# Working Better Together for Families and Children

# *A Summary of OCSE Child Support Enforcement and* 

# *Judicial Collaboration Grants*

# 

**[TABLE OF CONTENTS]{.underline}**

[I. Introduction](#__RefHeading___Toc142102590) 2

[II. Collaboration 2](#__RefHeading___Toc142102591)

Formal
Partnership................................................................2

National Work
Group..............................................................3

Advisory
Committees..............................................................3

Training and
Meetings..........................................................\...4

[III. Case Processing/Outreach Strategies
4](#__RefHeading___Toc142102592)

> Enhanced Case
> Processing......................................................4
> Outreach/Alternative Service
> Strategies.......................................7

[IV. Service Approaches for Special
Populations](#__RefHeading___Toc142102593) 11

Incarcerated/Released Non-custodial
Parents.............................11

Parents with Access and Visitation
Concerns.............................14

Parents Behind in Child Support
Payments................................15

Teen
Parents.......................................................................19

[V. Contact Information 20](#__RefHeading___Toc142102593)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc142102590 .anchor}**I. Introduction**

This document is designed to provide summary highlights, results and
lessons learned from a variety of 28 Section 1115 and Special
Improvement Project (SIP) grant projects involving collaboration between
child support enforcement (CSE) agencies (also known as IV-D agencies)
and the judicial system. Over the past seven years, the Office of Child
Support Enforcement (OCSE) has funded a number of projects that have
extensive court involvement. In fact, the lead organization for nine of
the SIP grants is a State/local court or national court organization.

The courts play an intricate role in processing and enforcing child
support cases. The OCSE grant projects demonstrate that enhanced
collaboration between CSE agencies and the judicial system generally
improves child support program efficiencies and/or provides better
services for parents.

These grant projects represent a wide-range of strategies from improving
child support case management to the provision of child support
services. Some grant projects have focused on improving collaboration,
case processing and other management-related areas, while others have
focused on services addressing non-custodial parent issues related to
incarceration, access and visitation, and employment. As noted in the
descriptions below, results are included for those grant projects that
have been completed; however, some projects are still being implemented.

The summary below focuses on three major topic areas: collaboration,
case processing/outreach strategies, and service approaches for special
populations. At the end of the summary is a listing of projects with
contact information.

**II. Collaboration**

All of the OCSE grant projects contained strategies to improve
collaboration between CSE agencies and the courts. Several collaboration
approaches included formal structures such as partnerships and advisory
committees while others took steps to improve collaboration through more
routine processes (e.g., regular meetings and/or training) in order to
achieve project outcomes. One grant (Connecticut) was funded to
establish a partnership structure in order to provide a holistic
approach to coordinating the work of child support among various
entities. Lessons from these grants demonstrated that cooperation among
partners: a) encouraged entities to look at the program as a whole with
more understanding of other partner concerns, and b) helped agencies
better address a common goal or accomplish specific cross-program tasks.

***Formal Partnership:*** During 2000-2004, the Connecticut Section 1115
grant, *Partners Executive* *Council (PEC),* established a formal
partnership structure to coordinate the child support work of five
agencies which have child support responsibilities including the Bureau
of Child Support Enforcement (BCSE) in the Department of Social Services
(DSS), Support Enforcement Services (SES), the Court Operations Unit,
the Attorney General's Office (AGO) and the Family Support Magistrate
Division. The Council developed action steps to coordinate the work of
all agencies on strategies in order to implement the National Child
Support Enforcement FY 2005-2009 Strategic Plan. The Council has been
instrumental in making several positive changes to the program. These
included improving court case processing, implementing the National
Medical Support Notice, working collaboratively to secure a vendor for
the State Disbursement Unit and Interactive Voice Response System, and
completing a draft IV-D program and agency duties handbook. The biggest
accomplishment of the PEC has been the increased communication and
cooperation among the partners in working together to improve the child
support program.

***National Work Group:*** Under a SIP grant, the National Center for
State Courts (NCSC) joined with the Legal XML Court Filing Work Group
and OCSE to establish standards for exchanging child support information
electronically between State IV-D agencies and their respective court
systems. The Courts/CSE Work Group was composed of 32 members from 13
States, 20 of whom were from CSE agencies and six of whom were from
court systems. Other work group members were from OCSE, NCSC, and
Lockheed Martin Corporation, which maintains the OCSE Network. Work
group participants were asked to contribute documents, offer information
on local practices, discuss data exchange processes, review related
standards development efforts and XML applications, and help formulate
draft standards for data exchange using XML. An OCSE Dear Colleague
Letter (DCL-03-01) was issued January 28, 2003, making the proposed
child support standards available to the IV-D agencies and the court
community.

***Advisory Committees:*** Two OCSE grantees formed advisory committees
to ensure project oversight and management. They involved judges
up-front in the development of project goals and in identifying the
issues and solutions related to child support services and case
processing.

-   Texas' *Family Reintegration Project,* recognizing the key role that
    judges play in establishing and modifying orders, fostered judicial
    involvement and ensured judges were aware of the particular issues
    surrounding child support and incarceration. At the Houston project
    site, two IV-D court masters served on the project Advisory Board.
    Also, one of the court masters continues to visit a local state jail
    with the Office of Attorney General project staff to educate inmates
    on the court process and the other is active in a collaborative
    effort to encourage Houston-area employers to hire released
    offenders.

-   Virginia's *Strengthening Case Management of Child Support Cases*
    (*Court Improvement Study)* grant established a Project Advisory
    Committee which was essential to the success of the project. Its
    membership was drawn from Juvenile and Domestic Relations District
    Court judges, Circuit Court judges, clerks of court, attorneys, and
    representatives from a legal aid organization, Division of Child
    Support Enforcement (DCSE) and the Department of Health, Division of
    Vital Records. The Committee identified pilot court sites to develop
    best practices to improve case management of child support cases in
    the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Courts. These best
    practices are discussed in more detail below under Case
    Processing/Outreach Strategies.

***Training and Meetings:*** Several grantees focused on involving and
educating the judiciary through specific training at judicial forums or
through special initiatives. In Virginia's *Improving the Court-Order
Paternity Process*, the grant Project Coordinator trained court clerks
at regional meetings and via videoconferencing on the importance of
certifying documents submitted to Vital Records. The *Texas Family
Reintegration Project* sponsored a forum and trained 42 IV-D associate
judges on incarcerated parents and child support issues. To educate
judges about the value of its program, the Baltimore County, MD *Family
Employment and Support Program* developed a power point presentation,
"Ten Important Steps in Developing Successful Employment Programs,"
which was distributed to all Administrative Judges in
[]{#__RefHeading___Toc142102592 .anchor}Maryland.

**III. Case Processing/Outreach Strategies**

Many of the child support-judicial collaborative grant projects were
designed to demonstrate improvements in processing child support cases
more timely and accurately as well as to be more responsive to
non-custodial parents. As described below, some of these grants focused
on internal processes within the court/child support systems to reduce
errors, increase efficiency of case processing and/or better address the
needs of parents. Many of these projects focused on outreach approaches
to better inform non-custodial parents about the child support program
through proactive written and personal contact, including personal
service of process. Some projects focused on ways to better address the
needs of non-custodial parents by offering alternative service
strategies such as the use of teleconferencing, nontraditional office
hours or informal court hearings.

**Enhanced Case Processing:** Some grants have focused on strategies to
improve child support case processing or to develop model practices
resulting in more accurate and responsive child support actions. These
projects reflect the importance of joint court and child support program
efforts in the development and implementation of effective practices.

-   Arizona Department of Economic Security/Division of Child Support
    Enforcement's *Arizona Statewide Arrears Calculation Tool (eCalc*)
    project developed and implemented a web-based arrears calculation
    tool, *eCalc,* to allow courts, customers and IV-D staff to better
    manage child support arrears.  The project is a collaboration
    between DCSE, the Maricopa County Family Court, the Arizona Attorney
    General's Office and the Arizona Administration of Courts. All
    customers with an Arizona (AZ) court order, including those with an
    Arizona case who no longer reside in the State, have self-service
    access to this web-based, portable tool 24 hours a day, 7 days a
    week. This tool eliminates the need for members of the judiciary to
    reschedule hearings in order to obtain a current arrears amount and
    allows for immediate recalculation of arrears based on testimony
    presented in court. The tool also reduces the time expended by IV-D
    staff performing arrears calculations in complex cases and allows
    custodial and non-custodial parents to easily obtain detailed
    information about the amount of support owed without having to
    contact the IV-D agency or a Clerk of the Court.

 

> With less than 4 months of data, the evaluation of *eCalc*
> demonstrates some promising results:
>
> \--In 100 percent of the 399 cases, *eCalc* was able to produce real
> time web-based arrearage calculations with no need for batch
> processing.
>
> \--In 100 percent of the cases, *eCalc* imported data from the State
> Case Registry and State Disbursement Unit.
>
> \--eCalc calculated arrears in 64 percent of the time it took staff to
> calculate with the previously existing tool (ARCA) \-- i.e., in 399
> cases, *eCalc* saved 472 days of processing time, in addition to the
> staff time saved.
>
> \--eCalc was found to be as accurate as or more accurate than ARCA in
> 97 percent of the cases studied.  An unintended outcome of the
> research was that *eCalc* was able to identify data integrity issues
> in ATLAS (AZ IV-D computer system) and the non-IV-D State Case
> Registry, giving DCSE, its partners and the Clerks of Court an
> opportunity to address those issues. Because *eCalc* is very sensitive
> to the data that are entered by the Clerks of Court and IV-D staff,
> *eCalc* has resulted in providing a quality assurance tool that can
> now be used by all staff involved in child support arrears
> calculations.
>
> Although IV-D staff have begun using the *eCalc* tool on a regular
> basis, usage of *eCalc* is below expectations. Court officials are not
> using the tool to its full potential.  Court officials are continuing
> to request ARCA calculations as well until they are more comfortable
> with the *eCalc* tool.  Project staff has identified the need for
> additional training and assistance, particularly for those parents and
> partners who have limited or no prior experience calculating debts.
> The *eCalc* appears to be portable and could be used by any other
> state that uses J2EE/Java Web environment, although adaptations may be
> necessary to accommodate unique State rules and regulations.

-   Colorado Department of Human Services Division of Child Support
    Enforcement's *Data Information Sharing (DISH)* Project is a
    collaboration initiative with the Colorado Judicial Department, to
    plan, implement and evaluate a process to allow for the data
    transfer of child support case information to and from the courts.
    Over the course of the project, planning for the data** **exchange
    will occur on both the state and county levels. Two pilots of the
    system will be designed and implemented, first in a mid-sized
    judicial district and then in a larger judicial district. These
    pilots will include extensive process evaluations, and the results
    will be used to revise the system as needed prior to a gradual
    statewide roll-out of the automated data exchange system in the
    third year of the project grant. The evaluation will also document
    the planning and implementation process to help guide other States
    through the issues they are likely to confront in using a similar
    data exchange process and will explore the impact of this process on
    time savings, staff savings and cost savings for both the child
    support program and the Judicial Department. (Project ends
    09/14/2008).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ)
    Grant, *Judicial Tools to Improve Court Practices in Child Support,*
    will create innovative resources to assist with achieving the goals
    of the National Child Support Enforcement FY 2005-2009 Strategic
    Plan that all children have parentage established, have support
    orders established, have medical coverage and reliably receive
    financial support from parents as ordered. State court judges are an
    integral part of the success of the child support system. The
    achievement of the strategic plan\'s objectives relies upon judges
    who are fully informed and actively involved in ensuring appropriate
    process service, reducing the number of default orders, setting
    appropriate child support orders, awarding retroactive support only
    for appropriate and reasonable periods, crafting support orders that
    adequately provide for the medical support needs of children, and
    taking a problem-solving approach to ensure that child support is a
    reliable source of income for families. The proposed project will
    develop a medical support guide, a bench book and a publication on
    the application of specialty court techniques to improve court
    practices in integrating problem-solving court principles into the
    child support docket. The project will then pilot the tools,
    evaluate their usefulness, and revise them. The finished products
    will be unveiled at two NCJFCJ-sponsored national judicial education
    programs and disseminated nationwide. (Project ends 3/31/2008).

-   Virginia has had several grants designed to improve CSE case
    processing:

> Under the *Strengthening Case Management of Child Support Cases*
> (*Court Improvement Study)* project, Virginia developed several case
> processing best practices including reduction of litigant waiting time
> and reduction in the proportion of incomplete paternity orders. The
> results of the project are promising. For example, four of the eight
> pilot courts did show a decrease in the mean waiting time, although
> most of the pilot sites did not implement the best practice of no more
> than one-hour waiting time for both lawyers and litigants. Five of the
> pilot courts that submitted paternity orders for baseline and pilot
> periods decreased the mean percentage of incomplete orders from 43 to
> 23 percent. Also, the project identified better measures for some
> practices. Virginia expects that the project best practices will serve
> as a foundation for widespread improvements in child support case
> processing throughout the State. The pilot courts continue to use the
> improvements they developed and a number of these are being adopted by
> Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Courts throughout the State.
>
> Virginia's *Court-Ordered Paternity Process* improved communications
> among the courts, Vital Records and the Project Coordinator (child
> support agency) to increase the accuracy of paternity documents
> submitted to Vital Records to correct birth certificates. At regional
> meetings and other training venues, the Project Coordinator educated
> court clerks on the importance of providing Vital Records with
> complete and accurate paternity documents and of having the
> clerk/deputy clerk of the court certify the forms establishing
> paternity as authentic and accurate in order to be accepted by Vital
> Records. As a result of the project, Vital Records is receiving more
> complete and accurate information that meets its requirements to amend
> birth certificates. The percentage of changes to birth certificates
> submitted to Vital Records with correct information increased from
> 25.2 percent in 1999 to 33.4 percent in 2002. This improvement meant
> that correct information for an additional 597 birth certificates was
> submitted to Vital Records.
>
> Virginia's *Chesapeake* *Dead File* Project was designed to test the
> effectiveness of a Child Support Enforcement Unit (CSEU) in the
> Chesapeake Sheriff's Office. The demonstration focused on eliminating
> a backlog of *Dead File* (unworked) cases, by increasing the use of
> personal Service of Process (\[SOP\] serving the non-custodial parent
> personally as opposed to his/her substitute), and improving procedures
> among the CSEU, the Chesapeake Sheriff's Office, the Chesapeake
> District Office and the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations
> District Court (JDRDC). The demonstration resulted in increases in
> docketed cases, personal SOP of documents, arrests, support payments
> and non-custodial and custodial parent court appearances. The project
> identified and eliminated a backlog of 1,600 *Dead File* cases, many
> due to lack of current non-custodial parents' address information and
> lack of SOP. The CSEU achieved a 95 percent success rate in completing
> personal SOP compared to 26 percent for the Civil Process Unit. By
> properly identifying child support documents, CSEU worked with JDRDC
> to get cases processed and placed on the docket more timely. At the
> end of the grant project, forms for support documents were generally
> processed within the week of the filing date of the court. Also, in an
> experimental study, non-custodial parents who received personal SOP of
> administrative support order documents made 34 percent higher monthly
> payments, and paid 11 percent more of the monthly obligation amounts,
> in spite of having 21 percent higher monthly obligation amounts.

**Outreach/Alternative Service Strategies:** A number of grants
attempted to take a more proactive role by personally contacting parents
to educate them about the child support system and the consequences of
not fulfilling their child support obligations timely, and/or engaging
them more directly in the management of their cases. A common lesson
learned from these grants is the need to employ a variety of early or
proactive intervention techniques, including educating parents on child
support processes with continued follow-up, providing personal contact,
addressing literacy and access issues, and encouraging parental
responsibility.

-   California Department of Child Support Services' (DCSS) *California
    Resolves P*roject proposes to re-engineer California\'s business
    processes for order establishment and modification by incorporating
    alternative dispute resolution processes into both the child support
    program and the judicial system. The project will offer parents the
    opportunity to participate in a collaborative negotiation conference
    conducted in the local child support office and in a mediation
    conducted by the local court family law facilitator, with the goal
    of reaching a stipulated agreement establishing or modifying a child
    support order. California\'s Administrative Office of the Courts
    (AOC), particularly its judicial officers and its family law
    facilitators, will collaborate with DCSS and will provide mediation
    services for project cases. This proposal will test whether
    establishing and modifying child support orders through alternative
    dispute resolution processes increases current support orders, speed
    of order establishment and modification, and parent satisfaction
    with outcomes, as compared to establishing and modifying orders
    through the traditional courtroom processes.  (Project ends
    09/14/2008).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Connecticut Judicial Branch, Support Enforcement Services Unit's
    *Connecticut Customer Service Outreach Project* implemented a
    proactive, client-focused approach to collection of child support.
    Organizationally, the IV-D program is administered by two agencies
    within the State: the Bureau of Child Support Enforcement (BCSE)
    located within the Department of Social Services, and Support
    Enforcement Services (SES) located in the Connecticut Judicial
    Branch.  SES is responsible for enforcement of child support cases
    while BCSE is responsible for initiating the child support case and
    administrative enforcement activities such as tax offset,
    liens/levies, policy, etc.  This project administered by SES focused
    on three areas of enhancement. First, staff initiated contact with
    non-custodial parents prior to the occurrence of any problems with
    their case; secondly, clients were given increased access to
    assistance to help manage their case; and thirdly, improvements were
    made in the clarity and availability of case-related information. 
    The project made use of a combination of automated and personal
    outreach tools (including written materials, correspondence and
    phone contact) to actively seek contact with non-custodial parents
    and provide them with the information they needed to better manage
    their obligations.  The project tracked payment rates, appearance
    rates and resolution rates as well as related data in three pilot
    sites and in three comparable control sites.  Findings indicated
    that there was no consistent pattern for all three pilot sites in
    comparison to their control sites for these measures.  However, in
    looking at the type of intervention, the project did find that all
    forms of phone contact correlated to higher payment rates,
    appearance rates and resolution rates than no phone contact (mail
    only) in the pilot offices. A significant issue impacting the
    project was the difficulty in obtaining good phone numbers for
    non-custodial parents.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Third Judicial Circuit Court, Detroit, Michigan\'s *Reducing
    Paternity Defaults with E\'s (Explain, Educate, and Encourage)*
    project seeks to assure that child support orders more appropriately
    address the circumstances of both parents by improving service of
    process procedures, and using voluntary agreements to establish
    paternity and support. It also expects to improve access to the
    courts by using more culturally sensitive documents and by
    overcoming perceived obstacles to procedural justice. The project\'s
    title, *\"Reducing Paternity Defaults with E\'s*,\" emphasizes three
    initiatives to improve paternity establishment by reducing the
    number of defaults: explaining the process to fathers; educating
    them on the importance of participation and the consequences of
    non-participation; and encouraging future participation.

> Under the project, process servers give fathers easy-to-understand
> answer forms and encourage them to either acknowledge paternity
> (skipping much of the formal hearing process and setting support based
> on the circumstances of both parties), or to deny paternity and have
> genetic testing. Following service of process, the customer service
> unit (hotline representatives) contacts the non-custodial parents (or
> responds to questions if contacted by them), provides any additional
> information needed on the paternity establishment process, gives
> information on parenting time and custody and advises them of their
> court hearing date. Although the project has not yet ended,
> preliminary data is encouraging \-- as of December 2006, the
> non-default rate has increased from the traditional one-quarter to
> one-third to 45 percent based on 1,018 orders. Furthermore, of the 343
> non-default orders, 270 (or 79 percent) of the defendants who showed
> up at hearings had phone contact, demonstrating the importance of
> educating and encouraging defendants to appear. (Project ends
> 05/31/2008).

-   New Jersey's *The Use of an In-Court Facilitator* Project was
    designed to increase the number of children who have medical
    coverage and to provide an easier and more cost-effective way to
    disseminate New Jersey Family Care information to those individuals
    involved in child support matters as well as the general public.
    This project established a successful collaboration between Child
    Support and Family Care and facilitated an overall increased
    awareness regarding the importance of working together to make
    medical coverage possible for more children. All partners in this
    endeavor worked well together to integrate the Family Court/Child
    Support activities with the referral/screening/application process
    for Family Care. During the project, the Family Division (court)
    staff provided a medical insurance questionnaire/referral form and
    brochure on Family Care to individuals coming to the Family Division
    to file a motion. Family Division staff made referrals to the Board
    of Social Services, where staff followed up with those clients
    requesting additional information and/or services. Family Care
    applications were mailed to individuals who expressed an interest in
    applying for the program and staff made follow-up calls to those
    potential applicants when a completed application was not received
    within 30 days of being sent. However, only a small number of Family
    Care applications were received in either Middlesex or Ocean County.
    It was found that almost 20 percent of those that expressed an
    interest in Family Care already had some type of medical coverage.
    Although the In-Court Facilitator Project did not achieve its goal
    to increase the number of Family Care participants, project staff
    believed it to be an effective avenue of distributing Family Care
    information as well as information on other state programs (food
    stamps, the child support program, etc.).

-   San Francisco, California's *Enhanced Parental Involvement
    Collaboration (EPIC)* Project was designed to reduce the number of
    default cases and/or the number of cases in which imputed income was
    used to establish child support orders. The San Francisco Local
    Child Support Agency partnered with the San Francisco Unified Family
    Courts and its Family Law Facilitator to implement the project. The
    project design emphasized enhanced customer service and outreach
    strategies to encourage non-custodial parents to participate in the
    child support process. The alternative outreach strategies offered
    to non-custodial parents under EPIC were designed to enhance notice
    provision, address comprehension and literacy issues, and increase
    the amount of personal contact. If the non-custodial parent didn't
    respond to initial EPIC outreach efforts (such as written and
    personal contact, personal service of process and post-service
    outreach), then they were notified to appear for a status conference
    court hearing. For the majority of non-custodial parents the initial
    outreach efforts were effective, so only a small number of
    non-custodial parents were required to attend a status conference.
    At the status conference, the non-custodial parent met with the
    Family Law Facilitator, and the EPIC-Child Support Officer. He/she
    was informed about the child support process and required
    documentation, as well as given referrals for appropriate community
    and government agencies. If the non-custodial parent failed to show
    at the status conference, then the collaborative partners used this
    forum to further analyze locate and financial information about the
    non-custodial parent and to formulate next steps.

> Results of the EPIC outreach efforts are impressive: the EPIC group
> established 89 percent non-default judgments compared to the non-EPIC
> group which established only 35 percent non-default judgments, and the
> EPIC group compared to the non-EPIC group had a 16 percent higher rate
> of collections on current support and a 13 percent higher rate of
> collections on arrears. The success of EPIC has made it the standard
> for all new cases in San Francisco beginning October 1, 2006.  Between
> October 2006 and March 2007, a total of 1,781 new cases were
> established through the EPIC process. Of that, only 2 percent were
> based on presumed income and 15 percent were based on default orders.

-   The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
    Pennsylvania\'s *Improving Judicial Processing of Child Support
    Enforcement Cases Through the Use of Technology* project, was
    designed to test the effectiveness of allowing non-resident
    non-custodial parents to "appear" at court conferences and hearings
    to establish or modify child support orders using video and
    teleconferencing techniques. By making the video and teleconference
    option available to all non-custodial parents in local cases where
    the non-custodial parent lived outside of Allegheny County, the
    court hoped to improve the rate of participation in order-making
    proceedings. A further expectation was that participation would lead
    to the generation of more appropriate orders that were better paid
    over time. Under the grant, the court installed electronic equipment
    in a courtroom and developed written materials explaining the option
    to appear via video or teleconference.  Parents in the treatment
    group (non-custodial parents who had a zip code outside of Allegheny
    County) were mailed materials about the teleconference option with
    an application to participate.  Over the 17-month recruitment
    period, 325 cases were offered the teleconference option and 32
    percent participated.  Of the 103 cases with remote participation,
    all used teleconference techniques; no one requested to participate
    by video.  Nearly all (91 percent) of the non-custodial parents who
    teleconferenced said they did so because it was more convenient and
    less expensive than traveling into Allegheny County.  Generally,
    teleconferencing appealed to non-custodial parents who were better
    educated and wealthier (annual incomes of \$30,000 or more) and
    those who lived a great distance from the court (55 percent lived
    over 300 miles and 70 percent lived over 100 miles away).  Despite
    favorable user assessments of the teleconference experience, it did
    not result in any improvement in the appearance or agreement rate at
    order-making proceedings or in the subsequent child support payment
    rate.  However, it does appear to be a more convenient way to serve
    a segment of the child support population, especially those living
    some distance from the agency.  The process was well liked by those
    who opted to use it, custodial parents did not object, and
    conference and hearing officers found the format to be satisfactory
    and no more arduous or time-consuming than in-person approaches. 
    The project was unable to assess videoconferencing proceedings since
    Allegheny was the only jurisdiction to possess this equipment and
    only a few other jurisdictions were willing to
    accommodate videoconferencing.  Allegheny plans to expand the use of
    teleconferences to all intrastate cases with a non-custodial parent
    who lives outside of the County, and they will use videoconferences
    in all child support matters involving incarcerated obligors.

**IV. Service Approaches for Special Populations**

A number of OCSE grant projects were designed to address issues related
to non-payment of child support. These grant projects provided a variety
of services to accommodate the needs of special populations including
incarcerated, paroled and released non-custodial parents, parents with
access and visitation concerns, teen parents, or parents who were unable
to pay child support due to under-employment, unemployment or drug
abuse.

Most of these projects included referral of parents to job-readiness and
employment services to help them increase their earnings and thus
increase their child support payments. Some projects were designed to
offer alternative services to incarceration for nonpayment of support.
Success of these projects depended on educating parents about the child
support system, strong case management, and continued follow-up to
ensure parents understood their responsibilities, program requirements
and consequences of nonparticipation. In addition to program services,
other successful incentives for parents' participation included order
reviews, possible arrears reduction and repayment plans.

**Incarcerated/Released Non-custodial Parents:** These projects address
the needs of incarcerated and released non-custodial parents regarding
help with the modification process and/or employment and reintegration
services.

-   District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General Child Support
    Services Division's (CSSD) *Modifying Orders for D.C. Prisoners*
    project tests a new approach to modifying orders for District of
    Columbia prisoners. The District of Columbia enacted a law that
    requires judges to inform individuals being sentenced to prison that
    they have the right to petition the court for a modification of
    their child support order. It also requires that the court give
    individuals the opportunity to fill out a petition for modification
    during their sentencing hearing. This grant allows CSSD to reach as
    many obligors going to prison as possible. CSSD will also use this
    grant to develop and implement a method of identifying obligors
    already in prison who have a current support order and offering them
    assistance in completing and processing petitions for modification
    if circumstances warrant. In this way, CSSD hopes to eliminate the
    backlog of cases involving inmates that need an order modification.
    It will also serve to strengthen ties to the District criminal
    justice agencies and the broader community. Ultimately, the District
    hopes that the project will improve ex-prisoners\' chances of
    successfully reintegrating in their communities once they are
    released from prison and make it easier for them to pay child
    support. (Project ends 09/14/08).

-   Under Illinois' *Father Reintegration Project*, the child support
    agency collaborated with the State Department of Corrections and the
    Circuit Court of Cook County. One of the goals of the initiative was
    to provide incarcerated individuals with a wide array of services
    including information on the child support system and special
    assistance to address barriers such as employability through the
    Non-custodial Parent Services Unit. The project provided general and
    case-specific information about child support, responsible
    fatherhood classes, and case management services to 190 inmates with
    child support involvement. CSE agency staff provided both technical
    and hands-on assistance to incarcerated individuals to help prepare
    essential documents to expedite the modification process.

> The inmates were housed in two Illinois Department of Corrections
> Adult Transition Centers (ATCs, also known as work-release programs)
> operated by the Safer Foundation, a well-known provider of employment
> and reentry services to released offenders. In addition to helping ATC
> residents determine their child support status, project staff helped
> those with existing orders to apply for modifications that were
> processed through special arrangements developed with the Circuit
> Court of Cook County. Court personnel at the Expedited Child Support
> Division of the Cook County Circuit Court anticipated that
> modification hearings involving incarcerated non-custodial parents
> would take longer than usual and began to schedule cases for project
> participants for time slots that allowed for longer proceedings. As a
> result of planning and communication between the child support agency
> and the court, the hearings were successful, and the outcomes were
> regarded as satisfactory. During the project, 63 participants (roughly
> two-thirds of those who were eligible) requested a modification. While
> a few cases (13 percent) were still pending when the project ended, 44
> percent were granted a modification, while 43 percent were closed and
> the request was dismissed, typically because the non-custodial parent
> failed to appear in court or was remanded to prison.

-   The Michigan Supreme Court\'s *Prisoner Support Adjustment Project*
    studied prisoners\' use of review and modification processes and
    tested the effectiveness of using audio and video technology to
    allow prisoners access to Michigan's child support proceedings. The
    Office of Child Support provided monthly data-match reports on child
    support cases and prisoner records. The Department of Corrections
    coordinated prisoner appearances by electronic means. Local circuit
    courts supplied facilities, equipment and staff to fulfill support
    modification and judicial duties. Support orders were modified in
    3,370 prisoner-related cases and reduced an average from \$220 per
    month to \$19 per month. Over one year, these modifications will
    prevent the accumulation of over \$8,150,000 in uncollectible
    past-due support. Electronic appearances saved the State over
    \$60,000 in transportation and prisoner escort costs. The project
    established new working relationships among local friend of the
    court offices, the Michigan Department of Corrections, the State
    Court Administrative Office and the Office of Child Support. The
    project found that utilizing administrative processes to review and
    hold electronic-appearance hearings only when a party objects to a
    proposed outcome permits faster modifications and reduces the number
    of support modification hearings.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Texas *Family Reintegration Project* was designed to develop
    strategies for increasing child support payment, employment, and
    family reintegration among paroled and released parents. Texas
    provided a variety of services including employment services,
    parenting assistance, order reviews and reunification services to
    paroled and released non-custodial parents. State-level
    collaboration included the criminal justice system, IV-D court
    masters and workforce development boards. Although project
    participation did not lead to any overall change in payment
    behavior, inmates who paid support paid more of what they owed, and
    the payment was more likely to come from wage withholding. Program
    participants showed a 50 percent increase in the amount they paid on
    what they owed in child support over what they paid in the year
    prior to incarceration. Texas child support policies and statutes
    preclude aggressive child support actions to modify child support
    orders or address inappropriately high arrears balances (e.g., state
    law requires that orders be based on the minimum wage at 40 hours
    per week). The OAG has convened a statewide workgroup to review
    agency policies and procedures that impact incarcerated parents.

**Parents with Access and Visitation Concerns**: Three grants have
addressed the needs of parents with access and visitation issues.

-   Florida's *Impact of Mediation on Non-Compliant Non-custodial
    Parents Who Indicate Reason for Nonpayment Project* created a new
    Family Division Section within the court system to address access
    and visitation (A&V) issues in addition to paternity and child
    support issues.  Eligible participants included never-married
    parents and only those non-custodial parents who expressed A&V
    issues as a reason for non-payment of child support.  Eligible
    participants were randomly referred to receive services as currently
    provided (usual services) or, for comparison purposes to treatment
    services.  Treatment participants were referred to an intake
    specialist who administered a questionnaire, updated the parties'
    locate information, provided information and education about
    parenting classes, played a video on co-parenting issues and
    referred parties to mediation services.  The major goal of the
    project was to foster non-custodial parents' involvement with their
    children and thus increase child support compliance.  The project
    results found that 65% of the treatment participant group (65 cases)
    received court-approved mediated A&V agreements versus only 2% of
    those assigned to the usual services (51 cases) and 94% of
    non-custodial parents and 78% of custodial parents indicated that
    visits actually took place and gave positive ratings to the visits
    with their children.  However, there were no differences in payment
    compliance between the treatment and usual services group.  This may
    be due to the use of Florida Income Deduction Orders for both groups
    of the study, in which most non-custodial parents who were
    non-complying before a child support hearing became compliant post
    hearing.  Florida recommends that a larger sample size and a longer
    post-intervention observation period to follow-up with both groups
    are required to produce more definitive outcomes.  

-   Georgia's *Integration of Access and Visitation (AV) and Child
    Support Enforcement Project* served 135 non-custodial parents: the
    control group (71) received a proscribed amount of services
    consistent with prior integrated access and visitation services
    including mediation, parenting seminars, and counseling services,
    while the experimental group (64) was able to avail themselves of a
    larger quantity of the same services. The project was implemented in
    five metro Atlanta counties: Cobb, Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton and
    Gwinnett. Cases were selected from court hearings where child access
    was the major factor in non-payment. Various recruitment activities
    were used including mass mailings to parents in child support cases
    where non-payments were identified, public service announcements,
    program flyers distributed at courts and family law centers, and
    staff visits to local child support offices and to child support
    delinquency court hearings.  Project participation increased most
    significantly from project staff visits with judges and at court
    hearings.

> Outcomes with respect to the amount and frequency of child support
> payments and total number of visitations were tracked for the control
> and experimental groups.  Although payment differences between the
> control and experimental groups were not statistically significant,
> there were several interesting findings.  The experimental group paid
> a higher percentage on average of their child support payments
> initially after intervention, but there was little difference between
> the groups in terms of percent change over time.  This result may be
> due to the notion that expanded quantity of services allowed for
> greater results quickly and gave the experimental group of
> non-custodial parents an increased sense of control.  This feeling may
> be important since non-custodial parents in focus groups have
> expressed feelings of powerlessness.  Although the project did not
> find a significant increase in total number of visitations and child
> support payments between the groups, each group did show an increase
> in visitations and payment obligations during the project period.  It
> appears that the regular service model is generally effective for this
> group of parents and that the expanded service model does not affect
> outcomes.  The study did find a significant correlation between income
> and payment as well as education and payment.  This may suggest that
> the issue of nonpayment may be less associated with desire to pay than
> ability to pay.

-   Tennessee's *Testing Approaches to Developing Amicable Family
    Relationships Among Unmarried Parents Project* is a collaborative
    effort between the Tennessee Child Support Enforcement Division and
    the Administrative Office of the Court. The project is designed to
    identify unmarried parents with access and visitation (AV) concerns
    and provide them the necessary services to enhance parental
    relationships and parent-child contact, and to avoid adversarial
    proceedings. Parenting Coordinators and pro se specialists have been
    placed in each of three child support offices and juvenile courts in
    Nashville, Chattanooga, and the Jackson/Lexington/Henderson area,
    representing both urban and rural judicial districts. They publicize
    the project and work with child support workers, court personnel and
    other relevant service providers to identify parents in the child
    support caseload with visitation problems. Under the project,
    unmarried parents with access and visitation issues have been
    randomly assigned to either a low-level treatment (receive a packet
    of information and referrals) or a high-level treatment (in-depth
    needs assessment, case management, educational programs facilitated
    by a parenting specialist, and other service referrals). A random
    assignment outcome evaluation will compare payment activity,
    paternity acknowledgment, established child support orders, and
    enforcement actions across the two treatment groups. (Project ends
    07/31/2008).

**Parents Behind in Child Support Payments:** These projects addressed
issues of underemployment, unemployment or substance abuse. All of these
projects offered employment referral as a major component service.

-   The Christian Community Council (CCC) of Albany, Louisiana's *Fill
    the Gap Program* operates a community outreach program that works
    with non-custodial parents who have not been meeting their child
    support obligations. These parents are referred to *Fill the Gap* by
    its partners -- the State's 21^st^ Judicial Court District and the
    Amite District Support Enforcement Services Office. The 10-week
    program is designed to help these non-custodial parents gain a
    better understanding of child support enforcement and the court
    system, find full-time employment, build positive relationships with
    their children and the custodial parent or guardian, and begin
    meeting their child support obligation voluntarily and consistently.
    The *Fill the Gap Program* has been in operation since 2003 and has
    steadily grown. In 2005, it served 44 participants, and showed 75
    percent of participants having made a child support payment in the
    previous six months of program participation. The grant enables the
    program to expand services, implement more effective management, and
    increase their staff. The grant also enables them to develop an
    online, secure database, program web site, and program manual and
    this will allow the project to be duplicated in other Regions.
    Recent data indicate that for 2006, the program served 33
    participants with 73 percent considered compliant with program
    requirements. The reduction in the number of participants served in
    2006 is due to the economic and population changes caused by
    Hurricane Katrina. The project staff expects participation to
    increase in 2007.

> The project will utilize pre-/post-data collection to evaluate
> participants\' confidence level in dealing with CSE and the Court,
> willingness to meet child support obligations, employment status and
> place of employment, contact with children, and perceptions of the
> program\'s effectiveness. (Project ends 08/31/2008).

-   Episcopal Social Services (ESS), Wichita, Kansas' *Reliable Income
    for Kids Coalition* *(RIK)* tested proactive interventions called
    \"pro se legal facilitation\" separately and in tandem with a
    customized system of arrears forgiveness. The RIK partnership,
    consisting of the local IV-D agency, the State District
    Court[,]{.underline} Kansas Workforce Development, and the county
    parole office, cooperated to manage referrals, incentives, and
    outcomes. The project began in October 2005 and ended April 2007.
    The chief goal was to make child support a reliable source of income
    by helping non-custodial parents comply with child support orders
    which they have been reluctant or unable to pay. RIK offered free
    legal facilitation coupled with arrears forgiveness incentives in
    exchange for consistent payment of support to a targeted group of
    non-custodial parents who have been found in contempt of court as
    well as a pilot group of recently released felons. Participants were
    provided access to proactive interventions such as one-on-one
    meetings with a pro se legal facilitator, cooperative parenting and
    money management classes, access to the ESS job search lab, and the
    assistance of family support caseworkers to monitor job search
    activities and assist in removing barriers that may prevent
    employment. The approach included the establishment of four
    experimental groups to test the effect of each intervention
    separately and in tandem against the results from a control group.
    Results are encouraging and statistically significant.  Data
    collected from November 2005 through April 2007, indicate that 207
    participants who enrolled in the RIK project remained active in the
    RIK project. Of these, Group A, participants who received pro se
    facilitation, 61% paid their full child support ordered amount;
    Group B, who received the opportunity to earn arrears forgiveness,
    54% paid; Group C participants who received both the pro se
    facilitation and the arrears forgiveness opportunity, 62% paid; and
    the control group who received neither pro-se facilitation nor the
    arrears forgiveness opportunity, 51% paid.  Non-custodial parents in
    the RIK project paid a total of \$491,761 in child support during
    the duration of the project. Participants in Groups B and C earned
    arrears forgiveness totaling \$24,578 in state debt. Other notable
    results include: 74% of participants resumed or commenced paying
    child support within 90 days of enrollment; 66% of those unemployed
    upon entering RIK obtained employment within 90 days of enrollment;
    and 46% of participants (19 of 41) seeking help with visitation
    problems reported increased contact with their children.

-   The Circuit Court of Baltimore County, Maryland's *Family Employment
    and Support Program* (FESP) was under the direct leadership of the
    Court. The project was designed to help non-custodial parents, who
    were behind in their child support payments, obtain full-time
    employment. FESP participants were required to submit employment
    applications and meet regularly with employment coordinators for job
    referrals. All child support dockets were consolidated under one
    judge to ensure that the same policy was consistently applied to all
    participants. Professional employment coordinators were hired who
    had experience working with similar populations. Under the project
    model, the employment coordinators worked directly for the court and
    responded to court policies and procedures. The key to the success
    of this project was the constant follow-up and assistance provided
    by the court so that non-custodial parents would continue to pursue
    employment to support their children. Another important aspect of
    the program was the use of Writs of Attachment (i.e., a warrant to
    bring the non-custodial parent before the court) for parents who
    refused to participate in the program. Although this mechanism was
    used sparingly, it reinforced the idea that the court would take
    action so parents would take the program seriously. At the end of
    the two-year project, about two- thirds of current participants (135
    of 201) were employed and paying child support. The average length
    of time of employment was 8.4 weeks and the median wage of the
    parents was \$12.62 per hour. In terms of child support collected,
    the FESP Program was responsible for collecting \$382,505 in
    calendar year 2006 and expects to collect over \$400,000 annually.
    The FESP model can be adapted to various settings, depending on the
    size of the court and its locale. It can be integrated into a family
    court or can remain a separate program within the court.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Michigan 14^th^ Circuit Court's *The Non-Custodial Parent
    Program* (NCPP) targeted unemployed and underemployed non-custodial
    parents. The NCPP coordinated services for participant non-custodial
    parents to help them gain employment and pay child support. A 14-day
    window was given to the non-custodial parent to enroll in the
    program, to begin making payments or to provide employment
    information to the Friend of the Court. If employment information
    was not provided, or the non-custodial parent did not enroll in
    NCPP, the matter was set for Show Cause Hearing. Incentives such as
    modification reviews, repayment plan, and possibility of arrears
    reduction were built into the program to promote non-custodial
    parent compliance with program requirements. Program compliance
    monitoring data were provided electronically via internet between
    the Michigan Works! Center and the Court. Over the project period of
    two years, over 900 non-custodial parents participated in NCPP and
    over \$400,000 was collected in child support. The program had a 35
    percent successful employment rate which the project staff believe
    was good, given the high unemployment rate for Muskegon County.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Eighth Judicial District Court's *Nevada Child Support Drug
    Court Project* was designed to deal with non-custodial parents who
    fail to comply with their child support obligations, primarily as a
    result of a severe substance abuse addiction.  The program goal was
    to increase the amount of collections and frequency of payments. The
    comprehensive program provides judicial supervision and treatment
    focusing on obligor sobriety and accountability, and utilizes
    sanctions and incentives to help individuals take control of their
    own recovery.  Eligible non-custodial parents, who admit to a
    substance abuse problem, are referred to the program by the Child
    Support Hearing Master.  The individual must sign a consent
    agreement to release treatment information to the court.  Also, the
    participant and the Hearing Master sign a contract which describes
    the treatment regimen and consequences for non-performance,
    including the possibility of being held in contempt of court.  The
    program provides ongoing monitoring and supervision including
    regular drug testing and appearances in court.  Services consist of
    intensive mental health and substance abuse counseling, vocational
    assessment, job assistance, and aftercare support. In order to
    graduate, the participant must have met all treatment and financial
    obligations, must be working, and must be drug-free for 6 months.

> The Court has continued to fund the Child Support Drug Court Program
> beyond the grant period because of its positive results. While the
> number of participants remains small (averaging about 16), the
> majority realize significant increases in earnings (71 percent -- 88
> percent) and increases in child support payments (43 percent -- 75
> percent).  Graduates from the program had a 24 percent compliancy rate
> for one year prior to admission, a 72 percent compliancy rate while in
> the program, and a 75 percent compliancy rate post program.

-   Virginia's *Barriers Program* was designed to provide special
    services to non-custodial parents facing incarceration for
    non-payment of child support and to assist them in overcoming
    barriers that prevented their payment of child support. The project
    had two phases: Barriers I was conducted from March 1, 2000 -- April
    1, 2001 and Barriers II was conducted from April 1, 2001 to June
    1, 2005. Juvenile and Domestic Relations (J&DR) District Courts
    judges in the Fredericksburg, VA area referred 294 non-custodial
    parents representing 490 cases for case management services, in lieu
    of incarceration for non-payment of child support. The most
    frequently used services provided by case managers were referral of
    non-custodial parents to employment services (mainly through
    temporary employment agencies or the VA Employment Commission),
    mailing of monthly statements to non-custodial parent participants,
    and written and oral communication with non-custodial parents to
    reinforce the importance of making regular payments. Six months
    after enrollment in the BP, non-custodial parents entering between
    March 2000 and June 2004 made payments that were 106 percent greater
    (representing \$211,869 additional dollars) than they made 6 months
    prior to enrollment. For all BP participants, this trend in
    additional payments --ranging between 16 and 70 percent greater --
    continued for 18 months after enrollment in the program. Arrearages
    for 29.7 percent of the non-custodial parents declined an average of
    20.2 percent.

> Significant costs were also avoided in terms of having an alternative
> to incarceration. For example, if 260 non-custodial parents had been
> incarcerated for 6 months in lieu of being referred to the program,
> incarceration costs to Virginia would have been over \$2.3 million and
> \$412,000 in payments for the support of their children would have
> been lost.

**Teen Parents:** One grantee has established a coalition to adapt the
TX PAPA curriculum to address the needs of unmarried teen parents and
increase their use of child support services.

-   The Georgia State University (GSU) Research Foundation, Inc., *MAMA
    and PAPA: Real World* project proposes to facilitate a collaboration
    of interested partners to address the issues of unmarried teen
    parents between the ages of 17 and 20. The partners will include
    several churches and faith-based organizations, representatives of
    the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), Juvenile Courts and
    Court support staff and associates in DeKalb and Fulton counties
    along with Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) personnel.
    This coalition proposes to import the highly successful Parenting
    and Paternity Awareness (PAPA) project from the State of Texas. The
    AOC, OCSE, GSU law students and other associated legal professionals
    will provide the technical assistance involved in adjusting the
    Texas PAPA curriculum to fit Georgia state laws and requirements.
    Two new Georgia laws related to child support will also be
    incorporated into the curriculum revision. One changes the method of
    setting guidelines for child support from gross income model to
    shared income model and the second law allows a father to legitimate
    his child by taking one action to acknowledge paternity.

> Participants will be recruited through referrals from OCSE, juvenile
> courts, the Georgia Fatherhood Program, churches and other faith- and
> community-based organizations. This project has a goal of conducting a
> minimum of two training sessions each month for a total of 24
> sessions. It is anticipated that 10 teen parents will be served in
> each session for a total of 240 participants. The program evaluation
> will be based on data collected by several partner providers and from
> OCSE records. The program will measure success using the following
> indicators: participants who open an OCSE case (who did not have a
> case previously); establishment of paternity; establishment of child
> support obligations; increase in the amount and frequency of child
> support payments; entering the Georgia Fatherhood Program; entering
> the Georgia Child Access and Visitation Services; legitimating their
> child; and becoming engaged or married. (Project ended September 29,
> 2007; final report expected by the end of December 2007).

# V. Contact Information

+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **Grantee**  | **Project**            | **Contact Information**     |
+==============+========================+=============================+
| AZ           | Arizona Statewide      | Veronica Ragland            |
| Department   | Arrears Calculation    |                             |
| of Economic  | Tool (eCalc**)**       | Assistant Director, Child   |
| Security     |                        | Support  \                  |
| Division of  | Section 1115 Grant No. | P.O. Box 40458              |
| Child        | 90FD0112               |                             |
| Support      |                        | Phoenix, Arizona 85067      |
| Enforcement  | Project Period:        |                             |
|              | 08/01/2005-05/31/2007  | \(602\) 274-7646            |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| CA           | California Resolves    | Daniel Louis, Chief Counsel |
| Department   |                        |                             |
| of Child     | Section 1115 Grant No. | California Department of    |
| Support      | 90FD0114               | Child Support Services      |
| Services     |                        |                             |
|              | Project Period:        | P.O. Box 409164             |
|              | 09/15/2006-09/14/2008  |                             |
|              |                        | Ranch Cordova, California   |
|              |                        | 95741-9064                  |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | \(916\) 464-5181            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | <Daniel.Louis@dcss.ca.gov>  |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| CA, San      | Enhanced Parental      | Karen M. Roye, Director     |
| Francisco    | Involvement            |                             |
|              | Collaboration (EPIC)   | SF Department of Child      |
| Department   |                        | Support Services            |
| of Child     | SIP Grant No. 90FI0063 |                             |
| Support      |                        | 617 Mission Street          |
| Services     | Project Period:        |                             |
|              | 07/01/2004-06/30/2006  | San Francisco, CA 94105     |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | \(415\) 356-2700            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | <Karen.Roye@sfgov.org>      |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| CT           | Partners Executive     | Diane Fray, IV-D Director   |
| Department   | Council                |                             |
| of Social    |                        | Department of Social        |
| Services     | Section 1115 Grant No. | Services, Family Services   |
|              | 90FD0037               |                             |
|              |                        | 25 Sigourney Street         |
|              | Project Period:        |                             |
|              | 09/30/2000-02/29/2004  | Hartford CT 06106           |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | \(860\) 424-5253            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | <diane.fray@ct.gov>         |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| CT Judicial  | CT Customer Service    | David Panke, Deputy         |
| Branch,      | Outreach Project       | Director                    |
|              |                        |                             |
| Support      | SIP Grant No. 90FI0068 | Support Enforcement         |
| Enforcement  |                        | Services                    |
| Unit         | Project Period:        |                             |
|              | 07/01/2004-11/30/2006  | 287 Main Street, 3^rd^ Fl.  |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | East Hartford, CT 06118     |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | \(860\) 569-6233, ext. 347  |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | <David.Panke@jud.ct.gov>    |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| CO Dept. of  | Data Information       | Dan Welch                   |
| Human        | Sharing (DISH)         |                             |
| Services,    |                        | Grant Manager               |
| Division of  | Section 1115 Grant No. |                             |
| Child        | 90FD0115               | 1575 Sherman Street 5th     |
| Support      |                        | floor                       |
| Enforcement  | Project Period:        |                             |
|              | 09/15/2006-09/14/2008  | Denver, CO 80203-1714       |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | \(303\) 866-4452            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | <dan.welch@state.co.us>     |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        |                             |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| D.C. Office  | Modifying Orders for   | Cory Chandler               |
| of Attorney  | D.C. Prisoners         |                             |
|              |                        | Deputy IV-D Director        |
| General      | Section 1115 Grant No. |                             |
| Child        | 90FD0119               | Child Support Services      |
| Support      |                        | Division                    |
| Services     | Project Period:        |                             |
| Division     | 09/15/2006-09/14-2008  | D.C. Office of the Attorney |
|              |                        | General                     |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | 441 4th Street, NW, Suite   |
|              |                        | 550N                        |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | Washington, DC 20001        |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | [(]{.underline}202)         |
|              |                        | 724-2032                    |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | [[Cory.Chan                 |
|              |                        | dler@dc.gov]{.underline}](m |
|              |                        | ailto:Cory.Chandler@dc.gov) |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| FL           | Impact of Mediation on | Velva Knapp                 |
| Department   | Non-Compliant          |                             |
| of Revenue   | Non-custodial Parents  | FL Child Support            |
|              | Who Indicate Reason    | Enforcement Program         |
| Child        | for Nonpayment Relates |                             |
| Support      | to Access and          | 4070 Esplanade Way          |
| Enforcement  | Visitation             |                             |
| Program      |                        | Tallahassee, FL 32399       |
|              | Section 1115 Grant No. |                             |
|              | 90FD0099               | \(850\) 410-3244            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              | Project Period:        | knappv@dor.state.fl.us      |
|              | 09/30/2004-02/28/2007  |                             |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| GA           | Integration of Access  | Russell Eastman             |
| Department   | and Visitation and     |                             |
| of Human     | Child Support          | Policy Specialist,          |
| Resources    |                        |                             |
| Office of    | Section 1115 Grant No. | Child Support Enforcement   |
| Child        | 90FD0090               |                             |
| Support      |                        | GA Dept. of Human Services  |
| Enforcement  | Project Period:        |                             |
|              | 9/30/2004-2/28/2007    | Two Peachtree St. NW, Suite |
|              |                        | 20-292                      |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | Atlanta, GA 30303           |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | \(404\) 463-6861            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | reastman@dhr.state.ga.us    |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| GA State     | PAPA and MAMA Real     | Douglas Greenwell, Ph.D.    |
| University   | World                  |                             |
|              |                        | Director                    |
| Research     | SIP Grant No. 90FI0074 |                             |
| Foundation,  |                        | Georgia State University    |
| Inc.         | Project Period:        | Research Foundation, Inc.   |
|              | 09/03/2005-09/29/2007  |                             |
|              |                        | The Atlanta Project         |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | P.O. Box 5317               |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | Atlanta, GA 31107           |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | \(404\) 206-5002            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | tapdgg@langate.gsu.edu      |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| IL Division  | Father Reintegration   | Norris Stevenson            |
| of Child     | Project                |                             |
| Support      |                        | Deputy Administrator for    |
| Enforcement  | Section 1115 Grant No. | Field Operations            |
|              | 90FD0057               |                             |
|              |                        | Non-Custodial Parent        |
|              | Project Period:        | Services Unit               |
|              | 10/01/2001-9/29/2004   |                             |
|              |                        | IL Dept. of Healthcare and  |
|              |                        | Family Services             |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | 32 W. Randolph, 11^th^      |
|              |                        | Floor                       |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | Chicago, IL 60601           |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | 312-793-7984                |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | Aidd5144@idpa.state.il.us   |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| KS Episcopal | Reliable Income for    | Carolyn West                |
| Social       | Kids Coalition         |                             |
| Services     |                        | Project Coordinator         |
|              | SIP Grant No. 90FI0079 |                             |
|              |                        | Episcopal Social Services   |
|              | Project Period:        |                             |
|              | 09/30/2005-04/29/2007  | 1005 East 2^nd^ Street      |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | Wichita, KS 67214           |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | \(316\) 269-4160            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | sfc@ess.kscoxmail.com       |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| LA,          | Fill the Gap           | Cheryl Breaux               |
| Christian    |                        |                             |
| Community    | SIP Grant No. 90FI0084 | Program Director            |
| Council      |                        |                             |
|              | Project Period:        | Christian Community Council |
|              | 9/01/2006-08/31/2008   |                             |
|              |                        | P.O. Box 280                |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | Albany, LA 70711            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | \(985\) 974-5586            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | cbreaux@selv.edu            |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| MD, Family   | MD Family Employment   | Peter Lally, Court          |
| Division of  | and Support Program    | Administrator               |
| the Circuit  |                        |                             |
| Court of     | SIP Grant No. 90FI0057 | The Circuit Court for       |
| Baltimore    |                        | Baltimore County            |
| County       | Project Period:        |                             |
|              | 07/01/2004-06/30/2006  | County Court Building       |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | Townson, MD 21204           |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | \(410\) 887-2687            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | p                           |
|              |                        | lally@baltimorecountymd.gov |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| MI Supreme   | Prisoner Support       | William Bartels             |
| Court        | Adjustment Project     |                             |
|              |                        | Prisoner Support Adjustment |
|              | SIP Grant No. 90FI0064 | project Coordinator         |
|              |                        |                             |
|              | Project Period:        | State Court Administrative  |
|              | 07/01/2004-11/30/2005  | Office                      |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | MI Supreme Court            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | PO Box 30048                |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | Lansing, MI 48909           |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | \(517\) 373-5975            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | BartelsB@courts.mi.gov      |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| MI 14^th^    | The Non-Custodial      | Kevin Eaton                 |
| Circuit      | Parent Program         |                             |
| Court        |                        | Muskegon County Family      |
|              | SIP Grant No. 90FI0050 | Court Services              |
| Muskegon, MI |                        |                             |
|              | Project Period:        | Work First Program          |
|              | 01/01/2003-09/30/2004  |                             |
|              |                        | Family Division of Circuit  |
|              |                        | Court                       |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | Muskegon, MI                |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | \(231\) 724-6312            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | vasquezro@co.muskegon.mi.us |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| MI, Third    | Reducing Paternity     | Joseph Schewe               |
| Judicial     | Defaults with E's      |                             |
| Circuit      |                        | Wayne County Friend of      |
| Court,       | SIP Grant No. 90FI0081 | Court                       |
| Detroit      |                        |                             |
|              | Project Period:        | Special Assistant           |
|              | 09/30/2005-09/29/2007  | Prosecuting Attorney        |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | 645 Griswold, Suite 323     |
|              |                        | Penobscot Bldg.             |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | Detroit, MI 48226           |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | \(313\) 224-6639            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | Joseph.Schewe@3rdcc.org     |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| National     | Automating the         | Kay Farley, Executive       |
| Center for   | Exchange of Court Data | Director                    |
| State Courts |                        |                             |
|              | SIP Grant No. 90FI0034 | Government Relations        |
|              |                        |                             |
|              | Project Period:        | 2425 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 350 |
|              | 08/30/2001-02/01/2002  |                             |
|              |                        | Arlington, VA 22201         |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | \(703\) 841-5601            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | kfarley@ncsc.dni.us         |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| National     | Judicial Tools to      | Cheryl Lyngar, Information  |
| Council of   | Improve Court Practice | Specialist                  |
| Juvenile and | in Child Support       |                             |
| Family Court |                        | National Council of         |
| Judges       | SIP Grant No. 90FI0082 | Juvenile                    |
|              |                        |                             |
|              | Project Period:        | and Family Court Judges     |
|              | 09/30/2005-09/29/2007) |                             |
|              |                        | PO Box 8970                 |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | Reno, NV 89507              |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | \(775\) 784-6225            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | clyngar@ncjfcj.org          |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| NJ           | The Use of an In-Court | Alisha A. Griffin           |
| Department   | Facilitator            |                             |
| of Human     |                        | Assistant Director          |
| Services     | Section 1115 Grant No. |                             |
|              | 90FD0038               | New Jersey Department of    |
| Division of  |                        | Human Services              |
| Family       | Project Period:        |                             |
| Development  | 09/30/2000-08/31/2003  | Division of Family          |
|              |                        | Development                 |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | PO Box 716                  |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | Trenton, NJ 08625-0716      |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | \(609\) 588-5093            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | Ali                         |
|              |                        | sha.griffin@dhs.state.nj.us |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| NV 8^th^     | Nevada Drug Court      | Kendis Stake                |
| Judicial     |                        |                             |
| District     | SIP Grant No. 90FI0030 | Drug Court Manager          |
| Court        |                        |                             |
|              | Project Period:        | Eighth Judicial District    |
|              | 10/01/2000-12/31/2001  | Court                       |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | 601 N. Pecos Road           |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | Las Vegas, NV 89101         |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | \(702\) 455-2060            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | stakeke@co.clark.nv.us      |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| PA, Court of | Improving Judicial     | Patrick W. Quinn, Esq.      |
| Common Pleas | Case Processing        |                             |
| of Allegheny | Through the Use of     | Administrator, Family       |
| County       | Technology             | Division                    |
|              |                        |                             |
|              | SIP Grant No. 90FI0065 | 440 Ross Street             |
|              |                        |                             |
|              | Project Period:        | Pittsburgh, PA 15219        |
|              | 07/01/2004-11/30/2006  |                             |
|              |                        | \(412\) 350-6930            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | PatrickQuinn@pacses.com     |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| TN Child     | Testing Approaches to  | Charles Bryson              |
| Support      | Developing Amicable    |                             |
| Enforcement  | Family Relationships   | Director, Child Support     |
| Division     | Among Unmarried        | Field Operations and        |
|              | Parents                | Management                  |
|              |                        |                             |
|              | Section 1115 Grant No. | Department of Human         |
|              | 90FD0108               | Services                    |
|              |                        |                             |
|              | Project Period:        | Citizens Plaza Bldg., 12    |
|              | 08/01/05-07/31/08      | Floor                       |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | 400 Deaderick St.           |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | Nashville, TN 37248         |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | \(615\) 313-5126            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | Charles.bryson@state.tn.us  |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| TX Office of | TX Family              | Michael Hayes               |
| Attorney     | Reintegration Project  |                             |
| General      |                        | Office of Family            |
|              | Section 1115 Grant No. | Initiatives                 |
|              | 90FD0073               |                             |
|              |                        | Office of Attorney General  |
|              | Project Period:        |                             |
|              | 09/30/2002-03/31/2005  | PO Box 12017 MC 039         |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | Austin, TX 78711-2017       |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | \(512\) 460-6218            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | Micha                       |
|              |                        | el.Hayes@cs.oag.state.tx.us |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| VA           | Improving the          | Nathaniel L. Young, Jr.     |
| Department   | Court-Ordered          |                             |
| of Social    | Paternity Process      | Director, Child Support     |
| Services     |                        | Enforcement                 |
|              | Section 1115 Grant No. |                             |
| Division of  | 90FD0051               | 730 East Broad Street       |
| Child        |                        |                             |
| Support      | Project Period:        | Richmond, VA 23219          |
| Enforcement  | 09/30/2000-02/28/2003  |                             |
|              |                        | \(804\) 726-7416            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | nick.young@dss.virginia.gov |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| VA           | Court Improvement      | Nathaniel L. Young, Jr.     |
| Department   | Study                  |                             |
| of Social    |                        | Director, Child Support     |
| Services     | Section 1115 Grant No. | Enforcement                 |
|              | 90FD0087               |                             |
| Division of  |                        | 730 East Broad Street       |
| Child        | Project Period:        |                             |
| Support      | 09/30/03-02/28/06      | Richmond, VA 23219          |
| Enforcement  |                        |                             |
|              |                        | \(804\) 726-7416            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | nick.young@dss.virginia.gov |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| VA           | The Barriers Program   | Nathaniel L. Young, Jr.     |
| Department   |                        |                             |
| of Social    | Section 1115 Grant     | Director, Child Support     |
| Services     | No.90FD0063            | Enforcement                 |
|              |                        |                             |
| Division of  | Project Period:        | 730 East Broad Street       |
| Child        | 03/01/2000-04/01/2001  |                             |
| Support      | and extended           | Richmond, VA 23219          |
| Enforcement  | 04/01/2001-06/01/2005  |                             |
|              |                        | \(804\) 726-7416            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | nick.young@dss.virginia.gov |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| VA           | Chesapeake Dead File   | Nathaniel L. Young, Jr.     |
| Department   | Project                |                             |
| of Social    |                        | Director, Child Support     |
| Services     | Section 1115 Grant No. | Enforcement                 |
|              | 90FD0074               |                             |
| Division of  |                        | 730 East Broad Street       |
| Child        | Project Period:        |                             |
| Support      | 09/30/2002-09/29/2005  | Richmond, VA 23219          |
| Enforcement  |                        |                             |
|              |                        | \(804\) 726-7416            |
|              |                        |                             |
|              |                        | nick.young@dss.virginia.gov |
+--------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+