. Files are
mailed to one hearing officer
each week (25 files), and files
for the other hearing officer (50
files) are mailed every 2 weeks.

8. The hearing officer

receives the case files for
upcoming hearings, and
reviews each file to ensure all
necessary documents are in
the file before the day of the
hearing.
Anytime before the hearing,
the parties may submit (by
mail or fax) documents or
records which are to be placed
in the file prior to the hearing.

Source: Flowchart developed based on discussions with DLS personnel.

Page 23

Appendix II

Flowchart of Processes Used From the

Hearing Date to the Date the Decision Is
Mailed
Figure II.1 depicts the flow of processes used from the hearing date to the
date the DLS' decision is mailed.
Figure II.1: Flowchart of
Processes Used From the
Hearing Date to the Date
the Decision Is Mailed

1. A hearing officer reviews the file

2. A hearing officer drafts the decision

contents prior to conducting the hearing.

using a template developed for the different

An electronic record is made of hearing

types of decisions.

proceedings.
If a significant amount of time has passed
since the hearing, or another hearing officer
3. The clerical assistant prints the decision

is assigned to write the decision (in cases of

(which until now is in an electronic format) and

terminations or extended illnesses) the

gives it and the case file to the reviewers

hearing officer will likely need to listen to

clerical assistant to give to the reviewer.

the electronic tape of the proceedings. The

hearing officer gives the completed

For an out-of-town hearing officer, decisions

decision to a clerical assistant.

are mailed to their clerical assistant in the

Jefferson City office, who then passes the
decision to the reviewers clerical assistant.
4. The reviewers clerical assistant gives the hard
copy decision and case file to the reviewer. The
5. The clerical assistant then gives the reviewed

reviewer has 3 days to complete his/her review,

decision and case file back to the hearing

and make comments or suggestions. The reviewer

officer for corrections or edits, if necessary.

may informally discuss the comments/suggestions

After making corrections/edits, if any, on the

with the hearing officer.

hard copy the hearing officer gives the decision

back to the clerical assistant to make

After reviewing, the reviewer signs and dates the

corrections/edits on the electronic version.

tracking sheet on the front of the file, then gives it

back to his/her clerical assistant to pass back to the
hearing officers clerical assistant.

6. The clerical assistant makes appropriate

changes, if any, to the electronic version of the
decision and prints and returns it to the hearing
officer to sign and date. The hearing officer
then sends the decision back to the clerical

One hearing officer told us when he serves as the

reviewer he personally hand-delivers the decision
and comments back to the hearing officer,
bypassing all clerical staff.

assistant to be mailed. The hearing officers

clerical assistant is supposed to record decision
information on the database.
7. The clerical assistant enters the decision
Once decisions are mailed, the hearing
officers clerical assistant prints a "MACSS
MAILED" report and gives to another clerk.

Source: SAO flowchart based on discussions with DLS staff.

Page 24

details on the MACSS.