text:
NEA imposes stricter rules for funeral parlours so no body mix-up happens again
Following a blunder by a funeral parlour early this month, the National Environment Agency (NEA) announced that stricter rules will be imposed on licensed parlour operators. Some of the rules include the usage of body identification tags which has the name and sex of the deceased.
Additionally, licensed operators have to also make sure that embalming rooms and areas used to temporarily keep the bodies are always locked, and limited access given to only authorised staff members, TODAY reported.
On 3 January (Friday), the license of a funeral parlour Century Products was suspended and the parlour set to be charged in court after a mix-up resulted in the wrong body being cremated.
It was earlier reported by the Straits Times that 82-year-old Kee Kin Tiong was wrongly cremated on 30 December last year ahead of his funeral rites.
This happened after an employee of funeral director Harmony Funeral Care made an error by thinking that Kee's body was the deceased family member of another client when collecting it from the embalming room of Century Products.
NEA has issued a notice to suspend the license of Century Products, where they revealed the premises had not kept proper records of the received or removed remains.
On the other hand, Harmony Funeral Care has been barred from using government after-death facilities at Mandai Crematorium and Chua Chu Crematorium and Cemetery.
Following this incident, NEA sent out the detailed guidelines in a circular on Friday (10 January) to 22 licensed parlours with embalming facilities.
In the circular, TODAY stated that NEA's director-general of public health Chew Ming Fai said that the mix-up event shows the need to strengthen procedures when it comes to handling bodies by all parties involved.
"As a licensed funeral parlour, it is your responsibility to ensure that bodies received into the premises are properly accounted for, without mix-up, and are handled in a dignified and respectful manner," Mr Chew said.
He added that licensees should spread the information on the guidelines to all staff members and funeral director who use their premises.
"NEA will conduct further follow-up inspections to check on compliance, starting from (this) week."
Guidelines by NEA
According to NEA, before and after the body arrives, the funeral parlours have to ensure a few things. First, to make sure that there's enough space in the embalming facility to accept a body for embalming or preparation before burial or cremation.
Secondly, to have identification tags with name and sex of the deceased person, the name of the funeral company that brought it in, and services needed for the body like washing and embalming. All the information written on the tag must be in English, and it has to be attached securely to the body at all times. Licensees must also have a system in place to identify each body when it arrives at the parlour until it departs.
Thirdly, the licensee or an employee of the licensed parlour must always be present when a body is taken to the premises, and keep record all the details of the body in a register, as per the Environmental Public Health (Funeral Parlours) Regulation. Some of the required details under the regulations include, name, address, age and sex of the deceased, as well as the date, place and cause of death.
If that's not all, licensees have to be sure that the embalming room and the space allocated to temporarily hold bodies are locked at all times, and limited access be given to only authorised employees.
Additionally, no other bodies should be kept in the embalming room when a deceased person's family comes into the room for ritual washing. If this is not possible, licensed parlours have to ensure that there's at least a partition or screen is in place to uphold the dignity of the deceased and of other clients.
Besides that, licensees have also have proper spaces – that's away of public view – when holding bodies before and after embalming.
Only competent embalmers must be engaged by the licensed operator. These embalmers should maintain a register of all embalmers working on the premises.
Lastly, when it comes to releasing the body, the licensed parlours must have a proper system to check that the right body is being handed over. The licensee or an employee must always be there in person when the body is taken out of the parlour, and this must be recorded in the register.
PrevPreviousRain offers hope in Australian bushfire fight
NextFlood-hit Jakarta residents sue over deadly disasterNext


text:
package org.allenai.common

/** A specific version of a component in AI2. This fully-describes a running system - it contains
  * enough information to re-deploy the version that generated the ComponentId instance.
  * @param name a human-readable name of the component
  * @param version the version of the component that was running
  */
case class ComponentId(name: String, version: Version)

object ComponentId {
  import spray.json.DefaultJsonProtocol._
  implicit val componentIdJsonFormat = jsonFormat2(ComponentId.apply)
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) is part of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The mission of ACF is to promote the economic and social well-being of children, families, youth, and communities.
The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Program is a Federal/State/Tribal/local partnership that operates under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. The program functions in all States and several Territories and Tribes. These programs are operated primarily through State or county Social Services Departments, Attorneys General Offices, or Departments of Revenue. The program's mission is to enhance the well-being of children by assuring that assistance in obtaining support, including financial and medical support, is available to children through locating parents, establishing paternity and support obligations, and monitoring and enforcing those obligations. In recent years, the program has shifted its primary focus from welfare cost reimbursement to family support, increasing the amount of support payments passed on to families and improving the program's effectiveness in obtaining reliable support for children.
During FY 2009, child support payments of nearly $26.4 billion were collected and distributed; expenditures totaled about $5.8 billion; the total caseload of custodial parents seeking support was 15.8 million; over 1.8 million paternities were established or acknowledged; and 1.3 million support orders were established.
FY 2009 was the final year of the FY 2005-2009 National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan. In addition to establishing the major focus of the CSE program on ensuring that child support is a reliable source of income for children and families, major objectives of the FY 2005-2009 Strategic Plan included ensuring that all children have established parentage, support orders, and medical coverage, and receive financial support from both parents, as ordered. Also among the major objectives were: ensuring the IV-D Program is operated in a cost-effective manner; preventing accumulation of child support arrears through early intervention when a non custodial parent becomes delinquent; and ensuring that accountability and commitment in measuring performance is maintained and strengthened through the use of program performance indicators. In FY2009, States continued to make progress in meeting these goals and objectives. However, the CSE Program did experience a decrease in child support collections for the first time in its history largely attributed to the downturn in the American economy.
The Child Support Enforcement Performance-Based Incentive and Penalty System is used to reward States for good or improved performance and to impose penalties when State performance falls below a specified level and has not improved. The Performance-Based Incentive and Penalty System measures State levels of performance in the following five program areas: paternity establishment; cases with support orders; collection of current support; collection of arrears; and cost-effectiveness. In FY 2009, 51 States/Territories received an incentive payment for meeting all five performance measures.
Penalties are assessed when a State's measured level of performance in paternity establishment, support order establishment, or current collections falls below the specified level, or when a State's data used to compute incentive measures are found to be incomplete or unreliable, or when a State is not in compliance with certain Federal child support requirements. No State/Territory received a penalty for any of these reasons for FY 2009.
State child support agencies must submit approvable State plans describing the nature and scope of the respective State's CSE program. In FY 2009, States submitted State plans certifying compliance with the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.
The OCSE Office of Audit performs Data Reliability Audits (DRAs) to evaluate the completeness, accuracy, security, and reliability of data reported and produced by State reporting systems. DRAs help ensure that incentives are earned and paid on the basis of verifiable data only and that the incentive payment system is fair and equitable. In FY 2009, 51 States/Territories and jurisdictions passed the DRAs.
OCSE is also required to evaluate the adequacy of each State program's financial management. Findings from cost audits for which a final report was issued in FY 2009 included unallowable non-IV-D costs claimed for reimbursement for one State in the amount of $499,630.
The Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) including the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH), was established by Congress in 1996 for the primary purpose of assisting State Child Support agencies in locating parents and enforcing child support orders. Since 1996, Congress has authorized certain State and Federal agencies to receive information from the NDNH for authorized purposes. In addition to the NDNH, the FPLS includes two other data bases supporting OCSE business processes, allowing OCSE to improve its performance and achieve its goals. These data bases are the Federal Case Registry of Child Support Orders, which consists of child support case and participant information from 54 States and Territories, and the Federal Offset System (FOS), which contains data certified by States regarding the amount of past-due child support owed by noncustodial parents.
NDNH W-4 (Employee Withholding Allowance Certificate) data matches resulted in national child support collections of approximately $386 million, through income withholding request sent by State Child Support agencies to employers.
The FPLS FOS collected $2.2 billion in past-due child support.
State Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) agencies avoided at least $2.9 million in erroneous costs by using NDNH data in the states that utilized the data.
The Financial Management Service debt program yielded additional collections of over $1 million over just the final months of FY 2009 after adding NDNH as a resource.
Comprehensive Tribal Child Support Programs provide full child support services including: establishment of paternity and support orders; modification and enforcement of support orders; collection and distribution of support; and location of noncustodial and custodial parents and their assets. Start-up Tribal programs in the developmental stages of operation do not meet the requirements for being considered Comprehensive.
In FY 2009, four Tribal Start-up programs became comprehensive, increasing the total number of comprehensive programs to 36. These 36 comprehensive programs collected and distributed over $19 million in child support payments to families and forwarded almost $5 million to other States and Tribes during FY 2009.
In the International Child Support Program, foreign countries agree to provide child support services cost-free upon request from another country via reciprocating agreements. In FY 2009, the United States (U.S.) completed one foreign reciprocating agreement with Israel and published two "Caseworker Guides for Processing Cases with Foreign Reciprocating Countries", featuring El Salvador and Switzerland. During this fiscal year, representatives from the U.S. also participated in the International Heads of Child Support Agencies Meeting held in the United Kingdom.
Section 1115(a) of the Social Security Act provides OCSE with the authority to fund demonstration grants to test and evaluate new policies and practices intended to improve OCSE program operations. As part of the ACF Healthy Marriage Initiative, OCSE awarded 15 Section 1115 waiver and demonstration grants to fund Community Healthy Marriage projects. In addition to Section 1115 waiver and demonstration grants, OCSE also issues Special Improvement Project (SIP) Grants that provide funding for projects that further the child support mission and help improve program performance. In FY 2009, OCSE awarded 30 Section 1115 projects for $2.35 million and four SIP grants totaling $378,381.
Grants to States for the Access and Visitation (AV) Program (42 U.S.C. 699(b)) were authorized by Congress through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996. The statutory goal of the program is to enable States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parents' access to and visitation of their children. Since its inception in FY 1996, $10 million has been appropriated each year to be allocated among the States for the Access and Visitation Program, with each State required to contribute 10 percent of total program costs.
Program initiatives and collaborations continued to be essential to the successful fulfillment of OCSE's mission of reaching a larger population of children and families with more comprehensive services during FY 2009 as OCSE partnered with the Office of Family Assistance, the Department of Labor, Department of Justice, Department of Veteran Affairs, and States to implement strategies to increase collections and improve services provided to children and families.
During FY 2009, OCSE maintained a Web site that provided child support professionals and the public with easy access to and search capability of a significant amount of information about the OCSE Program online. OCSE responded via e-mail, telephone and/or in-writing to thousands of customer, Congressional, and White House case inquiries and requests for information. OCSE also operated the National Reference Center, which: responded to requests for child support publications; published the Child Support Report monthly newsletter; and provided culturally appropriate services through its newly produced online Hispanic Child Support Resource Center and DVD Toolkit designed for Hispanic outreach, partnership development, and training.
I am pleased to present the 30th Annual Report to Congress on the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Program, providing the program's status, highlighting its accomplishments achieved during FY 2009.
FY 2009 marked the culmination of the fifth and final year of the FY 2005-2009 National CSE Strategic Plan, which helped to establish the direction and focus of program priorities and resources during this time. Overall, continued progress was made toward achieving the goals and objectives of this plan, including those related to ensuring that all children in the CSE Program receive financial support from both parents.
As in previous years, in FY 2009, the program focused on ensuring that child support payments were collected and distributed quickly and appropriately to children and families and that these payments continued to serve as a reliable source of income for those who depended upon them to meet their daily needs. At the same time, the program also carried out a variety of innovative grant programs and research activities designed to work towards preventing the need for child support, engaging fathers from birth, increasing economic stability, building healthy relationships, increasing health coverage, and reducing family violence. These activities reflect the program's ongoing shift from its law enforcement and welfare cost-recovery origins toward a more holistic family support approach.
However, the program was not without challenges, most of which resulted from a downturn in the American economy and corresponding reductions in child support collections, expenditures, and full time equivalent staff. In FY 2009, total distributed child support collections decreased to $26.4 billion from $26.6 billion in FY 2008. This was the first annual decrease in distributed collections in the history of the CSE Program.
In spite of these challenges, our commitment to children in the child support caseload remains strong and we will continue to collaborate with States, jurisdictions, Tribes, and our other partners to ensure that progress in the CSE Program is sustained and parents are held responsible for the financial support of their dependent children.
The OCSE Program is a Federal/State/Tribal/local partnership that operates under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. The program functions in all States and several Territories and Tribes. These programs are operated primarily through State or county Social Services Departments, Attorneys General Offices, or Departments of Revenue. The program's mission is to enhance the well-being of children by assuring that assistance in obtaining support, including financial and medical support, is available to children through locating parents, establishing paternity and support obligations, and monitoring and enforcing those obligations. In recent years, the program has shifted its primary focus from welfare cost reimbursement to family support, increasing the amount of support payments passed on to families and improving the program's effectiveness in obtaining reliable support for children.
Families receiving aide as part of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program are required to assign their support rights to the State as a condition of receipt of assistance. Assignments also are secured on behalf of children placed in foster care and receiving foster care maintenance payments under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act "where appropriate". Families receiving Medicaid are required to assign their rights to medical support to the State as a condition of receipt of Medicaid. In addition, any other parent or person with custody of a child who has a parent living outside of the home in need of child support enforcement services may apply for those services at their local child support enforcement agency.
The OCSE Program distributes over 90 percent of collections directly to children and families. In families that have never received TANF, the program forwards collections directly to the custodial family. For families that receive TANF assistance, States have the option to distribute assigned collections to families or to retain them to reimburse the State and Federal Government for the costs of the public assistance provided. In addition, the State may also retain assigned support collected through the Federal tax offset process on behalf of families that used to receive assistance.
In FY 2009, OCSE continued the recent trend of broadening the program's reach to new partners, customers, and stakeholders while at the same time maintaining focused efforts on the CSE Program's core mission – collecting support for children and families.
Child support payments of nearly $26.4 billion were collected and distributed; expenditures totaled about $5.8 billion; caseloads increased to 15.8 million; over 1.8 million paternities were established or acknowledged; and 1.3 million support orders were established.
FY 2009 was the final year of the 2005-2009 National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan, which was the product of effective collaboration among OCSE, States, and jurisdictions. Several themes articulated in the Strategic Plan sharpened the program's focus over this time. For example, the Strategic Plan recognizes that families come first. Also, it stresses various crucial needs of children and includes among its major goals: ensuring that all children have established parentage, support orders, and medical coverage; ensuring that all children receive financial support from parents, as ordered; and ensuring that the CSE Program is efficient and responsive in its operations. The FY 2005-2009 Strategic Plan also underscored the importance of preventing the build-up of unpaid child support through early intervention rather than traditional debt threshold-based enforcement and stressed the importance of accountability and a commitment to measuring program performance through performance indicators.
The FY 2005-2009 National Child Support Strategic Plan also included performance indicators to measure the program's success in achieving the goals and objectives. OCSE's Performance-Based Incentive and Penalty Systems takes into account State program performance levels, and States performing above a certain level merit an incentive payment, while States performing below a certain level receive a penalty. The better a State performs, the larger its incentive payments. It also is possible for a State to receive neither an incentive payment nor a penalty. Incentives are rewarded for good or significantly improved performance, while penalties are imposed if performance is poor and has not improved.
The performance-based incentive system measures State performance in five program areas: 1) paternity establishment; 2) cases with support orders; 3) collections on current support; 4) collection on arrears; and 5) cost-effectiveness. The performance-based penalty system measures State performance in three of these areas: 1) paternity establishment; 2) cases with support orders; and 3) collections on current support.
Since 1975, the Federal Government has paid incentives each year to State CSE programs to encourage improvement in child support collections through adhering to efficient establishment and enforcement techniques. The current performance-based incentive system was mandated by the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act (CSPIA) of 1998.
Fifty-one States/Territories received an incentive payment for meeting the requirements of all five performance measures. One State did not meet the cost-effectiveness performance measure and hence received an incentive payment based on four performance measures.
As mentioned earlier, penalties may be assessed when the level of performance for any of the three penalty measures (paternity establishment, support order establishment, or current collections) fails to achieve a specified level, when a State's data used to compute incentive measures are found to be incomplete or unreliable, or when a State is not in compliance with certain child support requirements. When any of these conditions occur, there is an automatic corrective action year. The corrective action year is the fiscal year immediately following the year of the deficiency. If the State's data are determined complete and reliable and the related performance is adequate for the corrective action year, the penalty is not imposed.
If the corrective action was unsuccessful, the financial penalty is imposed as a reduction to the State's TANF block grant. The penalty amount is calculated as one to two percent of the adjusted State Family Assistance Grant (SFAG) for the TANF program for the first year of the deficiency. The penalty amount increases, up to five percent, for each consecutive year the State's data are found to be incomplete or unreliable, or the State's performance on a penalty measure fails to attain the specified level of performance.
Seven States received congratulatory letters for showing an improvement of two to six percentage points over FY 2008. Two States showed a deficiency related to paternity establishment percentage (PEP) and will have one corrective action year to correct the deficiency. One State showed a deficiency related to arrearage collections.
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). ARRA temporarily reinstated longstanding authority eliminated by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) that allowed States to claim Federal matching funds on program expenditures made with performance incentive payments. This temporary reinstatement of matching authority was effective October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2010. Funds distributed to the State child support agencies as a result of ARRA were used for the program costs of carrying out the OCSE Program.
In addition, ARRA provided a one-time economic recovery payment (ERP) of $250 to an estimated 60 million recipients of Social Security (SSA), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Railroad Retirement Benefits (RRB), and Veterans' Disability Compensation or Pension Benefits. Treasury's Financial Management Service (FMS) certifies and issues these payments. Through the offset of 452,514 ERP payments, child support agencies collected $111,689,930 in delinquent child support collections, boosting child support collection rates in 2009.
As a condition of receiving Federal Financial Participation (FFP) funding, the State child support agency must submit an approvable State Plan describing the nature and scope of its CSE Program. The State Plan consists of preprinted pages and related attachments, and contains all the information necessary for OCSE to determine whether it can be approved.
The authority to approve State Plans is delegated to the Regional Offices, but the Commissioner of OCSE retains the authority for determining that a State's child support plan is not approvable.
Distribute child support arrearages in former assistance cases to families first.
Partly due to State budget deficits, only one State has taken up the option of 100 percent family distribution by implementing all of the options. Twenty-one States implemented a pass-through; fifteen States eliminated older pre-assistance arrearages; and eight States implemented multiple options. Currently, seventy-four percent of the States have implemented at least one of the distribution options.
Federal auditors' assessment of data reliability is a critical means to assuring that both incentives and penalties are based on accurate State-reported data. This is an important control, not only for the expenditure of Federal funds, but also for ensuring the fairness of the system.
The passage of the PRWORA in 1996 changed the direction and emphasis of audits of State CSE programs conducted by OCSE. Legislative requirements now emphasize performance and outcomes rather than the pre-PRWORA requirements that focused on processing and taking actions on child support cases. Beginning in FY 2000, as required by the CSPIA, States began receiving financial incentives based on meeting or exceeding standards for each of five performance measures related to paternity and order establishment, child support collections, and cost-effectiveness.
These five performance measures are evaluated using data that States report to the Federal Government. The OCSE Office of Audit performs Data Reliability Audits (DRAs) to evaluate the completeness, accuracy, security, and reliability of these data reported and produced by State reporting systems. The DRAs help ensure that incentives are earned and paid on the basis of verifiable data only and that the incentive payment system is fair and equitable. Fifty-one States/Territories and jurisdictions passed the DRAs/Data Reliability Results (DRRs) in FY 2009.
OCSE also is required by Section 452(a)(4)(C)(ii) of the Social Security Act to evaluate the adequacy of the financial management of each State's CSE program. Specifically, OCSE is mandated to perform reviews of expenditures claimed by States for Federal reimbursement. The primary objectives of such a cost audit are to determine whether child support costs claimed by the State for Federal reimbursement are allowable, allocable, and reasonable, and to ensure that States bear their fair share of child support costs. Financial audits are performed after the DRAs are completed, to the extent that time and resources are available, before beginning the next fiscal year's DRAs. Findings from cost audits for which a final report was issued in FY 2009 included unallowable non-IV-D costs claimed for reimbursement for one State in the amount of $499,630.
Automation is critical to the operation and success of the CSE Program. OCSE has developed an approach to automation that provides both a national and State-specific focus. At the national level, the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) plays a crucial role in helping OCSE fulfill its mission in assisting States to secure the financial support upon which millions of our nation's children depend, and contributes to an increase in the overall effectiveness and performance of the CSE Program. OCSE works closely with State and Tribal child support agencies in support of their automation efforts. Federal and State child support automated systems are interdependent. Statewide CSE systems receive valuable locate and enforcement information from the FPLS, but the effective use of this information depends upon the level of automation in these statewide systems. Without the technology and the technical assistance OCSE provides, the CSE Program would not be able to accomplish its mission and provide its services.
Since its inception, the CSE Program has used information available through the FPLS to locate parents who have financial obligations and to collect and distribute money to children who depend on parental financial support for food, shelter, education, medical care and other needs. The FPLS has been continually refined and expanded to support ongoing congressional mandates and provide continuous service improvement to benefit both State and Federal partners. This effort, known as FPLS Continuous Service Improvement (CSI), is focused on improving the quality, consistency, and efficiency of data; improving interstate communication; and providing additional resources for the establishment and enforcement of child support.
The Federal Case Registry of Child Support Orders (FCR) consists of child support case and participant information from 54 States and Territories. At the end of FY 2009, the FCR contained over 19.6 million cases and included participant information on more than 45 million individuals.
The National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) contains employment and unemployment information collected from 54 States and Territories and from all Federal agencies.
The Federal Offset System (FOS) contains data certified by States regarding the amount of past-due child support owed by noncustodial parents. The FOS interfaces with: the Department of Treasury's Financial Management Service (FMS) to offset tax refunds and other Federal payments (up to the amount certified by State CSE agencies); the Department of State to deny issuance of passports to delinquent noncustodial parents;and over 4,600 multistate financial institutions to identify noncustodial parents' assets so that States can levy their accounts to collect past-due child support.
NDNH W-4 (Employee Withholding Allowance Certificate) data matches resulted in national child support collections of approximately $386 million through income withholdings sent by State CSE agencies to employers. In tax year 2009, the FPLS FOS collected $2.2 billion in past-due child support.
The Intergovernmental Referral Guide (IRG) provides child support case processing procedures and information from each of the 54 State and Territorial jurisdictions that is used to increase the efficiency of interstate case processing.
The Electronic Income Withholding Order (e-IWO) was designed, developed, and implemented in 2005 by OCSE as a process to enable States to send income withholding orders (IWOs) electronically to employers. In FY 2009, over 100,000 e-IWOs were sent using this application, creating greater efficiencies, time, and cost savings for both States and employers.
The Child Support Enforcement Network (CSENet) is an application that supports the electronic exchange of interstate case requests over a private, closed network, and the exchange of e-IWOs by States directly to the Department of Defense, the largest single employer in the United States.
The Query Interstate Cases for Kids (QUICK) application provides authorized child support personnel in one State with real-time access to financial and case information in another State for purposes of processing the case and providing customer service to parents receiving child support services.
The FPLS was legislatively mandated for the primary purpose of assisting State child support agencies in locating parents and enforcing child support orders. However, Congress also has authorized certain State and Federal agencies to receive information from the NDNH for authorized purposes, primarily to reduce improper payments from public benefit programs.
In addition to its support of the OCSE mission, the FPLS promotes data sharing to improve accurately eligibility determinations, program efficiencies and customer service. Through the NDNH, OCSE maintains a centralized source of employment and location data. Authorized agencies using FPLS data include: Social Security Administration (SSA), Department of Labor (DoL), Department of Education (ED), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Financial Management Service (FMS), State Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) agencies, and State Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs (SNAP).
State TANF agencies avoided at least $2.9 million in erroneous costs by using NDNH data in FY 2009 in the states that utilized the data.
FMS debt program has yielded additional collections of over $1 million since adding the NDNH as a resource in the final months of FY 2009.
SSA estimates annual benefits of approximately $186.1 million in prevented overpayments and adjusted payment amounts in the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program in FY 2009.
To carry out Congressionally-authorized data matching between OCSE and other Federal and State agencies as efficiently and effectively as possible, OCSE has developed standardized data sharing standards and processes for its authorized users. These data sharing initiatives allow legislatively authorized agencies to reduce erroneous payments and overall program costs in public assistance and benefit programs.
Given the caseload and complexity of the OCSE program, automation is an essential tool for the program to meet standards of efficiency and effectiveness. 53 of the 54 States and territories have single statewide OCSE systems that have been certified as meeting the minimum automation requirements of the Uniform Family Support Act of 1988 (UIFSA) and PRWORA of 1996 as set forth in the Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement: A Guide for States. The automation standards used by the States required and recommended data elements that should be exchanged between OCSE agencies and developed an "essentials document" for Tribal automation. This essentials document serves as the basis for the Model Tribal System.
In FY 2009, the Forest County Potawatomi Tribe of Wisconsin began piloting the Model Tribal System for use by Comprehensive Tribal child support grantees. Also, in FY 2009, States continued to replace, update or enhance their statewide OCSE systems that were built on an aging infrastructure that in many cases is no longer being supported. Almost half of the State CSE agencies planned for either major enhancements or replacement of their legacy CSE systems in FY 2009.
The Tribal OCSE Program authorizes direct grants to Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations to operate OCSE Programs. Funding for Tribal IV-D grants is authorized pursuant to 45 CFR, Part 309, Final Rule on Tribal OCSE Programs, published March 30, 2004.
The Tribal OCSE Program oversees Start-up Tribal Programs and Comprehensive Tribal IV-D Programs. Start-Up Tribal Programs are in the developmental stages of operation. These programs have not met the requirements set forth in the Final Rule.
Four Tribal Start-up Programs became Comprehensive, increasing the number of Comprehensive Programs to 36. Over $19 million in child support payments was collected and distributed to families by Comprehensive Programs and almost $5 million was forwarded to other States and Tribes.
Comprehensive Tribal OCSE Programs are fully operational, providing child support services including: establishment of paternity; establishment of support orders; modification and enforcement of support orders; collection and distribution of support; and location of noncustodial and custodial parents and their assets. (See Appendix D for Tribal Accomplishments in FY 2009).
OCSE also participated in the International Heads of Child Support Agencies meeting during FY 2009, which was held in the United Kingdom. Officials from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and the U.S. used this forum to share innovative practices and discuss collaborative efforts to improve international case processing during FY 2009.
Section 1115 (a) of the Social Security Act provides OCSE with the authority to fund demonstration grants to test and evaluate new policies and practices that are intended to improve the operation of the OCSE program. The Special Improvement Project (SIP) grant program also provides funding for projects that further the Child Support mission and goals and help improve program performance.
In FY 2009, Section 1115 grants included awards for: a) projects to avoid increasing child support delinquencies, including strategies to increase collections of current support and reduce arrearages; b) projects that provide family-centered services for unwed parents in the IV-D caseload; c) projects in support of the prisoner reentry initiative; d) projects to address the sudden and prolonged effect of the economic downturn on the IV-D caseload and program operations; e) grants to fund partnerships among OCSE, TANF, and Universities to strengthen families; and f) projects to coordinate and improve medical child support and children's health care coverage provided through medicaid - CHIP coverage.
In FY 2009, SIP grants included awards for: a) implementing an outbound interactive voice response system; b) unifying child welfare and child support court proceedings as well as expanding the use of technology in courts; c) allowing family court judges to court-order non custodial parents into jobs rather than jail; and d) expanding case conferencing statewide to assist parents in their agreement on child support and/or medical support.
OCSE awarded 30 Section 1115 grants for $2,349,785 and four SIP grants totaling $378,381.
ACF in FY 2003 launched the Healthy Marriage Initiative (HMI) targetinglow-income populations around the nation. This initiative consisted of three multi-year demonstration programs – 1) Supporting Healthy Marriages, 2) Building Strong Families, and 3) the Community Healthy Marriage Initiative. Although each demonstration program has a unique set of eligibility criteria and work with families presenting different family structures, each targeted population is introduced to a range of marriage and relationship education, case management services, and referrals to other services as needed. The three demonstration projects together are designed to build in-state networks of providers and community partnerships with the intention of being sustained beyond the period of Federal funding.
As part of the ACF initiative, OCSE awarded 15 Section 1115 waiver demonstrations of the Community Healthy Marriage Initiative to various State IV-D agencies around the nation. The demonstration projects were phased-in starting in FY 2004 and the last of the 15 projects started in FY 2007. Each of these demonstrations last for a period of time from three through five years.
The grants to States for the Access and Visitation (AV) Program (42 U.S.C. 699(b)) was authorized by Congress through passage of PRWORA. The statutory goal of the program is to enable States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parents' access to and visitation of their children by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pick-up), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements. A number of States use their Access and Visitation grant funds to support supervised visitation services for children placed in foster care.
Program initiatives and collaborations continue to be an essential component to successfully fulfilling OCSE's mission of reaching a larger population with more comprehensive services. Collaborations help the program broaden its capacity to blend interrelated issues and help provide a framework for addressing the appropriateness and effectiveness of services provided.
National Judicial/Child Support Enforcement Task Force. The National Judicial/Child Support Enforcement Task Force continued its role in support of increased child support collections through enhanced collaboration between the IV-D and court/judicial communities. Problem solving techniques were applied in child support venues, a new publication, "Setting Appropriate Child Support Orders", was posted on the web site, and modules were developed and tested to aid judges in more efficiently and effectively processing child support cases.
Collaboration Institute. OCSE, Office of Family Assistance (OFA), and the DoL's Employment and Training Administration jointly held a Collaboration Institute for 13 jurisdictions in urban areas. The goal was to strengthen coordination, communication, collaboration, and share promising practices in these cities and counties to develop and enhance integrated service delivery strategies.
Department of Labor/Department of Justice/Child Support Enforcement Prisoner Reentry Initiative. OCSE successfully linked Section 1115 grants to existing Department of Justice and Department of Labor grants in seven States. OCSE grantees will provide child support case management and parenting classes to incarcerated parents in the pre-release setting as well as in reentry.
Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)/Child Support Enforcement Drug Court Initiative. OCSE conducted a national conference call highlighting collaborative efforts between SAMHSA and child support agencies.
Military/Child Support Enforcement Collaboration. OCSE, Department of Defense (DoD), and the Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) continue to collaborate in providing training on military cases for child support case workers and trainers, reaching seven States and three Tribes in FY 2009.
Department of Veterans Affairs/American Bar Association. OCSE partnered with Veterans Affairs (VA) and American Bar Association (ABA) to provide legal child support assistance to veterans experiencing homelessness.
Department of Justice U.S. Administrative Office of the Courts. OCSE participated as a member of the Defendant Offender Workforce Development (DOWD) discussion group, a consortium of Federal agencies that meet on a quarterly basis to address issues surrounding incarceration and reentry issues in the Federal prison system.
Administration for Children and Families Office of Community Services. OCSE joined other program offices within ACF to expand use of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and to promote asset building strategies.
OCSE maintains Web site that provides child support professionals and the public with easy access and search capability to a significant amount of information about the child support program. OCSE also responds, via e-mail, in writing, and on the telephone to thousands of customer, Congressional, and White House case inquiries and requests for program information; operates the National Reference Center that responds to requests for child support publications; provides services to customers and child support professionals in the international and tribal community; and publishes the CSE national newsletter, Child Support Report.
OCSE tailored customer service approaches and provided culturally appropriate services through its newly produced online Hispanic Child Support Resource Center and DVD, "Toolkit Material for Hispanic Outreach, Partnership Development and Training." The Toolkit is readily accessible and assists child support offices, judicial staff, community-based organizations and other partners to extend outreach to the Hispanic community with bilingual customizable materials. A Spanish version of the OCSE Handbook was also designed and distributed to inform Hispanic parents of child support services.
As a result of the impact of the economic downturn, we saw an increase of over 6 percent in the current assistance (TANF) cases during FY 2009. This is the first increase in current assistance cases since we began collecting this data in FY 1999.
*Data does not reflect the number of cases over which States have no jurisdiction as reported on line 3 of the OCSE-157 report.
The total child support caseload increased slightly in FY 2009 to 15.8 million cases compared to the 15.7 million cases in FY 2008. Also, cases with orders slightly increased and cases without orders decreased from the previous fiscal year.
At 8.9 million, the total number of child support cases for which a collection was made in FY 2009 remained unchanged. However, this number slightly decreased in former assistance cases and increased in the never assistance cases, in comparison with the previous year. Collections in current assistance cases were unchanged.
1 Includes in-hospital and other paternities acknowledged. Paternity acknowledgements include an unknown number of acknowledgements for children in the IV-D caseload.
In FY 2009, over 1.8 million paternities were acknowledged - largely through the in-hospital acknowledgement program. In FY 2009, the number of paternities established by IV-D programs increased after steadily declining over the previous four fiscal years.
2 Income withholding includes some collections from non-IV-D families.
3 Other sources include but are not limited to administrative enforcement in interstate (AEI) cases; payments received directly from non-custodial parents; collections received through the IRS' full collection process; collections received as a result of the administrative offset process; and collections received through the Financial Institution Data Match.
More than 67 percent of child support is withheld from employees' paychecks. Even though income withholding continues to be the most effective way of collecting child support, it decreased to $21.4 billion in FY 2009 from $21.9 billion in FY 2008. This is the first time ever that collections through income withholding decreased, as intercepts from employment rates dropped substantially in FY 2009. Intercepts from Unemployment Insurance increased from 634 million in FY 2008 to 1.7 billion in FY 2009, a 160 percent increase.
Tax offset held up to 6 months due to third party spousal claims continues to be the largest source of the undistributed collections by category in FY 2009.
4 Net UDC is the amount of collections that remained undistributed at the end of the previous quarter.
In FY 2009, total expenditures decreased for the first time in the history of the program. This decrease was driven by a 9 percent decrease in State spending, as State tax revenues fell and State budgets ran unprecedented deficits.
Automated Data Processing (ADP) expenditures were $773 million in FY 2009, a decrease of 16.4 percent from FY 2008.
In FY 2009, the number of children in the child support program increased to 17.4 million, an increase of 2.2 percent over the previous year--the first increase since FY 2006.
5 The Number of Unique Persons (NCPs and PFs) Matched is derived by unduplicating SSNs located across all data types (W-4, QW, and UI).
Due to the downturn in the economy, we saw a reduction in the number of new hire and quarterly wage records submitted to the NDNH in FY 2009. This resulted in a 3 percent decrease in the number of unique persons matched.
6 The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 allowed States to certify nearly 1 million additional non-TANF debts in Processing Year (PY) 2008 that were previously not eligible for tax refund offset. It is estimated that this resulted in at least an additional $200 million collected. The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 provided economic stimulus payments of up to $600 ($1,200 if filing a joint return, plus additional amounts for each qualifying child), to be made to over 130 million American households. These payments were eligible for tax refund offset and resulted in an additional $863 million in collections in PY 2008.
7 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided one-time Economic Recovery payments (ERP) of $250 to an estimated 60 million recipients of Social Security (SSA), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Railroad Retirement Benefits (RRB), and Veterans' Disability Compensation or Pension Benefits. These payments were eligible for administrative offset and resulted in an additional $111 million in collections in PY 2009.
The chart above shows a dramatic increase in Federal offset collections in FY 2008, and a dramatic decrease in FY 2009. This trend is due to special payments that were made in fiscal years 2008 and 2009. If these special payments are excluded, there is a 17 percent increase in FY 2008 and a 5 percent increase in FY 2009. See the footnotes below for details on these special payments.
The following matrix highlights some accomplishments of the Tribal ComprehensiveV-D Programs set forth in their narrative reports for FY 2009.
9The Economic Impact Initiative's goal is to determine the root causes of nonpayment of support and to identify proven, successful means of securing regular payments.
10 Undistributed collections that are manually distributed by the finance employee.
11 Includes Federal and State income taxes, bank levies, bench warrant cash bonds, and Worker's Compensation settlements.
Established paternities for 1,936 out of 2,363 children.
Managed a caseload of 3,575; 1,349 were cases with support orders and 1,984 were cases open at the end of the reporting period.
Serviced 250-275 new cases and/or referrals/transfers from other IV-D programs.
Collected and distributed over $2.3 million in current child support.
Implemented a two-year Economic Impact Initiative9, part of an on-going development of a 5 year Strategic Plan.
Collected nearly $98,000 in child support.
Established or acknowledged paternities for 1,650 children.
Mailed approximately 900 applications to new child support applicants. As a result, 443 new cases were opened.
Became a fully comprehensive IV-D program in April 2009.
Received $246,094 thru a grant award for a six month period. The grant award allowed six positions to be filled.
Staff received training in various areas of the program.
Eight cases were transferred from the Tribal Court System to the Tribal Child Support Program.
Became a fully comprehensive IV-D program on October 23, 2008.
Staffing level was increased to six.
Distributed a lump sum payment of $15,000 to a custodial parent.
Established paternity for all 546 children, resulting in a 100 percent paternity rate.
Child support cases consisted of a total of 255 cases; of those cases, 253 had support orders, resulting in a 99.5 percent order establishment rate.
Collected nearly $3 million in child support, an increase of 6.7 percent from FY 2008. $992,700 was collected for other State and Tribal IV-D programs.
Expenditures totaled $641,509 in FY 2009, resulting in a cost effectiveness rate of $5.68.
Was selected as the pilot for the online Model Tribal System and several Tribal staff members were trained on the automated system in February and March in Washington, DC.
Increased caseload by 360 percent from 12 cases when the program opened to 44 cases at the end of the first full year.
Established paternity for 7 children, resulting in a 90 paternity establishment rate.
Established support orders for 75 percent of the cases.
Collected and distributed 70 percent of current support owed and 9.5 percent of past due support.
Established paternity for 3 cases.
Established support orders for 31 cases in Keweenaw Tribal Court.
Attained a current support collection rate of 80 percent.
Expended $220,903 by the end of the fiscal year.
Managed a caseload of 25 cases.
Established paternity for two cases based on DNA testing.
Collected and distributed approximately $6,022 for current support.
Became a comprehensive Tribal IV-D program in October 2008.
Managed a caseload of 58 cases by the end of the fiscal year; 43 of those cases had a support order.
Provided staff training on Tribal IV-D services.
Established paternity for 61 children out of 71 children in open cases.
Made collections in 70 percent of current support cases and 55 percent in arrears cases.
Managed a caseload of 854 cases.
Collected $8,081 from executed warrants.
Collected and distributed $560,029 as current support, which resulted in a collections rate of 76 percent; and $159,581 was collected and distributed as arrears.
Collected and disbursed $374,855 in child support.
Managed a caseload of 539 cases.
Opened 141 new child support cases.
Established 65 new child support orders.
Paternity establishment rate was 106 percent.
Had 1,680 cases open at the end of the fiscal year, of these open cases, 1,467 had support orders that were enforced.
Collected and distributed almost $1.6 million; $1.4 million directly for child support, over $12,000 for medical support, and $185,000 was distributed to assistance reimbursement.
$911,941 was collected from Income Withholding.
Established paternity for 11 children through DNA testing or acknowledgement of paternity.
Established 15 new support orders.
Collected and distributed $115,444 in current support collections.
Collected and distributed $31,672 in past due support collections.
Became a comprehensive Tribal IV-D program in FY 2008.
Disbursed $345,923 in current support which amounted to a 59 percent current support collection rate.
Established paternity for 356 children, which amounted to a 79 percent paternity establishment percentage.
Managed a caseload of 866 cases. Added 367 new cases; 499 cases were transferred from Chickasaw Nation.
Collected $488,776 in current support and $357,546 in past due support, a total of $846,322 in collections.
Paternity was established in 90 percent of transferred or newly filed cases, exceeding the target of 50 percent.
Managed a caseload of 15,992 cases; 695 were State or Tribal TANF and 15,297 were non-TANF.
Had 4,420 cases with support orders.
Established or acknowledged paternities for 10,026 children.
Collected a total of $6,909,550 in child support, a decrease of $822,916.
Became a comprehensive Tribal IV-D program in April 2009.
Based on six months of operation, 47 cases were received by referral or new application; only two sought paternity establishment, collected $3,669 in current support, and collected $18,874 in past due payments.
Became a comprehensive Tribal IV-D program in FY 2009.
Managed a caseload of 131 open cases; 98 cases were Tribal TANF.
Collected $21,945 for current support.
Established or acknowledged 3 paternity cases.
Became a comprehensive Tribal IV-D program on October 7, 2008.
Managed a caseload of 1,855 cases.
Collected $36,101 in FY 2009.
Managed a caseload of 804 cases.
Paternity establishment rate was 87 percent.
Cost effectiveness ratio was $3.08.
Collected close to $900,000 for current support which resulted in a current collection rate of 99 percent.
Managed a caseload of 226 cases.
Expended $462,576 in FY 2009.
Established 181 cases with support orders.
Established paternities for 16 children.
Collected and distributed $372,798 in current support and $126,037 in past due support.
Staff participated in and completed several trainings.
Collected about $3,000 in child support payments.
Collected 75 percent on all child support orders.
Had a 100 percent paternity establishment rate.
Compared to FY 2008, caseload increased by 14 percent in FY 2009.
Collected and distributed $86,365 in current support due and $61,412 in past due support.
Expended $915,981 in FY 2009.
Established paternities for 269 children.
Paternity was established for 200 children.
Collected $577,908 in child support, an increase of 19 percent from FY 2008.
Managed a caseload of more than 754 active cases by the end of the fiscal year.
Established paternities for 163 children and established 94 new support orders.
Collected $39,687 in current support and $50,906 in past due support.
Opened 118 new cases in FY 2009.
Managed a total caseload of 548 cases, 32 cases were opened and closed within the fiscal year leaving a total caseload of 516 open at the end of the fiscal year.
Provided technical assistance and training to several Tribal start-up child support programs.
Managed a caseload of 1,405 cases.
Support orders were established for 1,045 cases.
Paternities were established or acknowledged for 22 children.
Collected and distributed $597,830 in current support.
Total program costs were $866,087.
Managed a caseload of 461 cases.
Established or acknowledged paternities for 10 children.
Collected and distributed $501,630 in current support and $25,082 in past due support.
Opened 192 new cases and managed a caseload of 593 cases.
Collected and distributed $112,371 in child support, an increase of 254 percent from the previous year.
Became a comprehensive Tribal IV-D program on February 22, 2009.
Managed a caseload of 219 cases.
Continued to build relationships with Tulalip programs and Washington State to effectively handle child support cases.
Managed a caseload of 64 cases, mostly referred from the State of Oregon.
Collected $19,127, a collection rate of 58 percent.
Collected $6,912 in past due support.
Became a comprehensive Tribal IV-D program on April 1, 2009.
Primary emphasis was the development of the child support caseload through Tribal outreach efforts as well as working with Tribal partners.
Distributed pamphlets and flyers to get out information about the Tribal child support program.
Became a comprehensive Tribal IV-D program on October 1, 2009.
Developed a Case Processing Manual.
Operated a Tribal TANF program.
Total amount of collections distributed during the year on behalf of both TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) and non-TANF families. Total collections are calculated as the sums of Current IV-A and IV-E Assistance, Former IV-A and IV-E Assistance, Medicaid Never Assistance, and Other Never Assistance.
The amount of collections received and distributed on behalf of children who are receiving Child Support Enforcement services under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act (SSA), and who are either currently receiving or who have formerly received Medicaid payments under Title XIX of the SSA, but who are not currently receiving and who have never formerly received assistance under either Title IV-A (TANF or AFDC) or Title IV-E (Foster Care) of the SSA.
The portion of total collections received on behalf of families receiving assistance under the TANF program plus children placed in foster care facilities. These collections are divided between the State and Federal governments to reimburse their respective shares of either Title IV-A assistance payments or Title IV-E Foster Care maintenance payments.
The portion of total collections received on behalf of families not receiving assistance under the TANF/Foster Care programs and distributed to those families during the year.
The portion of child support collections used to reimburse the Federal government for its share of past assistance payments under Title IV-E and IV-A of the Social Security Act.
The portion of child support collections used to reimburse the State government for its share of past assistance payments under Title IV-E and IV-A of the Social Security Act.
The amount of collections that remains available for distribution in a future quarter.
Those collections received through income withholding and processed through the State Disbursement Unit on behalf of non-IV-D cases that were forwarded to the custodial parent during the quarter.
The total collections that are distributed either to the family or to the foster care agency to be used on the child's behalf.
The total amount of collections that are distributed either to the family or to the foster care agency to be used on the child's behalf.
Amounts received in response to a request for assistance from another State and forwarded during the quarter to that State for distribution, including interstate cases and Administrative Enforcement in Interstate (AEI) collections.
The total of collections forwarded to other States, plus total collections distributed, plus fees retained by other States, divided by total current quarter claims and total prior quarter adjustments minus non-IV-D cost.
The amount of money States earn for running an efficient child support program. This amount is estimated prior to the start of the fiscal year and is reported by the State on a quarterly basis. Actual incentive amounts are computed after the end of the fiscal year and appropriate adjustments are made in State grant awards.
The portion of any collection that corresponds to any amount specifically designated in a support order for medical support. To the extent that medical support has been assigned to the State, medical support collections must be forwarded to the Medicaid agency for distribution in accordance with current regulations under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (Medicaid). Otherwise, the amount must be forwarded to the family.
Total amount of expenditures eligible for Federal funding that is claimed by the State during the year for the administration of the Child Support Enforcement program. Includes all amounts claimed during the year, whether expended during the current or a previous fiscal year. The amounts being reported have been reduced by the amount of program income (fees and costs recovered in excess of fees and interest earned and other program income) received by the States.
Net Federal Share of current quarter claims plus prior quarter adjustments.
Total State share of current quarter expenditures plus prior quarter adjustments minus Federal FPLS fees.
The amount of administrative expenditures attributable to the collecting, entering, maintaining, and processing information relative to non-IV-D child support cases in the State Case Registry and to the processing of non-IV-D child support collections through the State Disbursement Unit. Non-IV-D cases are those for which there is no assignment of support rights to the State or where the State has not received an application for Title IV-D services.
Expenditures made in accordance with the terms of an approved APD for the planning, design, development, implementation, enhancement, or operation of an automated Statewide Child Support Enforcement System (CSES).
The number of IVD cases open on the last day of the fiscal year, including the number of open cases at the end of the fiscal year as a result of requests for assistance received from other States.
Open cases on the last day of the fiscal year over which the State has no jurisdiction. This includes cases that involve an individual over whom the IV-D agency has no civil jurisdiction available to pursue or effectuate any child support actions.
The number of IVD cases open on the last day of the fiscal year that have support orders established. Includes cases with orders entered prior to the case becoming a IVD case, as well as cases with orders established by the IVD agency. Judgments for arrears, regardless of whether there is a payment schedule or an order for ongoing support, are also included.
The number of children born out-of-wedlock in the reporting State for which paternity has been acknowledged during the fiscal year. Includes children with paternity acknowledged through the State's voluntary inhospital acknowledgement program and other acknowledgement processes. Also reported is the number of children in cases in the IVD caseload for whom paternity was established or acknowledged during the fiscal year.
The number of children in the IV-D caseload in cases open at the end of the current fiscal year who were born out-of-wedlock. Also the number of children born out-of- wedlock in the IV-D caseload in cases open at the end of the fiscal year who have paternity established or acknowledged.
The total number of children who were born out-of-wedlock in the State during the fiscal year. Also included is the number of minor children who were born out-of- wedlock in the State for whom paternity has been established or acknowledged during the fiscal year.
Includes all cases terminated from TANF during the fiscal year in which there was any child support collection in the month of termination.
The number of cases in which support orders were established by the IVD agency during the fiscal year. Includes support orders established for medical support or health insurance.
The number of cases for which one or more collections were made during the fiscal year. Included are cases where no support order is established but a voluntary payment was made.
The number of interstate cases the reporting State sent to other States during the fiscal year. Includes cases submitted for location, establishment of paternity or support order, enforcement of support, or any other IVD activity.
The number of interstate cases received from another State during the fiscal year.
Total number of IVD cases open at the end of the fiscal year that need services to establish a support order.
The number of children in cases that are open at the end of the fiscal year who required paternity establishment. This includes all children whose paternity has not been established and children in the process of having paternity established. If there is more than one putative father for a child, this child is only counted once.
The total number of FTE staff employed by the State and local IVD agencies.
The total number of FTE staff employed by an agency (public or private) working under a cooperative agreement with the IVD agency.
The total number of FTE staff employed by privatized IVD agencies.
The total amount of current support by current, former and never assistance for the fiscal year for all IV-D cases; includes total voluntary collections.
The total amount of support distributed as current support during the fiscal year for all IV-D cases. Voluntary payments are considered current support and should be included even though there is no order to require payment.
The total amount of arrears due and unpaid as of the end of the fiscal year for all fiscal years, including the fiscal year covered by the report. Interest and penalties on arrearages may be included.
The total amount of support distributed this fiscal year as arrearages. This amount includes judgments ordered and paid this fiscal year for prior year support.
The number of cases with arrears due during the fiscal year, including cases closed during the fiscal year with arrearages.
The number of cases in which there was at least one payment toward arrears during the fiscal year and the total number of IVD cases in which payments of pastdue child support were received during the fiscal year. Part or all of the payments were distributed to the family to which the pastdue child support was owed.
The number of IVD TANF cases open at the end of the fiscal year in which a determination was made that the custodial parent refused to cooperate with State agencies in identifying and locating the noncustodial parent.
The number of cases open during the fiscal year in which it was determined by the State that the custodial parent has a good cause for refusing to cooperate with State agencies in identifying and locating the noncustodial parent.
The number of children in the IVD caseload open at the end of the fiscal year with paternity resolved. Include all children born within a marriage, legitimized by marriage or adoption and children with paternity established or acknowledged.
The number of children in the IVD caseload in cases open at the end of the fiscal year. This includes those children who are under age 18.
Collections distributed by the Tribe during the quarter, itemized by case designation. Amounts received in response to a request for assistance from another Tribe and forwarded during the quarter to that Tribe for distribution.
The number of total outlays.
The total number of IV-D cases open on the last day of the fiscal year. Include cases open at the end of the fiscal year as a result of requests for assistance received from other Tribes or States, as well as cases open in the reporting Tribe referred to another Tribe or State.
The total number of IV-D cases that have support orders established. Include cases with orders entered prior to the case becoming a IVD case, as well as cases with orders established by the IVD agency. Include judgments for arrears, regardless of whether there is a payment schedule or an order for ongoing support.
Report the number of children in cases open at the end of the previous fiscal year who needed paternity established.
Report the number of children in cases open during or at the end of the fiscal year for whom paternity was established or acknowledged. This includes acknowledgments after genetic testing, but before adjudication, if applicable.
Include children with paternity acknowledged through a voluntary inhospital acknowledgment program and other acknowledgment processes.


I been spending a lot of time in the CPA section of this form and have to say it is paid of a big time!
For that I am very grateful as this is the first time in years I am actually making a profit when it comes to internet marketing, ever since I focused on CPA.
I rely on facebook as my main PPC platform to promote my CPA offers.
Now, here is where it is getting tricky....I am hoping u can help me out with this.
I am not getting enough impressions with my facebook ads. It is really strange because I am making sure I am bidding within the suggested bid range facebook sets and in fact at times I bid even higher, however despite that my ads are still not getting any impressions.
They get very few or no impressions and this makes it impossible to test or scale a campaign.
However, some campaigns seem to get the impressions, but the new campaigns I been starting the last few days are not getting the impressions, even though facebook approved the ads.
I think I read somewhere, that it is normal to get a lot of impressions in as little as 30 minutes if you set the bid high? Not happening with me.
Any ideas on how I can get more impressions on facebook?
Let more demographics see your ad.
Thanks guys- I am just still wondering how to increase the number of impressions you get!
For some reason I am not getting enough impressions even though I am targeting a sizable audience, with likes and interests, etc and am bidding within the CPC suggested range, in fact on the upper scale.
Congrats for your first profit...getting a good impression on FB is a very tough task but you are already there been a long time.I think u should focus on the keywords of your add and should try to make it more attractive which will attract the viewer to visit there.Don't lose Your hope.wish u all the best.
I think the trick is to stop direct linking and try email marketing!
Use FB to build a list, huuuuuge list.
Promote CPA offers to your list more and more and more.
I'm using AdWords currently but I'm definitely gonna switch over to Facebook PPC when my account balance runs out with AdWords! Seems so much more profitable.
Making more ads is usually easiest though and it's also a great opportunity to split test.


Our firm prides itself on individually tailored Wills, Trusts, and other estate planning documents that help our clients ensure their legacies are protected. Your situation is unique and your documents should be unique as well. We pride ourselves on educating our clients regarding their estate plan as well as the use of medical directives, Medical Powers of Attorney, and Statutory Durable Powers of Attorney.


text:
Q: Selenium IDE element xpath finder code I am working on javascript in which I need to get the proper xpath of the element (Like we get in selenium IDE plugin in Firefox).
Is there any way I can get the function which selenium IDE is using to find xpath, so that I can integrate it in my javascript code.
I really need this.

A: You could try with FirePath, it can easily create xpath or css selectors you need. You have to install Firebug first.

A: If you check out the Github for Selenium IDE, it uses WGX(Wicked Good Xpath).  Here's the link to the code. https://github.com/google/wicked-good-xpath
https://github.com/SeleniumHQ/selenium/blob/ceaf3da79542024becdda5953059dfbb96fb3a90/third_party/js/wgxpath/wgxpath.js

*

*Klendathu

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Ludwig Leopold Liebig (* 16. Januar 1801 in Schwedt/Oder; † 20. Januar 1872 in Dresden) war ein deutscher Gärtner und Pflanzenzüchter, der vor allem für die erste deutsche Azaleenzüchtung bekannt wurde. Liebig galt neben Jacob Friedrich Seidel als "zweiter Nestor des Dresdner Gartenbaus".

Leben
Liebig wurde als Sohn eines städtischen Beamten geboren. Seine Lehre absolvierte er im Schlossgarten des Schlosses Schwedt. Durch den Militärdienst gelangte er nach Berlin, wo er nach seiner Dienstzeit als Gärtnergehilfe auf der Pfaueninsel arbeitete. Dort lernte er den Hofgärtner Gustav Adolph Fintelmann kennen, mit dem er mehrere Schulungsreisen, unter anderem nach Paris, München und Düsseldorf, unternahm. In Düsseldorf traf Liebig auf den Garteninspektor Weihe, der ihn als Obergärtner für die Dresdner Gärtnerei Wäber vorschlug; selbigen Posten nahm Liebig 1832 an.

Ludwig Leopold Liebig war mit Hildegard Richter, einer Schwester des Zeichners und Malers Ludwig Richter, verheiratet. Er starb an den Folgen eines Schlaganfalls.

Gärtnerisches Wirken

Nachdem Liebig 1832 in den Dienst der Gärtnerei Wäber getreten war, unternahm er zunächst Reisen nach Belgien, England und Schottland, auf denen er damals in Deutschland noch seltene Pflanzen, wie zum Beispiel verschiedene Rhododendronsorten, erwarb und in die Dresdner Gärtnerei überführte. In den folgenden Jahren gelang es Liebig, das Unternehmen zu wirtschaftlichem Erfolg zu führen. Nach dem Tod Wäbers erwarb Liebig 1837 die Gärtnerei samt Grundstück an der heutigen Hopfgartenstraße in der Dresdner Johannstadt von dessen Erben. Neben der Seidelschen Gärtnerei war die Gärtnerei Liebig eine der ersten deutschen Handels- und Erwerbsgärtnereien, die sich auf die Züchtung und den Verkauf von Kamelien, Azaleen und anderen Rhododendren spezialisiert hatten. Zu seinen Kunden gehörten unter anderem Angehörige des Hauses Rohan sowie der österreichische Naturforscher Carl Alexander Freiherr von Hügel.

Im Jahr 1843 züchtete Liebig als erster Gärtner in Deutschland eine eigene Azaleensorte, die Aurora; weitere Sorten folgten. Bis die Dresdner Gärtnerei von Hermann Seidel 1867 eine eigene Azaleensorte vorstellte, war die Liebigische Gärtnerei einziger deutscher Zuchtstandort für neue Azaleensorten. Liebig züchtete zahlreiche weitere Rhododendren, Kamelien und Begonien. Zu seinem Sortiment gehörten außerdem bis zu 300 verschiedene Sorten Erikas. Seine Pflanzen wurden national und international gehandelt und ausgestellt. Liebig pflanzte zudem die erste Magnolie in Dresden.

Nach Liebigs Tod übernahm sein Sohn Emil (1839–1887) die väterliche Gärtnerei und führte dessen Züchtungen und Handelsgeschäfte fort. Aufzeichnungen aus dem Jahr 1887 belegen Bestandszahlen von 300.000 Azaleenpflanzen in der Liebigschen Gärtnerei. Nach Emils Tod wurde das Unternehmen in die Niederwaldstraße nach Striesen verlegt, das damals als einer der bedeutendsten Gartenbaustandorte im deutschsprachigen Raum galt. Die Geschäfte der Gärtnerei wurden bis 1898 fortgeführt.

Die botanischen Sammlungen auf Schloss Zuschendorf in Pirna enthalten mehrere von Liebig gezüchtete Azaleensorten.

Literatur

Anmerkungen

Einzelnachweise

Gärtner
Pflanzenzüchter
Person (Dresden)
Person (sächsische Geschichte)
Geboren 1801
Gestorben 1872
Mann

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Are truck graphics a great way to advertise your business? If you aren't sure, consider the fact that many people will see your truck or van. Consider the fact that in order for a newspaper ad to reach someone, they must buy or subscribe to the newspaper. In order for a magazine ad to reach someone, they must subscribe to or buy the magazine. In order for a radio ad to reach your audience, they must tune into that station. The only way a television advertisement can reach your target audience would be if they were watching tv, and tuned to that particular channel. This is not the case with truck graphics as a means of advertising.
Truck graphics do not cost the viewer anything to see your message. They look up through their windshield while driving or view your ad while standing at an intersection awaiting the light to change. They pull into a parking lot and there is your vehicle with your advertisement in plain sight. That's right, even if your vehicle is sitting idle in a parking lot at a store or making a delivery, your advertisement is still doing what a good ad should do, and that is selling your product or service to the public.
When comparing the cost of truck graphics to the costs of the other types of advertisements such as radio, television or magazine ads, the cost is much less. Not to mention that you reach a much bigger audience at will. Also, when buying ad time on television or radio or in print, you are limited by price as to what you can say and how big you can say it. This is also not the case when you think of vehicle graphics. Your canvas is literally the body of your vehicle. Also other types of ads have recurring fees. You have to maintain a payment on a weekly or monthly basis to stay current and in circulation. With truck graphics, you have the initial cost of the graphic and that's it.
In the past, the idea was to get your advertisement in the local yellow pages, and, for that era, that was an excellent idea as everyone used the yellow pages when looking for a service or a product. However, that is not the case any longer. Most people have given up land lines and phone books long ago. Now they rely on the "411" system on their cell phone. Again, this was an annual expense that could be quite pricy.
All of these advertising ideas of the past relied on someone to come looking for you. With this type of an advertisement on your truck, van or fleet, you are bringing your message to them whether or not they are looking for your product or service at the moment. Because there is no other distraction as they are reading it, they are much more likely to retain the information on your truck or fleet, recall it, and then use it when they need you!


Allen Hall was originally the home of Henry VIII's Chancellor, St Thomas More. The Mulberry Tree that St Thomas planted in the 1500's still flourishes today in the seminary garden, one of the largest and most peaceful gardens in Chelsea.
The centre is available for tourist accommodation during the months of July & August only, whilst the seminary is on summer break. Rooms are reasonably priced for a property in such a prime location.
NOTE: Allen Hall is closed for renovation this summer and will re-open in the summer of 2020.


Sequences showing canning fish in a C.W.S. factory in Lowestoft taken from a longer film about the herring industry.
The film opens with an exterior shot of the factory and a shot of the C.W.S. flag. Inside the factory there are shots of the women preparing the fish for canning; these are intercut with herring being tipped straight from the cran into a machine where they are washed. The fish are placed in cans by the women and then put on a conveyer belt. At the other end of the belt they are stacked ready to go into the ovens. After cooking, the labels are put on by hand. Boxes are behind the worker.


text:
Select a page Home Africa Nigeria World Sport Europe Opinion Editors' Choice Business Health
U.S. Decision To Remove Turkey From F-35 Programme Is "Unfair"…: Unic Press UK: Turkey has reacted to being struc
U.S. Judge Blasts Drug Lord El Chapo's 'Overwhelming Evil,' Imposes…: July 17, 2019. NEW YORK (Reuters) - Joaquin
Kenya Orders Deportation Of 17 Foreign Directors Of Betting Firms: July 17, 2019. NAIROBI (Reuters) - Kenya has ordered
U.S. Strikes Off Turkey From F-35 Fighter Jet Programme Over…: Unic Press UK: The United States strikes off Turke
EU Braces For No-Deal Brexit Or Another Delay Under Boris…: BRUSSELS/LONDON (Reuters) - The European Union is bra
Decision To Block Persian Gulf Oil Exports Would Not Be Secret Or Covert – Iranian Military Chief
Published in	World
Unic Press UK: The Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Mohammad Baqeri has said that the government would make public any decision to block the flow of oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz.
Baqeri spoke Monday in the capital city of Iran, Tehran, during a military ceremony, flaying the United States for accusing the Islamic Republic of last week attack on two oil vessels – a Norwegian-owned MT Front Altair and a Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous – loaded with petroleum products in the Gulf of Oman [also known as the Sea of Oman], which triggered a fire on the MT Frint Altair. The military chief said:
"They must be aware of the reality that if the Islamic Republic of Iran were determined to prevent export of oil from the Persian Gulf, that determination would be realized in full and announced in public, in view of the power of the country and its Armed Forces. "Iran will not take any covert or deceptive steps like the deceitful and terrorist US, which has made the world insecure, along with its regional and international stooges," the Press TV reports.
There's been serious tensions between the U.S. and Iran over the years, escalating in May 8, 2018 when the U.S. President Donald Trump terminated the U.S. participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA); and imposed another round of U.S. sanctions against Iran. Trump had claimed that the JCPOA – Iran nuclear deal – had been a bad one for the world and America, insisting that a new agreement is long overdue.
Washington says it's open to a negotiation, but Iran's Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif said in May 2019 that there won't be talks, labeling the U.S. a "bully."
Last December, during his speech in the city of Shahroud, Semnan Province, the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani had warned the United States, threatening to block the shipping of oil through the Persian Gulf. "The US should know [this] that we are selling and will continue to sell our oil and it will not be able to block Iran's oil exports. And it should also know that if it attempts to stop Iran's oil [sales] someday, no oil will be exported from the Persian Gulf," Rouhani said.
The Persian Gulf includes Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, and United Arab Emirates.
According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the United States: "…the Strait of Hormuz is the world's most important chokepoint, with an oil flow of 18.5 million b/d in 2016. The Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, and in 2015 its daily flow of oil accounted for 30% of all seaborne-traded crude oil and other liquids. More than 30% of global liquefied natural gas trade also transited the Strait of Hormuz in 2016."
Iran Iran nuclear deal Iranian military Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) Persian Gulf Strait Of Hormuz United States United States/Iran
U.S. Decision To Remove Turkey From F-35 Programme Is "Unfair" – Turkish Foreign Ministry
U.S. Judge Blasts Drug Lord El Chapo's 'Overwhelming Evil,' Imposes Life Sentence
U.S. Strikes Off Turkey From F-35 Fighter Jet Programme Over Ankara's S-400 Deal With Moscow
U.S. House Condemns Trump Over 'Racist Comments' Tweeted At Congresswomen
Business & Economy (537)
Editors' Choice (189)
Food & Health (177)
News On Air (7)
Nigeria (4,755)
World Sport (435)
Unic Press UK
English Premier league table (live)
1 AFC Bournemouth 0 0 0 0 0 0 +0 0
2 Arsenal 0 0 0 0 0 0 +0 0
3 Aston Villa 0 0 0 0 0 0 +0 0
4 Brighton & Hov… 0 0 0 0 0 0 +0 0
5 Burnley 0 0 0 0 0 0 +0 0
6 Chelsea 0 0 0 0 0 0 +0 0
7 Crystal Palace 0 0 0 0 0 0 +0 0

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Bootstrapped Thought Catalog Thinks Big, Stays Lean
by Sarah Sluis // Wednesday, June 29th, 2016 – 12:00 pm
In the land of VC-backed media brands, Thought Catalog wants to be the indie media brand that could.
Founded in 2010, The Thought & Expression Co., which includes sites Thought Catalog and Quote Catalog, hasn't taken on any investment. Just 35 people work out of its Williamsburg, Brooklyn, office, including Alex Magnin, the chief revenue officer and a founding member of the team.
Thought Catalog is part platform, part publisher. It receives 6,000 submissions a month from young millennials who want a place to get published. Its team filters the submissions, accepting about 10%.
From there, it nurtures its best-performing writers, who get paid or receive book deals through Thought Catalog's publishing arm, which started in e-books and now publishes 100 books a year, a mixture of hard copies and e-books.
As the head of revenue at a bootstrapped but profitable company, Magnin is skeptical that media companies accepting huge influxes of cash can deliver the returns their investors want. He thinks the media bubble is poised to pop.
Magnin spoke to AdExchanger about how Thought Catalog has built its business and his views on what's ahead for the industry.
AdExchanger: What's the origin story of Thought Catalog?
ALEX MAGNIN: In 2010, when Thought Catalog was founded, it wasn't quite yet cool to do digital media startups. This was before people realized what a massively big deal the Facebook news feed would be, and the VC dollars started flowing into the space. This was a passion project that ended up taking off largely because of social sharing and the type of content we produced.
How has the digital media landscape evolved since then?
In 2013 and 2014, we saw new entrants. 2016 is the year reality is setting in and the market is shaking up. Companies need to make good on profitability and valuations. As an independent media company, we've had to do this all along. We have a deep understanding of, when money is not unlimited, where you invest and where you hold back. We have been profitable since day one.
You think it will be hard for VC-funded media companies to have hockey-stick growth. Why?
We've seen a massive boom in supply while ad spend is growing modestly. For the past 70 years, advertising has been between 1% and 1.4% of GDP. That makes the marketplace incredibly crowded and competitive, especially when you are trying to increase valuations by five times, which is what VCs generally want.
So what can media companies do to get around that?
Some are trying to be technology companies. They are merging tech with media so each piece of content is going far beyond where it used to. Others are trying to build out platforms. For us, the equation is plain. If we can do the same thing and reach more people by being leaner, we think that's a model that looks like the future. We are proving that you can reach just as many people and make just as much revenue with 30 employees as you can with 200 employees and $20 million in VC rounds.
Are you similar to Medium?
I don't consider them a direct competitor because we run in different worlds, in terms of the type of people we want to publish on our site and for ad dollars. The people we compete with for ad dollars are Mic, Refinery and Bustle. Everyone has to compete with BuzzFeed. That's what we think of as our competitive set.
What's your take on Facebook Instant Articles?
The open web ad tech community is not as scared as they should be about Facebook Instant. We as publishers ultimately choose where the media is, and it's a compelling proposition. Facebook has better data, a better user experience and all the advertisers in the world plugged in. That's a triple whammy that's tough to beat. What defeats Instant Articles is not going to be ad tech.
How are you trying to build Thought Catalog's audience?
While reach is important, we care most about making them a superfan of the site. Eight million out of our 30 million uniques visit over 10 times a month. Of those, 900,000 have 200 page views a month. Those people are buying our books, they are submitting to the site.
What's the appeal of Thought Catalog to advertisers? Are they turned off by the contributor model? Many advertisers shy away from user-generated content.
We have no user-generated content in the traditional sense, because it's all edited. We think of it as grassroots advertising. Instead of having a New York-based editor write content for the brand, we ask readers to tell stories on a brand theme, and you get something that looks a lot more authentic and organic.
What's an example of branded content you create?
We did a program for Mike's Hard Lemonade, which has a bottled margarita beverage called Cayman Jack. We brought in five adventure travelers and had them tell our audience their best adventure travel story, and asked readers to submit their best travel story. The winners were published in a free print and e-book sponsored by Cayman Jack.
With your books business, are you merging content and commerce?
Part of our strategy is monetizing our audience as directly as we can. On the marketing side, it makes us eat our own dog food. We only use our own platforms for marketing. We need to make sure our ad products are so good we can trust they move units. And when you look at programmatic and the option value, if I show 2,000 people an ad and one of them buys a $10 book, that's a $5 CPM. It helps you set a floor price.
Thought Catalog expanded further with Shop Catalog, an ecommerce arm that had clothing and jewelry. What happened there?
It's on hold. We continue to launch experiments. We see if they have a spark and if they work, continue to invest in them.
How has programmatic affected your business?
Our revenue is split perfectly equally between programmatic and direct. I spend at least half my time on programmatic, if not more. Programmatic is awesome. There is no cost of sale. Putting content out in the world that gets monetized without us doing much is our bread and butter. And to mix metaphors, direct sales is the icing on top and evens out the revenue. It's the tip of spear. We do lower-margin services work and branded content to bring them on for a banner ad deal.
We are seeing digital video explode, and the worlds of digital and TV cross over through investments and new TV channels like Vice. Are you exploring video or is it not a fit?
It's not a fit for what we are doing. There will be a tragedy of the commons-type problem with digital video. If everyone expects video CPMs and content, such that there is a massive supply of video content, they are not all going to get TV-like CPMs.
What's your take on branded content?
The dirty secret is that publications were making massive CPMs. Branded content posts would have $100 CPMs, which is equivalent to a Super Bowl ad. We were early and had a couple great years with branded content. We are starting to see pricing come back to earth – more in the cable television-esque cost per view – as brands and agencies move it out of experimental budgets and into regular budgets where it has to compare on a cost-per basis.
Thought Catalog has a millennial audience. How big of an issue is ad blocking?
We see 4% to 8% ad-blocking users, but that the number is so low only because we are so heavily mobile – about 70%. That ad blocking percentage doesn't keep me up at night.
How do you sum up the Thought Catalog approach?
We focus on a few core things we know we can do better than anyone else, and avoid distraction. Hopefully one day in the future, we can take up the mantle of being the preeminent indie digital media company.
So does that mean you are not for sale?
What's important is that we think and behave like we're not for sale.
This interview has been condensed and edited.
This is part of an interview series with media leaders about the future of digital advertising. Check out previous interviews with The Atlantic, Bloomberg Media, Evolve Media, Forbes,Mic, The New York Times, Purch, Refinery29, Time Inc., The Washington Post and Ziff Davis – and more to come.


The licensure and enforcement of regulated occupations and professions is often a matter of public record. BRB Publication's database of occupational licensing boards lists over 8,750 individual job titles or businesses that are administered for licensing, registration or certification.
Some level of online searching exists for names and even enforcement actions on over 5,500 occupations or businesses. These free links are provided below.
Note, if you are a professional who is researching and using public records on a daily basis, we suggest you consider a free evaluation of the Public Record Research System. This service has extensive information for all 8,750 job title locations.
But if you are merely looking for a free online Name Search from a Licensing Board (only 55% of the Boards provide a free name search), using the links below will certainly help you.


text:
Charterhouse Cave
Charterhouse Cave, on the Mendip Hills in Somerset, is the deepest cave in southern England.[2][3][4]
Charterhouse, Somerset
OS grid
ST 4774756201
51°18′09″N 2°45′03″W / 51.302558°N 2.750806°W / 51.302558; -2.750806Coordinates: 51°18′09″N 2°45′03″W / 51.302558°N 2.750806°W / 51.302558; -2.750806
4,868 m (15,971 ft)
Locked; access by permit with an approved leader; no novices
Cave survey
The Geological Conservation Review
Mendip Cave Registry[1]
Charterhouse Cave was first excavated in 1972. By 1977 the Sidcot School Speleological Society had reached Bat Chamber,[5] although the first main breakthrough into the system was made in 1982.[6] Active exploration continues and breakthroughs were made in April 2008[7][8] when 300 metres (980 ft) of passage big enough to walk through was discovered, and again when the Portal Pool Sump was passed in May 2009 revealing another 500 m (1,600 ft) of passage.[4] Continued exploration in 2010 and 2011 brought the cave to its current length and depth
The cave is situated on land owned by Somerset Wildlife Trust. Because of the various well-preserved formations in the cave, the entrance blockhouse is kept locked and access is restricted to those with permits issued by member clubs of the Charterhouse Caving Company.[9] For the same reason, no novices or cavers aged under 16 are allowed to enter.[10][11]
The cave has three large chambers, Midsummer Chamber, The Citadel, and Times Square; The Citadel is almost as large as the chambers in GB Cave and Lamb Leer.[4][5] There are a number of long, fairly straight passages which are approximately 2 m (6.6 ft) across and the same high.[7]
Various parts of the cave contain delicate formations, including Forbidden Passage, Midsummer Chamber, The Citadel, The Grotto of the Singing Stal, and the First and Second Inlets.[5][6]
When Portal Pool Sump was passed in May 2009, about 500 m (1,600 ft) of new passage was discovered, as well as a number of side-passages. Surveys conducted after the breakthrough in May 2009 show approximately 1,000 m (3,300 ft) of passage, with an estimated 500 m unsurveyed plus a number of leads yet to be explored. The surveys have also confirmed the depth at over 200 m (660 ft).[4]
The stream in nearby GB Cave flows into Charterhouse Cave and ultimately rises near Gough's Cave in Cheddar Gorge, approximately 2 km (1.2 mi) away.[3][4]
FaunaEdit
There is a hole in the concrete blockhouse over the entrance to the cave to allow the entrance of bats.[5]
The insect life found within the cave is fairly typical of caves on the Mendip Hills, including a number of troglophiles and troglobites such as the freshwater shrimp (niphargus fontanus) and the springtail (onychiurus schoetti).[5]
Caves of the Mendip Hills
^ "Charterhouse Cave". Mendip Cave Registry & Archive. Retrieved 30 March 2012.
^ "Charterhouse Cave". UK Caves database. Retrieved 5 September 2009.
^ a b "Deepest caves". ukcaves.co.uk. UK Caves database. Retrieved 8 September 2009.
^ a b c d e Hendry, P., Charterhouse Cave goes on and on, Mendip Times magazine, September 2009
^ a b c d e Chapman,P.R.J; Moody,A.A.D.; Moody,P.D.; Smart,P.L. (1984). "Charterhouse Cave: Exploration, geomorphology and fauna". UBSS Proceedings. UBSS. 17 (1): 5–27.
^ a b Irwin, David John; Knibbs Anthony J. (1999). Mendip Underground: A Cavers Guide. Bat Products. ISBN 0-9536103-0-6.
^ a b Moody, P. (2008). "Breakthrough by WCC in Charterhouse Cave" (PDF). UBSS Newsletter. UBSS. 3 (9): 1–2.
^ Breakthrough by WCC in Charterhouse Cave, Mendip Caving Group newsletter April 2008,
^ "The Charterhouse Area and the Charterhouse Caving Company Ltd". Charterhouse Caving Company Ltd. Retrieved 21 November 2011.
^ "Access to Caves in Mendip and Wales". University of Bristol Spelaeological Society. Retrieved 5 September 2009.
^ "Charterhouse". Council of Southern Caving Clubs. Retrieved 9 November 2010.
"Charterhouse Cave". Mendip Cave Registry & Archive.
Picture of the Grotto of the Singing Stal
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charterhouse_Cave&oldid=754084710"