Compendium of State Best Practices

and

Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement \-- 2000

Fifth Edition

Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children and Families

Office of Child Support Enforcement

Copies of this *Compendium of*

*State Best Practices and Good Ideas*

can be obtained electronically from our home

page on the internet:

<http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/ACFPrograms/CSE/>

Readers are encouraged to visit

the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Home Page.

It is our most up-to-date

and complete source of

published Federal materials on

child support enforcement.

NECSRS, our National Electronic

Child Support Enforcement

Resource System, also includes

state-submitted materials on

program practices. You can find NECSRS through

the OCSE Web Site.

Introduction to the

Office of Child Support Enforcement

Compendium of State Best Practices and

Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement \-- 2000

Fifth Edition

This is the first installment of the Fifth Edition of the *Compendium of
State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement*.

We hope you will agree the practices profiled have information useful to
you in your search for big solutions as well as incremental benefits.
They describe problems addressed and report information on funding and
results. They also offer advice on how to replicate a practice and give
the state contact for additional information you may want. We are
pleased to give good ideas visibility while not endorsing any particular
practices. There are many ways to improve performance and no one way
will necessarily serve everyone equally well.

Thank you for nominating practices for this Fifth Edition. More
practices are already in clearance and will be available electronically
and in hard copy.

With your continued help, the Fifth Edition series will grow. Please let
us know about program, organizational and training practices that have
produced results. Any nomination from a state IV-D director will be
considered. These may be ideas that are statewide or in a local agency.
They may have had big financial effects or made small and recognizable
improvements in the quality of work life of an office. Updates will be
made available on a regular basis.

If a practice you know of addresses a need and has shown results, please
tell us about it. Contact your ACF Regional Office CSE Program
Specialist or:

Myles Schlank

Chief, Technical Assistance Branch

Division of State and Local Assistance

Office of Child Support Enforcement

202-401-9329

<mkschlank@acf.dhhs.gov>

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Compendium of State Best Practices and

Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement \-- 2000

CALIFORNIA

Medical Support (IV-D Kids \-- Sacramento), p. CA 1

Paternity Establishment/ Statewide Paternity Opportunity Program (POP)
Imaging and Data Access, p. CA 3

DELAWARE

Customer Service (Problem Resolution Night), pg. DE 1

FLORIDA

Management Method/Case Closure/Automatic Case Closure Process, pg. FL 1

# Collaboration with TANF (Bay County), pg. FL 2

HAWAII

Interstate Phone Hearings, pg. HI 1

IOWA

Management Methods, Customer Service (Process Improvement Teams), pg. IA
1

**ILLINOIS**

Collaboration, Customer Service, Fatherhood, Paternity Establishment,
Public Information, pg. IL 1

Employment and Training for NCPs (Cook, St. Clair and Madison Counties,
pg. IL 3)

MAINE

Administrative Process (Establishment of Support Obligations), pg. ME 1

Administrative Process (Paternity Establishment), pg. ME 3

Enforcement (License Suspension/Revocation), pg. ME 5

Administrative Process, Enforcement (Notice to Appear and Disclose), pg.
ME 7

MARYLAND

Case Maintenance/Closure Initiative (Montgomery County), pg. MD 1

MICHIGAN

Case Closure Project (Management Techniques), pg MI 1

MINNESOTA

Management Methods (Hennepin County Bonus Incentive Program), pg. MN 1

**MISSOURI**

# Enforcement, Fatherhood, Employment and Training for NCPs, pg. MO 1

NEW JERSEY

Paternity Establishment (POP), Customer Service, Public Information, pg.
NJ 1

OKLAHOMA

## Management Methods (Strategic Plan), Enforcement, Customer Service, pg. OK 1

PUERTO RICO

Electronic Funds Transfer *(PROJECT DIRECT DEPOSIT)*, pg. PR 1

**SOUTH CAROLINA**

Locate (Diligent Search Project), Collaboration with Foster Care, pg. SC
1

**TEXAS**

Collaboration, Enforcement, Employment and Training for NCPs (Bexar
County), pg. TX 1

Public Information (PAPA), Collaboration, Fatherhood, pg. TX 3

# Establishment of Support Orders, Paternity Project Day (Victoria), pg. TX 5

Interstate, Customer Service, Internet, pg. TX 7

**VIRGINIA**

Automatic Income Withholding Case Clean-up Project, pg. VA 1

Enforcement, Public Information (KidsFirst Campaign), pg. VA 2

Management Methods, Staffing Levels, pg. VA 4

Public Information, Collaboration, (Wise Guys, Sneakers and RAP:
Community Outreach to Teens -- Prince William County), pg. VA 5

WASHINGTON STATE

Customer Relations Unit, pg. WA 1

Modification of Child Support Orders; Enforcement of Visitation Rights;
Customer Service (King County), pg. WA 2

Management Techniques; Interstate (with Oregon) Case Reconciliation, pg.
WA 3

Paternity Establishment, Interstate (with Oregon), pg. WA 4

Income Withholding Notice/Termination Notice Postcard (Wenatchee), pg.
WA 5

#### Federal Administration for Children and Families

Interstate Task Force (ROs IX and X), pg. ACF 1

CALIFORNIA (Sacramento)

**Medical Support (IV-D Kids)**

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** Through an innovative public-private
partnership, Sacramento County, California has made low-cost, private
health insurance available for hundreds of IV-D Kids since 1996. With
noncustodial parents picking up the tab, county, state and federal
governments garner over \$ 450,000 per year in Medi-Cal (Medicaid)
savings and many kids gain health coverage they previously lacked. The
project, originally known as \"CalKids,\" was developed as a Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) demonstration under the auspices of
the federal OCSE.

In 1996, Dick Williams, then the head of the Bureau of Family Support in
Sacramento County, CA, was frustrated by the cases in which noncustodial
parents were not ordered to pay for health insurance for their children.
Typically none was available at an affordable cost -- whether because
the employer provided no family coverage, because that coverage was
expensive, or because the noncustodial parent was self-employed.

He decided IV-D children needed low cost, private health insurance that
their noncustodial parents could afford. He began calling insurance
companies to gather information. Eventually, he solicited the aid of
Goeffrey Kitschuk of Pacific West Administrators, the independent
benefits administrator for the county's employee health insurance plan.

With the aid of Kitschuk, a former insurance actuary as well as a
benefits administrator, a plan was designed to answer the concerns of
the insurance companies while meeting the needs of IV-D children. This
was important, according to Kitschuk, because the Bureau's requirements
were demanding. " We were insisting from the beginning that no medical
evidence be required. We wanted no underwriting. There had to be
coverage in full from day one -- with no pre-existing conditions
exclusion. There could be no application. We didn't want to have to fill
it out and get it approved. We would provide them the names and they
would be enrolled," he said.

Insurers were concerned about anti-selection -- the tendency of people
to buy health insurance only when it is needed -- and had to be
reassured that enrollment would not be based on children's health
status. Misconceptions had to be addressed: IV-D kids are no sicker than
other kids. On the plus side, the fact that most IV-D kids would be
enrolled after the first year of life, the most expensive childhood year
for health care providers, made it possible to negotiate for an
affordable rate.

After negotiations, two companies, Kaiser and Blue Shield, agreed to
provide the insurance for IV-D children for premiums of under \$80 per
month per child. Coverage would be equivalent to that provided under
county employee health plans.

To be eligible for health insurance coverage in this program, a child
must be involved in a case for which the Sacramento County Family
Support Division has enforcement responsibility. In addition, the case
must have a court order requiring the NCP to provide health insurance
for the dependent child(ren).

Now, if a noncustodial parent does not provide proof of insurance
coverage to the child support hearing commissioner, he or she may be
ordered to provide coverage through the IV-D Kids Program. A withholding
order, in conjunction with a wage assignment, directs employers to
withhold premium payments and forward them to the program's Third Party
Administrator (TPA). Self-employed obligors are ordered to pay the TPA
directly. Noncustodial parents also may voluntarily enroll their
children in the program, also making direct payments to the TPA.

No additional paperwork is required from either the parents or Bureau of
Family Support. The routine child support paperwork is used by the TPA
to enroll the child in a health plan. The TPA also forwards premium
payments to insurance providers on an ongoing basis.

The TPA receives and holds premium payments regardless of the payment
interval (e.g., weekly, monthly). The child is not enrolled until a full
month of premiums has been received by the 15^th^ of the month in
advance of enrollment. On an ongoing basis, when the next month's
premium has not arrived by the 15^th^, the TPA investigates, notifying
the noncustodial parent of his/her obligation to pay if the employer
does not. Information on new employers is passed on to the Bureau of
Family Support. If neither the old or new employers nor the noncustodial
parent has paid, the TPA offers the custodial parent the option of
paying to keep coverage in place for the coming month.

**[Results]{.underline}:** There are now approximately 500 children
enrolled in the program in Sacramento County. This results in Medi-Cal
(California's Medicaid program) savings of over \$450,000 per year to
the county, state and federal governments for that county alone. Many of
the children covered otherwise would be without health insurance.
Typically their parents do not meet poverty criteria, yet cannot afford
the high cost of private coverage or have no coverage available.

The impact of the program is even greater than these numbers suggest.
Many noncustodial parents who initially tell the hearing commissioner
that no health insurance is available through their employers -- or that
it is cost-prohibitive -- suddenly enroll the child in an
employer-sponsored plan when an order to withhold for premiums is served
on their employer. State officials estimate this may double the number
of children who obtain private coverage as a result of the program.

The state Office of Child Support is now encouraging all California
counties to adopt the program.

**[Location]{.underline}:** The project was developed in Sacramento, CA,
a medium-sized city (population 392,800). Project benefits are available
throughout Sacramento county (population 1,159,900).

**[Funding]{.underline}:** Bureau of Family Support staff time spent on
developing and administering the program is funded through Sacramento
County's IV-D program. Insurance companies and the Third Party
Administrator contributed the time devoted to program design and
development as business development activities and as a community
service. Noncustodial parents' insurance premiums purchase the private
insurance and fund administration by the Third Party Administrator. (The
Third Party Administrator is paid \$5 per month of each premium for
insurance administration.)

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** Key to the success of the program
according to all concerned has been the Third Party Administrator.
Funded through insurance premiums, the TPA greatly facilitates the
administration of the program from the perspective of both insurers and
Bureau of Family Support, providing a single point of contact for both
agencies. If the child support agency were to administer the program
internally, additional funding would be required. Using a TPA also
permits easy addition of other insurance providers who agree to the
terms of the program.

The TPA acts like the gear connecting the extremely different standard
practices of the insurance industry and the child support system. In
essence, by collecting payments and passing on both premiums and the
names of covered children, the TPA makes the IV-D Kids program "act
like" a normal group to the insurers.

The state Office of Child Support has as a goal eventually combining
this program with the Healthy Families program (California's CHIP
program) and suggests that others considering replication do so from the
start. "Then we could provide coverage that would not change as far as
the child was concerned....We would like to see them go from completely
publicly funded to partially publicly funded to parent-funded without
having to change health providers," says Stephanie Ashburn, program
contact in the state office. If CHIP insurance providers were to become
part of the IV-D Kids provider pool, and CHIP's excellent benefits,
including dental and vision, were to become accessible at the reduced
rate created by the resulting economy of scale, lower-cost insurance
would be accessible to significantly more children.

Premium cost is a significant concern. Participation in the IV-D Kids
program is highly sensitive to rate: as premium costs increase, even
slightly, significant numbers of children lose coverage.

***[Words of caution]{.underline}***: a number of factors have
contributed to holding down the costs of this program. The TPA provides
his services at a very modest cost. Kaiser reports that premiums do not
quite cover the cost of providing services; they carry the program as a
community service. Both current carriers are non-profit organizations.
No commissions are included in the insurance premiums. (Lack of
commissions could lead to opposition from insurance agents in some
communities.)

**[Contact]{.underline}:** Stephanie Ashburn, Office of Child Support,
P.O. Box 944245, Sacramento, CA 94244-2450, 916-654-1210, fax
916-657-3791,e-mail: <stephanie.ashburn@dss.ca.gov>.

CALIFORNIA

Paternity Establishment/ Statewide Paternity Opportunity Program (POP)
Imaging and Data Access

# [Description/Goal]{.underline}: The primary goal of this initiative was to establish a streamlined process for filing, electronically imaging and providing access to completed paternity declarations to address the heavy volume of more than 120,000 paternity declarations being filed annually in California. The initial effort was focused upon eliminating a backlog of more than 80,000 unprocessed paternity declarations that had accumulated at the state vital statistics agency so this responsibility could be permanently transferred to the State Child Support agency. Another goal of this project is to ensure all paternity declarations are available to local child support agencies, parents and courts within 24 hours of receipt at the vendor.

# 

# The long-term goal is to establish a reliable database of filed paternity declarations as a foundation for introducing an online network system for statewide providers of the voluntary paternity process. The initiative has operated October 1, 1998 - Present

A private vendor for data imaging and database management services is a
key partner. A statewide network of all birthing hospitals, county
family support agencies and, local vital statistics agencies participate
in the project.

# [Results]{.underline}: 

-   A backlog of 80,000 unprocessed paternity declarations was
    eliminated.

-   Conversion of the state vital statistics agency file of paternity
    declarations was incorporated into a database with over 380,000
    filed declarations as of October 1, 1999.

-   Reduction of the time to image submitted paternity declarations into
    an accessible database from weeks to 24 hours.

-   Enabled the transfer of direct control for administering file of
    paternity declarations from the state vital statistics agency to the
    state child support agency.

-   Monthly management reports from database allow for the direct
    oversight and monitoring of a statewide network of more than 700
    mandated providers of the voluntary paternity process.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Comprehensive database of filed paternity declarations is now
    available to county child support agencies for immediate use in
    child support cases.

> **Location:** This is a statewide project with all mandated paternity
> providers submitting completed paternity declarations to a central
> location.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** The initial period of this initiative
(October 1, 1998 through September 30, 1999) was funded by a Federal
Child Support Special Improvement Project (SIP) Grant. The ongoing costs
of the project are funded by the regular federal-state match at 93 cents
per declaration.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}**: States with a high volume of filed
paternity declarations and a large number of participating hospitals and
public agencies would be most likely to benefit from this project. Also,
state agencies considering assuming responsibility from their vital
statistics agencies for processing paternity declarations could benefit
from this project.

**[Contact]{.underline}:** Richard A. Williams, Chief, California
Department of Social Services \-- Office of Child Support/Program
Assistance Bureau, P.O. Box 944245 Sacramento, CA 94244-2450 Phone:
(916) 654-1549 E-mail:
[rwillia2@dss.ca.gov](mailto:Richard.Williams@dss.ca.gov)

# 

DELAWARE

Customer Service (Child Support Information Night)

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** The Delaware Division of Child
Support hosts semi-annual events titled "Child Support Information
Night" to increase client access to our services. The events are held in
the evening outside of normal business hours to give clients an
opportunity to resolve case-specific issues they believe they cannot
resolve through daily business hours. CSE Specialists, available with
computers connected by modem to the state caseload database, are on hand
to assist them and to educate them about the process. The Director,
Deputy Director, Manager of Operations, Manager of Program and Policy,
the Executive Assistant, Family Court personnel, and a DAG attend the
events to offer assistance to clients. This helps to give clients the
feeling that the entire agency is committed to helping them, from the
Director down. It also gives the frontline staff the feeling that we are
a team and that we all work together to help clients.

# 

A suggestion box is available at the registration table. The comments
have been positive and referenced how happy clients are that they have
an opportunity to access staff during evening hours.

**[Background]{.underline}**: The idea was to hold the "Problem
Resolution Night" (the original name of this event) away from our
regular offices to give clients the feeling that they were being offered
something different, something special. The hours were 5-7 p.m.

There are approximately 700,000 residents in the state of Delaware.
There are three counties and the largest, New Castle County, has about
500,000 residents. Because of the size of New Castle County, and because
the main office is located in that county, the test "Problem Resolution
Night" was piloted there.

The pilot was held on October, 1998. Notices were sent to all cases with
orders. There were over 55,000 including the custodial and noncustodial
parents on each of those cases. The total caseload is approximately
60,000. Subsequent events were held in each county during March and
September of 1999. Everyone in the system, those with orders and those
without, were invited. That number was close to 90,000.

The pilot event was advertised through paid newspaper ads, flyers placed
in the community, and mass mailings to all names in our system,
including custodial parents and noncustodial parents.

There was a display in the lobby with copies of the Division's
pamphlets. A sign-in sheet recorded everyone who came in. Each person
received a number to ensure confidentiality when being called and was
directed to the waiting area to complete the issue/concern form. This
aided the staff helping clients to identify the issue and expedite the
process of assisting them. When a worker became available, the next
number being served was called and the worker assisted that person.

# [Results]{.underline}: During the first pilot in October 1998, over 123 people signed in. Those who chose to just leave their Issues/Concerns form were contacted before the end of the week to do follow-up. On Thursday, March 4, 1999, 99 people signed in and we were able to speak personally with all of them. On Thursday, March 11, 1999, 101 people signed in and staff were able to speak personally with all of them. On Thursday, March 18, 1999, 205 people signed in. On Thursday, September 23, 1999, we had 73 clients sign in and on September 30, 1999, we had 40 clients sign in.

The event was well received by both clients and staff. Clients were
appreciative and commented that they were pleased to be able to speak to
a person about their issues and come in during convenient hours. Staff
were happy to assist in resolving the concerns and felt a sense of
accomplishment. The pilot and subsequent events went well enough that
Delaware plans to continue the events semi-annually in each county
indefinitely.

**[Location]{.underline}:**The Division partnered with the YWCA in
Wilmington (Delaware's most populated city in the county) for the pilot
event in October 1998. While laptops were available for automated access
to each client's case information, this was inconvenient and subsequent
events were held in a State Service Center. The State Service Centers
have computers that are part of the state's network and provide easy
access to the database.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** Postage, advertising in local newspapers, and
overtime pay for staff were funded through regular Federal match.

# [Replication Advice]{.underline}: A very important lesson learned from the pilot in October 1998 was that many NCPs received the notice and assumed that it was mandatory that they attend. Quite a bit of time was spent fielding questions from Noncustodial Parents (NCPs) who believed that attendance was required. There were even instances where NCPs requested a note from staff to take to work as an excuse for an absence, because they told their employer that attendance was mandatory. All notices sent after the pilot contained a highlighted statement that the event was "NOT mandatory."

Another important issue for consideration is ensuring sufficient staff
is available to meet the volume of clients that participate.

# [Contact]{.underline}: Nicole Cunningham, Biggs Building, 1901 N. Dupont Hwy, New Castle, DE 19720, (302) 577-4815 x 259

### FLORIDA

**Management Method/Case Closure/Automatic Case Closure Process**

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** To meet Federal Certification
requirements, Florida identified cases for automated closure and
generated appropriate notice and alert to custodial parent and case
worker, respectively. On a monthly basis, the following criteria are
used to identify cases eligible for automatic closure:

\(1\) Noncustodial Parent (NCP) Location Unknown, Sufficient Information
45CFR303.11 (b)(4)(i) \-- If case has been in Location greater than 3
years.

\(2\) No Current Support Order 45CFR303.11 (b)(1) \--

> A. If all children are emancipated (greater than 18), paternity **IS
> NOT** at issue and there are no accounts or open accounts on the case.
>
> B. If all children are emancipated, paternity **IS** at issue, no open
> activity to establish paternity or obligation and total payoff of all
> **OPEN** accounts is less than \$500. Open account cannot be an
> arrears account and case cannot be a PA Arrears Only case.

\(3\) All IV-D Obligations Paid \-- If the Case is a PA Arrears Only
case, all open accounts have zero balances and at least one open account
is **NOT** for Current Support.

\(4\) Child Emancipated 303.11 (b)(1) \-- If all children are
emancipated, paternity **IS** at issue for at least one of the children,
all accounts are closed or no accounts and no open activity to establish
paternity or obligation.

**[Results]{.underline}:** The first run of this process identified
27,448 cases for closure. The review of the case, and subsequent
closure, when manually performed, is estimated to have taken
approximately 1 hour when performed correctly. At a \$10 average wage
per worker and a closure of 27,448 cases, the process succeeded in a
cost avoidance of \$274,480 just in the first month.

The implementation of this software also enhanced the productivity of
caseworkers by allowing them to focus on case management activities.

**[Location]{.underline}:** The process was implemented statewide in the
Program Office's Systems Unit in Tallahassee, Florida. The program is
included in the monthly batch processing cycle.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** This project was funded by regular federal
matching funds.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** It is imperative to involve
personnel from the Systems, Policy and the regions in the Requirements
and Analysis phases of the project to ensure completeness in the
defining of the case closure criteria.

**[Contact]{.underline}:** Willie Mitchell, Management and Review
Specialist, (850) 562-5184, <Mitchelw@dor.state.fl.us>

1940 N. Monroe Street, Ste. 25, Tallahassee, FL 32399

FLORIDA (Bay County)

**Collaboration (Early Cooperation Requirement for TANF Eligibility)**

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** In Bay County, Florida (Panama City)
early cooperation with child support is an eligibility requirement for
TANF and Medicaid applicants. As a condition of eligibility, potentially
eligibleTANF and Medicaid applicants must visit the Child Support
Enforcement Office of the Department of Revenue and either cooperate in
initiating a child support case or seek a determination of good cause
not to cooperate before becoming eligible for TANF. Applicants are given
a "cooperation verification" form by Department of Children and Families
(DCF TANF/Medicaid) staff and informed that CSE cooperation is a
condition of eligibility. After the applicant cooperates with child
support, the form is signed by child support staff and given to the
applicant to return to DCF as verification of CSE cooperation.

The demonstration pilot began in March 1998, by establishing Bay county
as the pilot site and Seminole County as the control site. In Bay County
, potentially eligibleTANF and Medicaid applicants must cooperate with
CSE upfront as a condition of eligibility. In Bay county there are two
DCF service centers.(There is no collocation of CSE and DCF offices.)
Applicants may either call CSE to schedule an appointment at their
convenience or just drop in. Many simply come to the CSE office the same
day they apply for TANF or Medicaid. Drop-ins typically wait 15 to 30
minutes to be seen.

The interview affords an opportunity to garner basic information and
documentation needed to commence or enforce child support and to educate
the applicant about child support services. CSE interviewers explain the
services offered by CSE, the benefits of establishing paternity and a
child support obligation, and explain how the applicant can help to move
the case forward by keeping all scheduled appointments for genetic
testing and court hearings.

Immediate locate activities are started during the interview. While the
applicant is there, CSE staff use online resources to attempt location
of the noncustodial parent. Often, the custodial parent can provide
immediate leads and can answer questions which make it possible to
determine whether a person found in the online search is the
noncustodial parent.

Often, the case may be referred to the attorneys almost immediately,
greatly reducing the time from the IV-A referral to establishment of a
paternity and/or support obligation.

In Seminole County and elsewhere in Florida (as well as in Bay County
before the demonstration) a lengthy, multi-step process was used to
determine CSE cooperation:

-   DCF determines interim cooperation when TANF/Medicaid applicants
    sign the Intent to Cooperate Notice or the Intent to Claim Good
    Cause for Refusing to Cooperate Notice. Applicants who indicate
    their intent to claim good cause are provided with a good cause fact
    sheet.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   DCF completes the eligibility process. CSE cases for recipients of
    TANF and Medicaid are created and referred electronically to CSE in
    the Department of Revenue.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   CSE schedules an interview with the recipient of services. A second
    interview appointment is scheduled if the first is missed.

-   If the second appointment is not kept, a Notice of Child Support
    Enforcement Non-cooperation is sent to the recipient of services.The
    notice informs the recipient of services of the consequences, and
    how to avoid, the consequences of CSE non-cooperation

-   Sanctions are requested by CSE if the recipient of services fails to
    cooperate.

This process may take from two to four months before sanctions are
imposed**.**

**[Results]{.underline}:** The following benefits were identified:

-   The process substantially reduced the number of sanction requests.
    Bay County made 26 requests for sanctions against TANF recipients
    for failure to cooperate with child support enforcement. This was in
    contrast with 366 requests in the same time in Seminole County.

-   Savings on TANF payments made to recipients who never cooperate with
    CSE were in excess of \$250,000 in Bay County in 1998. Had the new
    process been implemented statewide in 1998, Florida estimates the
    savings on TANF payments to individuals who never cooperate would
    have been \$12.4 million.

-   Bay County staff spent less than one-third the time on pre-interview
    and sanctioning activities than is spent by staff in comparable
    Seminole County. Had the process been in effect statewide, almost
    \$1 million in staff time could have been reallocated to performance
    enhancing activities.

-   No negative effect on customer service was found. Custodial parents
    have a positive view of CSE under the new as well as the old
    process. While waiting times were longer under the new process, CSE
    employees were able to spend more time with each custodial parent
    being interviewed. Perhaps as a result, parents have a greater
    understanding of the issues discussed in the interviews under the
    new process and receive comparable information about the cooperation
    process itself.

-   Anecdotally, CSE staff is pleased with the process. They report
    increased cooperation throughout the case as a result of the new
    process. In addition, staff appreciates the case moving more
    quickly---paternity may be established or an order entered several
    months earlier than before -- with resultant savings in TANF
    benefits and improvements in child support performance measures.

Two types of costs associated with the sanctioning and non-cooperation
processes were considered in the study of the new process. These costs
include: 1) payment of TANF benefits to recipients who never cooperate
with child support efforts and eventually lose their benefits and 2) the
time costs of sanctioning and non-cooperation process to CSE. Improving
CSE cooperation was the goal of the demonstration. In this study, the
cost savings from sanctioning Medicaid recipients were not considered
given the difficulty in determining the value of Medicaid services to
recipients.

**[Location]{.underline}:** Bay County (Panama City), Florida, is an
urban area with a medium-sized CSE service center. CSE and DCF have
started extending the process statewide. The new process is being
implemented in areas with large, urban service sites and remote, rural
areas where public transportation is not available. This is a joint
effort that is being phased in slowly with a plan to escalate until full
implementation of up-front cooperation is completed.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** IV-D and TANF funding covered implementation
of the new process. A Special Improvement Project (SIP) grant of
\$25,864 from OCSE covered a project evaluation and report.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** Susan Mohnen, who is responsible
for the project within CSE, offers the following advice:

-   Establish inter-agency partnerships at both the local and state
    level. Ensure that each department's procedures on the new process
    have been written and disseminated to their staff.

-   Educate TANF staff to discuss with applicants what child support
    will need -- e.g., previous court order, financial information and
    in some instances, the children's birth certificates in order to
    make the initial child support interview most effective.

-   Use the child support interview as an opportunity to educate
    applicants about child support services, benefits and procedures.

-   Take advantage of the applicant's presence to do effective locate
    activities, preferably utilizing online resources.

**[Contact]{.underline}:** Susan Mohnen, Senior Management Analyst II,
FL Dept of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement, P.O. Box 8030,
Tallahassee, FL 32399-3150, 850-414-8949, fax 850-921-1344

### HAWAII

Interstate Phone Hearings

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** The goal of telephonic hearings is
to provide for an expedited, convenient forum for parties to address
child support issues. Hawaii has been conducting telephone hearings for
all neighbor islands extensively since 1996. Telephonic hearings are
optional: participants may instead appear at the Oahu hearings site or
at a designated neighbor site.

**[Results]{.underline}:** Approximately 40% of all hearings (about 110
per week) are conducted via teleconference (both intrastate and
interstate cases). Telephone hearings have saved the office the costs of
airline tickets and other costs associated with transportation.
Additional savings are hearings officer opportunity costs: officers can
conduct hearings when in the past they would be in transit from one
location to another.

It is interesting to note that the use of telephonic hearings has so far
not been raised as an issue in an appeal.

The use of the telephonic process has also resulted in fewer requests
for continuances.

**[Location]{.underline}:** The Office of Child Support Hearings (OCSH)
is located within the Office of the Attorney General, in the County of
Oahu. There are four full-time Hearings Officers in the OCSH who handle
approximately 110 hearings per week. (In addition, they handle three to
four times that number of uncontested cases which do not require a
formal hearing.)

**[Funding]{.underline}:** The project is funded with regular Federal
matching funds.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:**

-   Provide this as a cost-free service to participants. Telephonic
    hearings provide a convenient forum for pro se.

-   Out-of-State attorneys can appear telephonically without having to
    be licensed in Hawaii (per HRS 576E-9 and HAR 5-34-5); however one
    must be a licensed attorney to represent any party on an appeal.

-   Despite the value in conducting telephonic hearings, there is less
    control over the proceedings and the parties, there is some
    difficulty in the exchange of exhibits or documents and there is an
    inability to view mannerisms and countenances of the parties. Hawaii
    is now looking into the possibility of using videoconferencing for
    neighbor island hearings as a means of addressing these concerns.

**[Contact]{.underline}:** Wanda Chong-Mendonca at 808-692-7118 or
<ocsh@lava.net>

IOWA

**Management Methods, Customer Service (Process Improvement Teams)**

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** In 1996, Jim Hennessy, then Bureau
Chief of Iowa's Bureau of Collections, brought together three regional
staff members (one from each region of the state-administered program)
and proposed they put into practice some of the principles learned in
earlier Quality Improvement training. They would create and empower a
variety of statewide process improvement teams in an effort to meet the
tough goals established in the Bureau's strategic plan. The group
agreed.

Very high on the list of goals: raising the percentage of cases with
established orders from 72% to 90% by the year 2000, fully implementing
welfare reform in all the agency's processes, and significantly
improving customer service ratings.

The Bureau wanted to address several issues: lack of uniformity among
offices, not enough communications and information sharing, unknown
performance expectations, inconsistent productivity, automated systems
issues. Thus they added to the wish list for the new teams: process
improvements, determination of best practices, standards for excellence,
statewide consistency, resolution of policy issues, better results, more
efficiency, and improved teamwork.

Thirteen "PIT (Policy Improvement Team) Crews" were established, each
specializing in one process:

-   Case set-up

-   Interstate

-   Income withholding

-   Special enforcement (all enforcement methods other than income
    withholding)

-   PC team -- system development

-   Medical support

-   Review and adjustment

-   Establishment (includes paternity)

-   Customer Service and Case Resolution combined

-   Legal (identified issues that didn't fall within a process -- such
    as forms)

-   Guidelines (use and interpretation of Iowa's child support
    guidelines)

-   Leadership (supervisors or managers)

-   Special projects (everything left over -- such as mail)

Each team consists of two field staff who actually performed the process
from each of the state's three regions, a supervisor, an attorney, a
policy representative from the central office and one of the three
regional project managers. Everyone is on an equal footing on the team
-- someone besides a supervisor serves as the team leader. Teams set
their own meeting schedules. Members must serve at least one year, and
no more than three years. All field staff performing that specific
process are considered members of the larger statewide process team and
provide input to the corresponding PIT Crew.

A group of Regional Project Managers (originally one from each region,
now two from each region) provide oversight and facilitate the teams'
work. They maintain liaison between their assigned teams and agency
management. They train teams, see that they meet and track their work,
providing facilitation and direction as needed.

Teams have taken on many tasks. Among them:

-   Teams tackled the backlog of policy issues that needed to be
    addressed in their areas. Solutions were submitted via "process
    improvement forms" for management approval.

-   Teams have taken on identifying and writing down "best practices"
    for each process -- many never recorded before. Each team is
    developing a computer program covering its process. Included in the
    programs are linkages to supporting resources -- such as the U.S.
    Code, federal regulations and state procedural directives and policy
    manual.

-   Teams have assisted with system certification -- helping to develop
    new computer screens and reviewing systems development in their
    process area.

-   Teams have assisted in the development of a centralized customer
    service unit and a centralized employer unit for the state. The
    customer service team and the income withholding team provided input
    into the Request for Proposal process and the development, problem
    solving and coordination involved in the transition to privatized
    operation of these functions.

-   Teams have identified training needs.

**[Results]{.underline}:** State staff are very excited about the
results of the ongoing process improvement teams:

-   The percentage of cases in court-ordered status has increased from
    73% at the end of 1996 to 87% by July 1999. Staff expect to meet the
    statewide goal of 90% of cases in court-ordered status by the end
    of 2000. (Some offices already exceed 90%; all exceed 80%.) With
    team leadership, a strategic review weeded out "old bad cases" for
    closure. Teams examined and addressed factors impeding establishment
    of orders -- locate, interstate processing, logjams in the legal
    process. They focus on keeping cases moving.

-   While legislators had been critical about the level of customer
    service complaints they received, they now compliment the agency on
    improved customer service. Customer satisfaction surveys also show
    improved customer relations.

-   Members of the PIT Crews have become experts in their processes --
    setting a standard for others to meet. In addition they have honed
    their leadership and communications skills.

-   The state is nearly caught up on unresolved policy issues. According
    to Regional Project Manager Beck Seyffer, "Teams have developed
    really good relationships with the central office -- it is no longer
    field versus central office. Because of meeting regularly, there are
    overall better communications and networking between central office
    and the field. We address problems more quickly and get quicker
    resolution."

**[Location]{.underline}:** Statewide.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** Set up costs: \$30,000 for facility rent,
trainer fees, travel expense and supplies. Annual costs of the ongoing
program -- approximately \$200,000 \-- \$120,000 to cover travel costs
of the 165 staff serving as members of PIT Crews and meeting and related
expenses, the balance for consultants and trainers. This activity is
funded through the state funds and federal match of the IV-D program.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** Says Becky Seyffer, "Make sure
managers block out time for staff to participate in teams. Reduce their
workload at home if they are devoting a lot of time to the team." "Get
training in CQI -- continuing quality improvement -- either for everyone
or for key staff who can train others. Give team members leadership and
facilitation training -- team leader training -- if you can."

"Don't be discouraged if people resist serving on teams," says Seyffer.
"Recruiting members was hard at first in Iowa. Now people volunteer
because of the good experiences of those who have served." "Teams can
often overcome some reluctance to travel by using methods such as
teleconferencing," she adds.

**[Contacts]{.underline}:** Rebecca S. Seyffer, Regional Project
Manager, Child Support Recovery Unit, 3911 West Locust St, Davenport, IA
52804-3021, (319) 388-5524, fax 319-388-5550, e-mail:
<rseyffe@dhs.state.ia.us>; Nancy Thoma, Bureau Chief of Collections,
Bureau of Collections, 400 Southwest 8^th^ St., Suite M, Des Moines, IA
50309-4691, phone 515-281-5767, fax 515-281-8854,
<nthoma@dhs.state.ia.us>

### ILLINOIS

**Collaboration, Customer Service, Fatherhood, Paternity Establishment,
Public Information**

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** Walk into a parent education meeting
for Head Start parents in Chicago and you are likely to find a
discussion on paternity establishment as part of a program on child
support, KidCare and other community services. When a single mom picks
up her tired toddler from the day care center at the end of the day, she
can also pick up a brochure on how to get child support services. In
addition, a mom applying for help in collecting child support can get
basic information on how to apply for Head Start or get help with child
care costs at the same time.

All of these events have been made possible by the activities of
Illinois' Child Support, Child Care and Head Start Collaboration, begun
in 1997 and now in its third year. Funded through a Federal OCSE grant,
Illinois' Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE), the Illinois
Network of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (INCCRRA), Illinois
Head Start Association, the City of Chicago Department of Human
Services, Springfield Urban League, SUI Carbondale Head Start and many
others, work together to:

-   Encourage eligible families in Head Start and child care programs to
    apply for and receive child support and paternity establishment
    services;

-   Encourage both parents to provide emotional and financial support
    for their children;

-   Dispel misconceptions about child support services and build
    parents' confidence in their ability to approach and work with the
    child support system; and

-   Cross-train staff so that each agency's workers can help parents to
    better access the services of the other agencies.

A major outreach effort gives information on paternity establishment,
child support, and the importance of fathers to children to the
thousands of Head Start and child care sites in the state. The project:

-   Makes presentations to Head Start and child care groups -- over 120
    in 1999 alone; an effort is made to speak at every state and
    regional Head Start and child care conference in Illinois. Staff
    have spoken at two national Head Start conferences, as well.

-   Has developed over a dozen brief articles, in reader-friendly
    language, on paternity, child support, and medical support which are
    being used in the parent and staff newsletters of Head Start, child
    care and other community programs.

-   Has developed a standard order form for fact sheets, posters, and
    other educational materials on paternity, child support and medical
    support with which Head Start staff order materials in advance of
    parent orientations and parent meetings.

-   Has distributed almost 2,000 educational videos on paternity and
    fathers -- e.g.*Every Child's Right, A Child Is Waiting,* and *Dads
    Make a Difference --* and plans to distribute over 3,500 more in
    FY 2000. Specialized materials for dads have been developed;
    collaboration with the Illinois Fatherhood Initiative is providing
    additional materials and programs.

-   Has developed specialized materials such as a brochure for parents
    of teen parents \-- *What if your own child is about to become a
    parent? --* to encourage paternity establishment.

-   Works with a special site on outreach to Hispanic families.

DCSE, Head Start and child care agencies have collaborated on the
development of brochures, a web-site, and other program materials. The
jointly agreed-on theme: making a difference in the lives of children.

Head Start sites have identified frequently asked questions and
recommended simplified terminology to DCSE. For example, fact sheets use
"getting a legal dad" or "becoming a legal father" instead of "paternity
establishment." They have identified groups that lack the child support
and paternity information they need, such as grandparents and migrant
workers. As part of a program to increase the computer literacy of Head
Start parents, parents soon will be able to download IV-D applications
from the collaboration's web-site <http://www.state.il.us/dpa/>. And
special programs for dads have been adopted.

Training on taking voluntary acknowledgments of paternity, comparable to
that provided to hospital staff, was given to Head Start workers at
special pilot sites. Head Start workers can take voluntary
acknowledgments from Head Start program parents. At the same time, part
of the collaborative effort has included training for child support
staff on Head Start and child care services. Information on these
services is now available in DCSE offices in pilot areas.

**[Results]{.underline}:**

-   Perhaps the most important result is that the collaboration has
    helped families and children while breaking down the fears of many
    of the Head Start organizations in working with the Division of
    Child Support Enforcement. An ongoing system has been forged for
    providing paternity and child support information to Head Start
    families. Training needs to be repeated regularly because of the
    constant turnover of Head Start staff and families. DCSE has
    discovered that many Head Start and child care families have great
    difficulty in navigating the child support system to obtain an order
    or to have it enforced. They lack time and, in some cases the
    skills, to manage their child support cases. Many Head Start
    families wanted support, yet did not realize they already had open
    child support cases as a result of receiving public assistance or
    Medicaid. Helps: a support group for parents with DCSE cases, staff
    liaisons at both the Head Start site and DCSE to track individual
    cases.

-   Training Head Start staff to take voluntary acknowledgments of
    paternity has not led to many paternities being "credited" to Head
    Start. However, DCSE believes the information and availability of
    forms leads parents to acknowledge paternity at Vital Records,
    registrars and clerks' offices

-   Special needs groups, such as migrant workers with complex
    interstate cases and "pockets" of Spanish-speaking families in
    unexpected locations, have been identified. Policy concerns have
    been identified and the groups are beginning to work together to
    address them. For example, child support order amounts are counted
    as income to determine eligibility for and level of child care
    subsidies -- yet often are not paid. Loss of Head Start or child
    care eligibility as a result of support collections concerns all
    partners in the collaborative venture.

**[Location]{.underline}:** The general outreach and collaboration
program is in effect throughout Illinois. Special emphasis projects are
located in specific sites or in collaboration with specific
organizations.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** This project is funded through a three-year
Child Support/Child Care/Head Start Collaboration Grant from the Federal
OCSE. The project's third year budget totals \$220,690. This is funded
by grant funds of \$64,000, IV-D matching funds of \$145,655, and state
funds in the amount of \$11,035.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** Lois Rakov, Project Manager of the
Collaboration, suggests the following:

-   Work actively with the Head Start and child care communities --
    including boards and community activities;

-   Plan on building relationships over a long period. Be patient. Keep
    showing up. Stuff envelopes. Do mailings for Head Start and child
    care conferences. You are not invited to be on the board right away,
    it takes time.

-   Make it easy for Head Start and child care providers -- provide
    articles for reprinting in newsletters; overheads, videos and
    handouts for presentations; training for staff. Head start staff
    have their hands full adapting to full-day/year-round programs in
    the wake of welfare reform, so help them out.

-   Write materials and design outreach themes collaboratively. Get
    feedback on the best words to use to convey such legalistic concepts
    as "paternity establishment."

-   Talk about "dead broke dads." Look for ways to involve fathers in
    kids' lives \-- whether or not they have money. Educate both mothers
    and their parents on the importance of fathers. Do "father-friendly"
    site assessments.

-   Build child support into other parent education topics -- e.g.,
    children's health insurance or family finances. Busy working because
    of welfare reform, parents won't come to meetings on child support
    alone.

-   Be prepared to track individual child support cases for both Head
    Start staff and parents.

**[Contact]{.underline}:** Lois Rakov, Project Manager, Child Support,
Child Care Head Start Collaboration Project, Division of CSE, IL Dept of
Public Aid, 32 W. Randolph, Room 300, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone:
312-793-8213, Fax: 312-793-8734, e-mail: aidd52n4@mail.idpa.state.il.us

**ILLINOIS (Cook, St. Clair and Madison Counties)**

**Employment and Training for NCPs**

## [Description/Goals]{.underline}: The noncustodial Parent Services Unit (NCPSU) was established in April 1994 to provide a non-adversarial venue for noncustodial parents of children receiving Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) to address their needs under the child support system. The program provides qualified NCPs with both employment and non-employment related services through direct referrals to private-sector and community-based providers. NCPSU represents a collaborative effort between the local Circuit Court System including judges and the clerk of the court, State Attorney's Office, Attorney General's Office, state IV-A office, state IV-D office and the community.

# [Results]{.underline}: NCPSU's Fiscal Year 1999 results are as follows:

-   515 referrals for service

-   280 other client contacts through case management services

-   571 participants in Earnfare Program

-   Processed 532 Pass-Through payments associated with the Earnfare
    participants

-   A total of \$26,600 child support payments from Earnfare

-   159 new participants through the Job Search Program

-   Processed 175 legal action referrals for non-compliance

-   110 cases were closed for changes in case status and for other
    miscellaneous reasons

-   More than 80 individuals were employed in full-time positions making
    in excess of the minimum wage. Each person has in place a
    withholding order to continue child support payments.

-   In the non-employment related service area, the Unit received more
    than 1200 inquiries for information regarding the Unit and child
    support services.

# [Location]{.underline}: Both of NCPSU's facilities are in urban areas in the Northern and Southern parts of the state in Chicago and Belleville respectively. Belleville, which serves St. Clair and Madison Counties, is a city just across the border with Missouri near St. Louis. The Belleville unit was an expansion of the Chicago facility. The NCP unit located in Belleville is staffed differently from the Cook County unit. Whereas, in Cook County NCP staff is made up of both Child Support and Human Services employees, that is not the mix with the Belleville staff. Instead the program in Belleville uses the court and administrative consent processes for referrals and the Earnfare and job search components are administered by Local Units of Government under contract through the Department of Human Services. The staff in this location who work with NCPs serve as intermediaries with the court system and as referral agents. Additionally, these staff work with community-based organizations to provide other services, including job readiness, and placement. The Department is currently in the process of expanding NCPSU into other areas of the state, specifically into the City of Peoria.

# [Funding]{.underline}: The funding for NCPSU is a combination of state funds and TANF dollars. TANF dollars are utilized to provide specified services to qualified NCPs by community based service providers through contractual agreements with the state IV-A Agency while other state funds are utilized to provide on-the-job type training for individuals utilizing the Earnfare program. The Earnfare program is a state sponsored training program for single adults who fall into any of the following categories: receiving Food Stamps, eligible to receive food stamps, or court-or administratively-referred for services.

# [Replication Advice]{.underline}: In attempting to replicate NCPSU, three major points should be considered. The first is utilizing a combination of court-ordered and self-referral opportunities for participation. The second is providing extensive case management services both from providers and the lead agencies and third, creating some private partnerships that will allow for non-TANF related individuals to utilize services that are available. An ideal model would utilize judicial, administrative and self-referral processes for referrals. The combination of the three allows for a wide range recruitment of individuals to participate in the program. Judicial and Administrative processes provide the court and department with an ability to address their child support issues while the self-referral process would give an opportunity to individuals not current in judicial situations to access primarily Welfare-to-Work programs for which eligibility can be easily determined.

# [Contact]{.underline}: Norris A. Stevenson, Manager NCPSU (312) 793-7987 fax (312) 793-7047 [**aidd5114@mail.iodpa.state.il.us**](mailto:aidd5114@mail.iodpa.state.il.us)

MAINE

**Administrative Process (Establishment of Support Obligations)**

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** In the late 1970s and early 1980s
when Maine began to use administrative establishment of support
obligations, the state found their circuit-riding, DSER hearing officers
surprisingly under-occupied. On any given hearing day, service had not
been completed on a quarter of the noncustodial parents whose hearings
were scheduled. Another quarter showed up but agreed with the agency's
proposed order. This left the hearing officers with no real hearings in
at least half their scheduled cases.

DSER went to the legislature in the mid-1980s to request a procedure
that would provide full due process hearing rights, but eliminate the
need for a hearing in many cases. Noncustodial parents who agree with a
proposed order would not need to take a day off work to attend to
establishing a support obligation.

Now, the administrative establishment of support obligations in Maine
follows this process:

-   A Notice of Proceeding to Establish Child Support is served on the
    noncustodial parent (by personal service or certified mail)
    notifying him or her that DSER will be establishing a support
    obligation. The notice asks the noncustodial parent to complete and
    return a Statement of Resources with information about his/her
    financial status within 30 days so that a proposed order may be
    prepared based on individual financial circumstances.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A similar Notice is sent to the custodial parent, whether receiving
    public assistance or not, also asking that s/he fill out an attached
    Statement of Resources.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A Proposed Support Order is prepared using Maine's child support
    guidelines. This is based on information about both parents'
    financial circumstances.

If the noncustodial parent has provided information, his/her information
is used. If none was returned, DSER agents contact any employer they can
identify and the custodial parent to garner more information about his
or her occupation and income. When individual information cannot be
obtained, DSER agents use Maine Department of Labor data to estimate
income based on occupation and geographical area of residence. If the
noncustodial parent is a brick mason, data on average income of brick
masons is used. If there is information that the NCP works in unskilled
jobs, minimum wage is used. If there is no information about occupation
and earnings history, the average wage for the state is used.

-   The Proposed Support Order is sent to the noncustodial parent with
    options for responding. If the NCP agrees with it or does not
    respond it will become an order in 30 days. The NCP may also request
    a hearing in writing within 30 days. A hearing may also be held when
    the custodial parent disputes the information provided by the
    noncustodial parent.

-   If a hearing is requested, a hearing is scheduled. The hearing
    officer issues a written Decision, which is a child support order.
    This can be appealed to court.

-   If no hearing is requested, DSER issues a Decision based on the
    proposed order.

**[Results]{.underline}:** While more call to ask questions about how
the order was calculated, only 10 percent of noncustodial parents ask
for a hearing. Of those who do so, 90 percent appear for the hearing.
Because the number of hearings is much smaller, appropriate time and
attention can be devoted to resolving the issues which led to a hearing
request.

Using this procedure, DSER is able to establish many more orders with
available staff because much less staff time is required when orders are
agreed to. Orders are obtained more quickly. Noncustodial parents owe
less for back support at the time orders are entered. (Support may be
ordered retroactively in Maine.) They do not face judgment for years of
unpaid support. Custodial parents, children, and the state of Maine all
get payment more quickly.

**[Location]{.underline}:** Administrative establishment of support
obligations is used statewide. Maine's child support operations are
centralized and state-administered.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** Regular IV-D funding.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** When establishing an
administrative process, be sure that due process requirements are met at
the beginning of the case and are protected all the way through.
Establish a process where the noncustodial parent has a right to move
the case to court at any point. The right will be exercised rarely.

Specialists trained in the establishment process are needed to handle
these cases. They need to know the administrative procedures, state and
federal statutes, and the state's child support guidelines. A great deal
of time should be devoted to training these staff members.

**[Contact]{.underline}:** Gerald Lindsay, Assistant Director, Division
of Support Enforcement and Recovery, Station 11, State House, Augusta,
ME 04333, phone 207-287-2886, e-mail <Gerald.Lindsay@state.me.us>.

MAINE

**Administrative Process (Paternity Establishment)**

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** Maine's expedited paternity
establishment project has used three key tools in slashing its backlog
of paternity cases since 1991:

(1) a specialized administrative paternity establishment procedure;

(2) staff paternity specialists; and

(3) an automated system which prompts appropriate processing of
    paternity cases.

With a backlog of 9,500 paternity cases in 1991, Maine developed several
key goals: reduce the backlog substantially; expedite the 150 to 200 new
paternity cases coming into the system each month; and establish
paternity within one year of the date of birth of a child or location of
a putative father. As a practical matter, a current additional goal is
to maximize the incentive payments to the state through excellent
performance on paternity establishment measures.

**Key Tools:**

> \(1\) The centerpiece of the expedited paternity establishment project
> is an administrative procedure for the establishment of paternity.
> (See 19A Maine Revised Statutes Annotated Section 1605.) Maine relies
> heavily on administrative processes in both the establishment and
> enforcement of support obligations.
>
> Designed to permit easy transfer to the courts of default and
> contested cases, the expedited paternity establishment procedure
> allows many cases to be resolved completely within the administrative
> process. The administrative process emphasizes due process. It begins
> with "in-hand" personal service. With this step completed, the
> paternity case can be transferred to court without the necessity of
> additional service of process should the need arise.
>
> Once served the putative father has 20 days to deny paternity,
> acknowledge paternity, or request genetic testing. If he fails to
> respond, the case is transferred to district court for entry of a
> default paternity order.
>
> If the putative father admits paternity, he is offered an opportunity
> to acknowledge paternity and a support order is established
> administratively. If he asks for genetic testing, that is provided. If
> a high probability of paternity is demonstrated, he is offered the
> opportunity to acknowledge paternity, followed by an administrative
> order of support. Genetic testing that results in exclusion requires
> that the Department file a motion in District Court for a finding of
> non-paternity. Contested cases and those in which the putative father
> fails to appear for genetic testing also are transferred to district
> court.
>
> These procedures are generally carried out by child support agents
> without attorneys. Child support agents may even appear in court to
> present for the agency. Agency attorneys become involved only in
> contested cases and complex cases where points of law must be argued.
>
> \(2\) The agency now segments its caseload. Paternity is considered a
> specialty with designated staff assigned responsibility for these
> cases --currently a staff of 15 statewide.
>
> \(3\) Over the period of the project, the handling of these cases has
> been automated. At the beginning, there was no tickler system for
> managing paternity cases, and the most thorough description of the
> paternity establishment procedure was contained in the notebook of a
> diligent staff member who had made notes on the various processes for
> her own reference. Now the state's automated system tracks and
> structures the processing of paternity cases. Clerks rather than
> support agents track and follow up on routine matters such as arrival
> of affidavits, freeing agents to focus on matters requiring their
> attention.

Most recently, improvements in the in-hospital paternity acknowledgment
process in the state have resulted in a significant jump in in-hospital
acknowledgments. The agency expects a gradual reduction in the
proportion of new cases requiring paternity establishment as a result.

**[Results]{.underline}:** Starting with 9,500 cases requiring paternity
establishment in 1991, Maine has reduced to approximately 3,400 (out of
a total caseload of 65,000) the number of cases in which paternity needs
to be established. In October 1999, the cases awaiting paternity
establishment included over 700 interstate cases and 400 cases still in
initial intake and processing phase. With 150 to 200 new paternity cases
each month, the "backlog" continues to decline as the state draws nearer
to its goal of establishing paternity in all cases within one year of
the child's birth or location of the putative father.

At present, all but the 20 percent of the paternity caseload which has
locate issues and the 10 percent which are new cases have a case in
process being handled by a paternity specialist.

Perhaps most important of all, speedy paternity establishment is a key
part of ASPIRE -- Maine's welfare-to-work program---and its pass-through
of 70 percent of collections to families receiving assistance. The first
step in ensuring child support payments for many needy families is
establishment of paternity.

**[Location]{.underline}:** The expedited paternity project is a
statewide project. Maine's child support operations are centralized and
state-administered.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** Regular IV-D funding.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** Design a system which makes it
possible to transfer default or contested cases to court without
necessity of additional service of process. Shift the burden of staying
in touch onto the putative father from this point on.

Make sure to handle the due process requirements -- e.g., service of
process -- properly at the beginning of cases. Re-serve at the outset if
necessary to be sure of good service. Taking care on this point will win
the respect of the courts as well as ensuring the ability to move
forward effectively. Be sure it is possible to complete uncontested
cases within the administrative process.

**[Contact]{.underline}:** Gerald Lindsay, Assistant Director, Division
of Support Enforcement and Recovery, Station 11, State House, Augusta,
ME 04333, phone 207-287-2843, fax 207-287-6883; e-mail
<Gerald.Lindsay@state.me.us>

**MAINE**

**Enforcement (License Suspension/Revocation)**

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** Begun in 1993, Maine's license
revocation was designed to reach the 17,000 plus cases in 1992 in which
support had not been paid in 90 days. The process is entirely
administrative unless court review of an administrative decision or
modification of the underlying support award is sought. The process
remains entirely within the Division of Support Enforcement and Recovery
until certification of non-compliance with a support order is finally
issued and sent to the licensing board.

Maine's license revocation process begins with a notice to the
out-of-compliance obligor that his or her name will be submitted to the
appropriate board as a licensee who is not complying with an order of
support. This will result in license revocation. The notice is generic
and does not specify which license or licenses will be revoked. The
obligor has 20 days from the date the notice is served to make a written
request for a hearing. The certification is put on hold if the obligor
asks for a hearing or files a motion to modify support with the court or
requests an amendment of an administrative support decision.

To come into compliance with the support order, the obligor must pay
current support, meet his or her health insurance obligations and either
pay all past due support or enter into a written payment agreement
covering payment of the past due amount. When an obligor comes into
compliance (at any stage of the proceedings) he or she is provided with
written confirmation of compliance.

If a hearing is requested, issues are limited to whether the obligor is
required to pay support under an order of support and whether the
obligor is in compliance. The obligor may raise additional issues such
as the reasonableness of a payment agreement in light of his or her
current ability to pay. Once the department issues a decision, the
obligor has 30 days to file a petition for judicial review.

The child support agency may certify in writing to the appropriate
board(s) that the obligor is not in compliance with an order of support.
The certification may be based upon the lack of a request for a hearing
after notice, an administrative finding of non-compliance after a
hearing, or a court finding of non-compliance after judicial review. In
addition, failure to comply with a written payment agreement without
proving inability to do so may result in certification of non-compliance
with a support order to a licensing board. Written confirmation of
compliance must be submitted by the obligor to avoid revocation or
obtain re-issuance of the license.

The focus of the procedure is collecting child support, not revoking
licenses. Although over 23,500 notices of intent to revoke have been
sent to non-compliant obligors since 1993, 3,400 licenses actually have
been revoked. In fact, obligors are often given at least two chances to
come into compliance before a certification of non-compliance is issued.
Even after a certification is issued, licensing boards may send yet
another warning, sometimes paid for by the Division of Support
Enforcement and Recovery (DSER).

Cooperation between DSER and licensing authorities -- ranging from the
Motor Vehicle Administration to Bureau of Marine Resources (lobstering
and fishing licenses) and the Board of Professional and Business
Regulation (100 professions)\--has been excellent. Licensing authorities
provide an annual list of license holders to DSER. Over the years, as
these authorities have been developing or upgrading automated systems,
DSER has met with systems planners to ensure that the data elements
needed by DSER were captured.

**[Results]{.underline}:** Since 1993, Maine has sent out 23,500 notices
of intent to revoke licenses. Over the eight-year period through October
1999, over \$116 million has been collected from these once
non-compliant obligors. Further, this procedure has contributed to
Maine's overall child support performance including a doubling of
collections since 1993 and a payment rate on current support for
intrastate cases of 60 percent.

**[Location]{.underline}:** Statewide. Maine's child support operations
are centralized and state-administered.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** Regular IV-D funding.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** Maine DSER managers strongly
recommend the adoption of an administrative process for license
revocation, housed within the child support agency. They also recommend
a manual review of each target case prior to commencing revocation
action for non-compliance.

**[Contact]{.underline}:** Gerald Lindsay, Assistant Director, Division
of Support Enforcement and Recovery, Station 11, State House, Augusta,
ME 04333, phone 207-287-2886, e-mail <Gerald.Lindsay@state.me.us>.

**MAINE**

**Administrative Process, Enforcement (Notice to Appear and Disclose)**

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** An administrative discovery process,
beginning with a Notice to Appear and Disclose, has become Maine's
opening wedge in collecting in the 20 percent of its cases involving
chronically non-paying support obligors. Some of these noncustodial
parents are self-employed, some are employed in the underground economy,
some are disabled. Finding a way to assure payment by members of this
hard-to-collect-from group is the goal of the process.

Maine relies heavily on administrative processes in both the
establishment and enforcement of support obligations. These procedures
are generally carried out without attorneys, since Maine child support
agents are authorized to present evidence in court on behalf of the
Commissioner of Maine's Department of Human Services. Agency attorneys
become involved only in complex cases where points of law must be
argued.

As with other child support administrative processes in the state, this
one is designed to begin with proper service of the administrative
Notice to Appear and Disclose, followed by an administrative hearing,
and a seamless transfer to court if the child support matter cannot be
resolved by voluntary action on the part of the NCP. The transfer to
court may be made without re-serving the obligor. (Notice is provided.)
The Notice requires the obligor to bring all financial records to a
scheduled administrative hearing. In many cases, license revocation
proceedings may be commenced at the same time.

Often, the Notice alone results in payment of arrearages. Reportedly,
this is particularly the case for self-employed obligors and those who
are in a partnership or corporation with others.

At the administrative hearing a child support agent deposes the obligor
about his or her income, assets and financial circumstances. While some
of the standard questions have a distinctively local flavor \-- "Do you
go hunting? What do you have for guns? Do you have a four-wheeler to
haul out the moose? Do you have a camp?" -- the approach is broadly
applicable. Hearings are recorded and transcribed. Transcriptions are
kept for future reference even if not used at that time.

Next steps in the enforcement process depend on what is discovered at
the hearing. In a case involving an apparently unemployed, but
able-bodied noncustodial parent, a motion will be filed in court for a
seek work order, typically in effect for six months. This requires the
noncustodial parent to report job-finding efforts to the child support
agency weekly. In many cases, it is believed, noncustodial parents find
a job as soon as the order is issued.

When assets are discovered, appropriate collection actions are taken.
These may include filing a lien, seizure and sale, turnover order from
the court or other action. (Because Maine does not have an automated
land title registry, discovery is necessary to identify real property to
which a lien may be attached.) Some enforcement methods require court
action; some do not.

For non-paying obligors who are determined to be unable to work, the
agent schedules an administrative modification hearing or files a motion
to amend a court order. Informally, agents may refer obligors to other
government agencies (for social security disability or SSI payments), to
GED programs, to job training programs or to other resources based on
the circumstances of the case. Collection action is deferred in these
cases.

Legislation creating the administrative appear and disclose process was
passed in 1995. Augusta, Maine was the site of early efforts to work
with this procedure between 1996 and 1998. In 1999, training was
provided very broadly throughout the state on the use of this effective
enforcement technique. Now, self-directed training on the use of this
technique is available on-line to child support staff.

**[Results]{.underline}:** The results in the initial Augusta cases
using this technique:

-   Of 452 cases where a Notice to Appear and Disclose was served on
    chronic non-payors, 40 percent are now paying regularly.

-   Of 348 cases where the individuals were actually deposed, 47 percent
    are now paying.

-   Of the total noticed to appear and disclose to an administrative
    agent, 120 entered into voluntary agreements and 68 percent continue
    to pay.

-   Since January 1998, the District Courts have ordered 66 payment
    agreements after an administrative disclosure; 70 percent continue
    to pay.

-   Forty-nine noncustodial parents who had no apparent ability to pay
    but were able-bodied were ordered to seek work; 26 percent
    immediately found work and entered into payment agreements.

**[Location]{.underline}:** Statewide throughout Maine; use of the
technique was initially developed in Augusta.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** Regular IV-D funding.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** The ability to begin the process
in the administrative arena without the necessity of court action is a
plus. The ability to move the case to court for further enforcement
action without additional service of process also is advantageous, as is
the admissibility in court of transcripts made of the administrative
disclosure hearing. Also helpful is a limitation on matters that can be
raised at the hearing on the order to appear and disclose; these are
limited to the debt and enforceability of the debt. Obligors may not
raise modification or paternity issues at this hearing, for example.

**[Contact]{.underline}:** Gerald Lindsay, Assistant Director, Division
of Support Enforcement and Recovery, Station 11, State House, Augusta,
ME 04333, phone 207-287-2886, e-mail
[Gerald**.Lindsay@state.me.us**](mailto:Gerald.Lindsay@state.me.us)**.**

MARYLAND (Montgomery County)

**Case Maintenance/Closure Initiative**

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** The goal of this initiative is to
improve office performance by probing the state's child support computer
system (using a series of ad-hoc reports) for cases inappropriately
coded or eligible for closure utilizing the revised case closing
regulations. The initial effort focused on determining if: (1) custodial
parents wanted to pursue child support; (2) children with paternity
established were properly coded within the computer system; (3) Social
Security Numbers not in the computer system for noncustodial parents
were available from other sources; and (4) certain "locate" cases met
the criteria for closure.

> **Key Partners --** System staff at the state central office provided
> the ad-hoc reports

**Dates of Operation -** 10/1/98 -- Present

**[Results]{.underline}:**

• Percent of children with paternity established increased by four
percent

• 328 children were properly credited with having paternity established

• 198 social security numbers were located for noncustodial parents

• Percent of cases under order increased by ten percent

• 1300 cases were closed because the custodial parent no longer wanted
to pursue child support services

• 1300 cases in the "locate" function were closed due to insufficient
information to locate the noncustodial parent

• 189 fewer cases are pending the establishment of a final court order

**[Location]{.underline}:** The project began in Montgomery County
Maryland. Montgomery County is a metropolitan jurisdiction with over
21,000 child support cases. The project is currently being implemented
in smaller jurisdictions in Maryland.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** Labor to support this initiative was provided
by staff from a local temporary agency. The temporary staff costs are
estimated at \$ 15,000. This included state and regular federal matching
funds.

[Replication Advice]{.underline}: The project is simple to administer
and can be completed with little disruption to regular staff routines.
States with high numbers of former TANF cases will see the greatest
results. The modest costs of performing this initiative can be recovered
through increases in federal incentives earned by the state.

**[Contact]{.underline}:**

Brian D. Shea

Director

Montgomery County OCSE

51 Monroe Street (Suite 811)

Rockville, Md. 20785

Phone: (301) 610-4603

E-mail**:** <Bshea@CSEA.DHR.STATE.MD.US>

MICHIGAN

Case Closure Project (Management Techniques)

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** In the fall of 1998, spurred on by a
desire for an accurate caseload count for the national program
incentives and for federal reporting and a desire to improve caseload
management, Michigan's Office of Child Support identified closure of
appropriate cases as an important priority for the next year. Conversion
to the new automated system had resulted in over 200,000 cases that had
previously been closed or purged being designated as open in the new
automated system. In addition, almost 30,000 additional cases appeared
to meet federal case closure criteria. With these cases counted in its
caseload Michigan OCS estimated it would be entitled to no incentive
payment under "factor two," "Cases with Orders."

Michigan developed a two-pronged approach to deleting inappropriate
cases from its caseload and to moving forward on cases needing action.
First, a data clean-up effort would be undertaken to identify and close
those cases that had been erroneously "re-opened" during the systems
conversion process. Second, an effort would be made to contact custodial
parents in additional cases meeting federal case closure criteria to
jointly determine next steps on the case.

The data clean-up effort identified those cases that had been
erroneously re-opened during systems conversion and closed them with a
special code of 'X' and a history note that read, "Case changed from 'D'
to 'X' due to Data Cleanup Project." At the end of the project, the
special code was removed to avoid corruption of reporting data.

In the second phase of the project, cases were identified which met one
of three criteria:

-   Active IV-D case, non-TANF, no court order for child support,
    "unknown parent" and last action date more than 12 months earlier.

-   Active IV-D case, TANF or non-TANF, no court order for child support
    and the youngest child is 18 or older.

-   Active IV-D case, non-TANF, no court order for child support, known
    parent and last action code of 36 months.

29,556 cases fell into these categories.

Three temporary staff members were hired and trained to field calls and
collect information needed to update the computer system. Staff were
provided resource materials, such as local phone numbers for Prosecuting
Attorneys, Friends of the Court and support specialists. They also had
access to program information, in case the caller identified additional
issues that needed resolution.

Beginning in April 1999, letters were sent to the custodial parent in
each case which met case closure criteria. These letters notified
clients that the case would be closed unless they contacted the child
support office within 60 days. They also provided clients a toll-free
number to call if they wished to keep their case open, had additional
locate information or had questions concerning child support.

Approximately 3,000 letters were mailed each week for a 10-week period.
This staggered mailing schedule created a more constant level of
incoming phone calls throughout the project, reducing the likelihood
that callers would not reach a staff member when they called. (The
phones were staffed Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30. Voice mail
could be left at other times and was answered within one business day.)

Because they were sent in batches, letters could be sent by region,
saving on postage. In addition, the District Manager from each region
could be brought into the phone center at the most relevant times to
help respond to questions concerning regional operations.

The special toll-free number was staffed from April through August.

**[Results]{.underline}:** 219,886 cases which had been erroneously
re-opened during systems conversion were closed.

Of the 29,556 letters which were sent in cases meeting case closure
criteria, 6,620 were returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable.
Just over 3,000 phone calls were received by the toll-free number as a
result of the mailing. Almost a quarter of those requested case closure.
Approximately, 28,000 cases were closed as a result of the process, with
the balance requesting continuing assistance.

**[Location]{.underline}:** Statewide.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** Total project costs for the Case Closure
Project were \$33,413 -- including the costs of three temporary staff
members, printing and mailing costs, and telephone costs. Project costs
were paid with regular IV-D funds.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** Providing a toll free number to
call worked well. Having a live person available to answer questions
about individual cases and to provide general child support information
was very helpful and was appreciated by callers.

Be careful about the wording of letters. Some members of the public take
offense at terms like "alleged father" that may be common parlance among
child support staff.

Having a seasoned professional staff available to answer specific
program questions was also helpful.

**[Contact]{.underline}:** Kelly Morse, Departmental Specialist, Family
Independence Agency, Office of Child Support, 235 S. Grand Avenue,
Lansing, MI 48909, 517-335-0890, Fax; 517-373-4980, e-mail:
<morsek@state.mi.us>

MINNESOTA (Hennepin County)

Management Methods (Hennepin County Bonus Incentive Program)

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** When the Minnesota legislature began
offering counties bonuses to encourage critical child support activities
in 1993, Hennepin County was one county that seized the opportunity. The
state bonuses and the federal match they leveraged allowed the county to
fund additional staff who dramatically improved the county's performance
in review and adjustment of awards, paternity establishment, and medical
support enforcement.

Minnesota's child support program is county-administered and counties
historically have provided the bulk of the state match for the Minnesota
IV-D program. With the counties and the federal government as the
primary funders, the Minnesota legislature decided to target its new
state funding for the program on improving child support outcomes in
areas critical to the state. Financial incentives to the counties would
reward specific, measurable actions that would have a long-term positive
impact on both families and the state budget. The areas targeted were
review and adjustment of child support awards (many preceded the
adoption of Minnesota's child support guideline), paternity
establishment, and enrollment of children in noncustodial parents'
health plans (saving Medicaid dollars in many cases).

The bonus incentive program adopted in 1993 paid counties for the
following outcomes:

-   \$50 for every case reviewed to determine if the child support order
    needs to be modified

-   \$100 for every case in which paternity is established

-   \$50 for every child enrolled in the noncustodial parent's medical
    insurance plan

The program also required that all bonus dollars be reinvested by
counties in their child support programs. (An additional bonus element
-- for establishment of a support award---has been added since 1995.)

The Hennepin County Collections Services Division (CSD) (the local IV-D
agency in Minneapolis, MN) was able to sell its County Board on
permitting the agency to hire additional staff assigned to these
functions. With the promise that county dollars invested initially would
yield measurable results once new staff were trained, as well as
reimbursement through state bonus dollars and the federal financial
assistance they garnered, the County Board agreed.

**[Results]{.underline}:** After the bonus incentive program went into
effect, Hennepin County's IV-D program achieved higher outcome levels in
all three areas.

-   From 1991 until 1995 the number of paternities established each
    month was increased by 40 percent from 171 per month to 240 per
    month. (1995 bonus incentive: \$229,500.)

-   Hennepin County was credited with 2,770 modification reviews in
    1994, almost four times the 716 for which they received credit in
    1993, the first year the data were tracked. Modifications increased
    from seven to 69 during this time. Both reviews and modifications
    declined in 1995 (to 1,200 and 32 respectively) because a majority
    of PA cases had already been reviewed. (1994 bonus incentive:
    \$138,500; 1995 bonus incentive: \$60,000.)

-   The number of children newly enrolled in noncustodial parents'
    medical insurance plans increased more than threefold between
    January -- June, 1993 and July-December, 1995, increasing from 149
    to 549 for the six month period. (1995 bonus incentive: \$57,450.)

The increased outcome levels were primarily the result of additional
staff to perform the work. Paternity staff was increased from 14 to 27.
A new unit with 11 staff took over the review and adjustment function.
Staff responsible for medical support enrollments was doubled from one
to two.

Says Barry Bloomgren, Hennepin County CSD's Division Manager, " What has
been most meaningful for me has been the early start in focusing on
establishing paternities and increasing orders through modification.
This has meant increased collections for those former PA recipients who
have now become self-sufficient. Other clients are now better prepared
for self-sufficiency because more cases have orders and older orders now
have higher amounts. We were much better prepared for welfare reform
than we would have been without this program."

**[Location]{.underline}:** The Bonus Incentive Program operates
statewide in Minnesota. However, this report focuses on its impact in
urban Hennepin County -- Minneapolis.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** Bonus incentive payments are funded with
state funds. They are used to obtain regular federal match for the
program.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** Says Bloomgren, "This kind of a
program is an opportunity to establish a partnership with your state
regarding the importance of investment in the child support program,
maximizing federal dollars, and achieving outcomes which are important
for families. This is an effective program to use in justifying to the
state that increased state funding for county-administered programs can
pay off with increased client outcomes."

"The Minnesota State incentive measures fit in with the new federal
performance measures and follow the federal performance theme. Similar
incentive programs could help other county-administered programs meet
the federal targets," he adds as an additional selling point.

**[Contact]{.underline}:** Barry Bloomgren, Hennepin CountyEconomic
Assistance, Collections Services Division,

110 S. 3^rd^ St., Minneapolis, MN 55401-2280, Ph: 612-348-3939, FX:
612-348-6643,

e-mail: <barry.bloomgren@co.hennepin.mn.us>.

**MISSOURI**

# Enforcement, Fatherhood, Employment and Training for NCPs

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** Missouri's Parents' Fair Share
program, operated by the Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE)
has two goals: 1) increasing the numbers of noncustodial parents able to
support their children by helping them get good jobs and increase their
earning capacity and 2) increasing the number of noncustodial parents
who assume an active, positive role in their children's lives.
(Initially, between 1992 and 1998, the program was a joint child support
enforcement/welfare program.)

Participation in the program is voluntary. Participants must be Missouri
residents over the age of 18 who are parents with active child support
cases. They must be unemployed or underemployed (most are unemployed;
few are underemployed). Child Support Technicians, the staff members
responsible for enforcement in Missouri, routinely refer all eligible
noncustodial parents in their caseloads to the program. In addition,
some parents are ordered into the program by the courts as a condition
of probation for failure to pay child support.

Considering whether the noncustodial parent should be referred to the
program is now part of the routine of working a case. If a Technician
discovers that the noncustodial parent earns less than minimum wage,
works fewer than 40 hours per week, or has multiple orders and is unable
to meet all of the obligation due to a low salary, he (or she) will be
referred. Low wage workers who express a desire to improve their
earnings may be referred also. Participants usually are in arrears,
although an arrearage is not required to participate.

When an eligible parent is identified, the technician fills out an
electronic form which is forwarded to the Parents' Fair Share program.
The Parents' Fair Share case manager sends a letter to the noncustodial
parent inviting him (or her) to an orientation. Both orientation and PFS
appointments are held at sites away from the DCSE offices to increase
noncustodial parents' comfort level with the program.

About 25 of every 100 parents invited attend an orientation. (The letter
from the PFS case manager also indicates that if the parent does not
choose to attend, the case will be referred back to the technician for
legal action.) Of the 25 who do attend, 22 or 23 sign up for the
program. Ninety-five percent of these are unemployed at the time they
enroll.

The benefits of participation are significant:

 Assistance in obtaining jobs and job training.

 Assistance with transportation costs and work-related expenses --e.g.,
work clothes or boots, work tools, repair on a vehicle.

 Referrals for housing assistance, food, substance abuse treatment, GED
classes.

 Medical coverage through MC+ (Medicaid) -- all participants qualify
just by enrolling in the program.

 Consolidation of child support cases. All of a parent's child support
cases from anywhere in the state are transferred to a technician who
handles PFS cases and can make arrangements on all cases at one time.

-   Special arrangements on child support. Payment agreements are made
    to reduce payments during the program (no enforcement action will be
    taken if agreed to amount is paid, arrearages continue to accumulate
    on the balance under the order).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Referral to resources such as parenting classes and mediation for
    those wanting to build or improve relationships with their children.

Noncustodial parents who enroll in Parents' Fair Share go through an
assessment to determine their strengths and the barriers to their
self-sufficiency. Working with a PFS Case Manager they develop a
self-sufficiency plan which outlines their goals, what they will do to
achieve them, and what the case manager will do to assist them.
Participants continue to meet at least monthly with their case manager
\-- they may meet weekly if seeking work.

Strong linkages with employment programs in the state (one-stop centers,
workforce development programs, both the WtW formula and competitive
grants, vocational rehabilitation, Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education for Occupational Classroom Training, CAP agencies)
allow participants to access a variety of services and training
programs. The program also can pay up to \$3,500 per participant for job
training. For example, the program has had good success with paying for
participants to be trained as welders or truck drivers of over-the-road,
18-wheel vehicles. Almost all walk out with good jobs. While in
training, the program expects participants to work at least part-time to
pay their child support.

Currently, 37 case managers provide PFS services. With a caseload of
approximately 65 apiece, some workers cover as many as 13 rural
counties; four workers share Kansas City, five, St. Louis.

**[Results]{.underline}:** At the end of 1999 the program included 1,608
participating noncustodial parents. At that time, 980 were employed, 807
fulltime. In November of 1999, 1,022 parents in the program made a child
support payment, averaging \$196.

From July 1998 through June 1999, \$1,545,043 in child support was paid
by program participants. At the end of February 2000, with 4 more months
to the State fiscal year, collections were at \$1,559,057.

**[Location]{.underline}:** Statewide.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** State appropriated funds pay for this
program; IV-D funds pay for the child support technicians who work the
child support cases of parents in the program. (While Missouri
considered operating this program as part of its federally assisted
welfare-to-work program, when the state took a look at the fathers who
were not paying, it was discovered that many did not meet the strict
requirements of that program.)

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** Dave Damico, director of the
program within DCSE, advises holding meetings between parents and
program case managers away from child support offices. Cooperation and
trust are higher when meetings are held in churches, libraries, city
hall. This takes away the implication that bad things will come of
participating.

"You must publicize the program to your own child support staff, " says
Damico. "Since we rely on the technicians for referrals, we have needed
to educate them. This is a different method of enforcement. We look at
why someone isn't paying and help them overcome those issues. "

Moving the program to DCSE alone allowed the program to focus on
noncustodial parents solely and achieve greater success. (Family
Services had mainstreamed NCPs with the general TANF population.)
Finally, Damico recommends tracking collections very closely. This makes
it possible to evaluate program performance and helps to sell the
program.

**[Contacts]{.underline}**: Dave Damico, Program Manager, Parents' Fair
Share, 301 E. Armour, Suite 100, Kansas City, MO 64111, 816-889-5182,
ddamico@mail.state.mo.us. In the Federal Office of Child Support
Enforcement, contact Dail Moore on 202-401-3438 or <dmoore@acf.dhhs.gov>

NEW JERSEY

**Paternity Establishment (POP), Customer Service, Public Information**

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** New Jersey's POP -- Paternity
Opportunity Program -- uses a variety of techniques to increase the rate
of voluntary acknowledgments of paternity -- especially at birthing
facilities -- and to facilitate the easy accessibility of paternity
information and documentation to county workers. One feature of the
program since it began in 1995 has been electronic imaging of the
voluntary acknowledgment forms themselves.

Called Certificates of Parentage (COPs), the signed and notarized
acknowledgment forms are scanned into an electronic format and are
available online via personal computers to child support workers, to
other workers within the Division of Family Development, and to the
Department of Health. Child support workers can print copies of the
documents on site when they are needed for court. (Hard copies are
maintained by the state's contractor and can be made available quickly
if ever required for evidentiary purposes.)

At hospitals and birthing centers, staff seek demographic information on
all parents, both married and unmarried. Unmarried parents are offered
the opportunity to voluntarily acknowledge paternity by signing the
Certificate of Paternity. The rights and responsibilities flowing from
such an acknowledgment are explained to these parents by hospital or
birthing center staff. Under New Jersey law, the unmarried father's name
cannot be placed on the birth certificate unless both parents sign the
COP.

If the parents do not want to sign at the hospital, they are directed to
Vital Statistics' Local Registrars or county child support offices to
acknowledge at a later time. Offering the opportunity to acknowledge
paternity at multiple times and locations makes the process more
convenient for parents and increases the likelihood it will be used.

All information collected -- on both married and unmarried parents -- is
stored on a database and matched against the Automated Child Support
Enforcement System on a weekly basis. In some cases, fathers of newborns
are also the fathers of other children with support orders. Information
on married parents may be useful if the couple later separates.

Repeated training and outreach is provided to staff who come into
contact with the voluntary acknowledgment process. These include staff
of birthing facilities, Vital Statistics local registrars, pre-natal
clinics, WIC programs, public nutritionists and breastfeeding counselors
as well as county child support staff. By working with pre-natal clinics
and by providing outreach via public service announcements, the program
hopes to ensure that unmarried parents will have heard of the voluntary
acknowledgment process before they arrive at the birthing facility and
will have had time to decide whether they want to use it.

**[Results]{.underline}:** The percentage of children born to unmarried
parents in New Jersey whose paternity is established through POP has
increased from 70.3 percent during the first full year of the program's
operation in 1996 to 76.2 percent during the first quarter of 1999.
(Paternity was established by this means for 23,784 children in 1998.)

**[Location]{.underline}:** Statewide in New Jersey

**[Funding]{.underline}:** Regular IV-D funds.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** According to Francine Vitagliano,
*partnerships* with Vital Statistics, Local Registrars, hospitals and
health and social service providers serving pregnant women and young
families have been vital to the success of the program.

Vital Statistics not only maintains all the state's birth records, but
supervises local registrars. These local officials had established
relationships with hospitals and birthing facilities in New Jersey and
provided important linkages with those groups for POP.

Hospital and birthing center staff, who deal with the new parents
directly, are best able to convey the importance of paternity
establishment -- at a time when both parents are flush with pride. Staff
from pre-natal health and social service providers can educate young
parents about paternity issues before hospital admission. POP has found
that informed parents are more likely to sign a Certificate of Parentage
at the time of birth.

It is also important, says Vitagliano to provide extensive support to
make the program work. POP provides training and retraining,
trouble-shooting visits to each hospital at least quarterly, technical
assistance with problem cases, program brochures and videos, a
translation service, and answers to legal questions. Monitoring of
hospital performance by POP staff is also a critical element. Best
practices from successful hospitals are shared with others. Performance
improvement plans are developed with poorly performing hospitals.

The use of technology to maintain and reproduce images of the
Certificates of Parentage and interface with the child support locate
system saves worker time and makes the fullest use of the information
gathered through the program.

**[Contact]{.underline}:** Francine Vitagliano, Project Manager, Office
of Child Support & Paternity Programs, PO Box 716, Trenton, NJ 08628,
(609) 588-4540, fax 609-588-2354, e-mail <fvitaglia@DHS.STATE.NJ.US>

OKLAHOMA

## Management Methods (Strategic Plan), Enforcement, Customer Service

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** Shortly after Ray Weaver arrived as
the new head of Oklahoma's Child Support Enforcement Division in 1997,
the agency began an intense program of strategic and operational
planning -- and implementation. Despite some threats of massive
privatization, the overall program remains fully in the public sector
and the agency is well on its way to becoming a high performance
organization.

With the help of a consultant the agency began a statewide
self-assessment process -- and discovered it was "a dysfunctional
organization with low employee morale." Overall, employees experienced a
rather low level of job satisfaction.

With the aid of the consultant, 30 agency managers and supervisors from
across the state were trained in tools for leadership. They identified
over 100 projects the agency had undertaken. They created a strategic
plan for 1999. It targeted six of those projects which became the "fire
breathing dragons" of the plan -- key strategic issues to address with
goals and action strategies.

These included:

-   Adequate child support orders

-   Becoming a high performance organization

-   Securing increased resources for the program

-   Establishing effective partnerships with internal and external
    shareholders

-   Implementation of PRWORA mandates

-   Technology improvements to support attaining strategic goals.

For each of these issues, the Strategic Plan included an Issue
Statement, Goal(s), and Action Strategies.

The Strategic Plan was further refined into an Operational Plan. As a
part of this effort some 100 projects/action steps were identified.
Deadlines were developed for each and a person responsible was
identified for each. One staff member spends almost full-time tracking
progress on these projects and activities, frequently touching base with
those responsible, making sure next steps are taken. The status of the
projects is reported publicly within the organization. Accomplishments
are publicly acknowledged; it is also clear who is responsible when
deadlines are not met.

The strategic plan for 2000 has now been published which identifies new
strategic issues and a report card for the year 1999.

**[Results]{.underline}:** While there is a long lead time to
dramatically increasing performance through a process such as this, a
great deal has been accomplished during the first year of operating with
a formalized strategic plan:

-   A team of frontline workers is involved in re-engineering the
    enforcement process; the agency is working to implement some of
    their recommendations. In the process they have created an
    interactive web-site on enforcement. Available on-line to all
    workers, it catalogues each enforcement tool and provides federal
    and state laws, CSED policies, and related documents. A desk manual
    also is being prepared.

-   Telephone calls were identified as a key obstacle by both the
    leadership group and local offices who were asked to identify
    obstacles to doing the best job possible. In the works: a Customer
    Service Call Center which will answer customers' questions about
    their cases.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   PRWORA implementation has been completed.

-   Information technology staff devoted to ensuring Y2K compliance are
    now working to ensure all offices have Internet access and training.

-   Frontline staff are involved in the communications process -- and
    rumors are down.

The agency also won a special Governor's Commendation for their efforts.
Says the agency's Victoria Harrison, "I never thought that just by
articulating, 'This is what we want to do,' it becomes so much easier to
attain a goal...Incredible changes are going on."

**[Location]{.underline}:** Statewide in Oklahoma. While "generic"
strategic planning and process improvement are used widely in both the
private and public sectors.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** Approximately \$80,000 per year has been
spent in consultant fees; cost of staff time has not been separated out
from other activities. Both are covered by the regular IV-D budget.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** Harrison recommends the use of a
facilitator, particularly one with a background in customer service and
quality improvement. "While some may think they can guide their own
people, having an outside facilitator really helps in addressing
problems," she says.

She also recommends being sure to do operational as well as strategic
planning -- attaching names and deadlines to specific goals.
Accomplishing goals is facilitated by having managers meet regularly and
communicate with each other about progress and roadblocks to achieving
goals.

**[Contact]{.underline}:** Victoria Harrison, Assistant to the Division
Administrator & Special Projects Manager, Dept of Human Services, Child
Support Enforcement Division, 2409 N. Kelley, Annex, Oklahoma City, OK
73111,

Ph: 405-522-0032, Fax: 405-522-2753, e-mail:
<Victoria.Harrison@okdhs.org>.

PUERTO RICO

**Electronic Funds Transfer (PROJECT DIRECT DEPOSIT*)***

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** The goal was to use EFT to improve
the collection of wage withholdings. Prior to Puerto Rico's July 1995
IV-D reorganization (from a court-based to an administrative-based
process), income withholdings from wages represented less than 4% of
total collections. The use of EFT was phased in. All support payments,
including EFT wage withholdings, are now made to the
privatized-collections vendor, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico.

(Dual language copies of the EFT Order are available upon request)

**[Results]{.underline}:**

[IV-D costs per transaction:]{.underline} Payment at Bank Branch -
\$1.50

Mailed Payment - \$0.45 to 0.50

EFT Payment - \$0.20

[Estimated minimum Monthly Savings over 1-98:]{.underline} \$1,800.00

(The savings calculation does not include employers who used EFT prior
to the issuance of EFT orders, i.e. 1-98 EFT employers -- in addition,
the benefit to custodial parents who receive more timely and consistent
payments as a result of this project has not been quantified)

The increased use of EFT payments, and EFT's inherent accuracy and
speed, has allowed Puerto Rico's ASUME/vendor team to consistently
distribute approximately 99% of support collections within 24 hours of
receipt.

The great majority of the employer community has welcomed the
initiative, and there have been no organized attempts to oppose the 1997
amendment. The IV-D program, in turn, continues to realize savings as
EFT payments replace mailed-in payments and window payments at Banco
Popular branches. Finally, the renewed focus on income withholdings has
led to continued increases in the percentage of total collections
available for distribution received from wage withholdings.

**[Location]{.underline}:** Statewide from inception.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** Regular federal matching.

[Replication Advice]{.underline}: Employer outreach vital to successful
implementation. However, EFT law should include penalty provision.
Expect employer response to be positive. This should hold true
throughout the Nation, since Puerto Rico is a base for many multi-state
employers.

**[Contact]{.underline}:**

Olga Hernandez, Esq.

Assistant Administrator

Administration for Child Support (ASUME)

Department of Social Services

P.O. Box 3349\
San Juan, PR 00902

\(787\) 767-1852

8/99

**SOUTH CAROLINA**

# Locate (Diligent Search Project), Collaboration (Child Welfare)

**[Description/Goals]{.underline}:** Making effective use of the locate
resources available through the Child Support Enforcement Division to
locate missing parents has reduced the time South Carolina foster
children must wait for adoption or reunification with their families. A
collaboration between the child welfare and child support divisions of
the state's Department of Social Services, the Diligent Search Project
has sped the process of finding missing parents and other relatives in
protective services cases in which termination of parental rights
appears likely.

Before commencement of the Diligent Search Project in October 1997,
South Carolina\'s child welfare workers had to conduct their own
searches to locate missing parents in child welfare cases, using phone
directories and post office resources and contacting drivers license
bureaus and phone companies themselves. Other caseload priorities and
lack of automated resources reduced the effectiveness of their efforts.

South Carolina law, as does the law in other states, requires a diligent
search for a missing parent, followed by publication of a notice in area
newspapers, before parental rights can be terminated and a child
adopted. In some cases, a foster child can be reunified with the missing
parent or family once the parent is located.

This project has been a part of a larger South Carolina Department of
Social Services effort to reduce the number of children lingering
unnecessarily in foster care. South Carolina was the recipient of a
special grant from the Kellogg Foundation to aid in instituting reforms
designed to move children quickly into permanent homes either with their
own families or adoptive parents. This effort led the state to identify
and address many barriers to foster children's return home or adoption.
(South Carolina won a special White House award for increasing the
number of waiting foster children placed in adoptive homes.)

Delays in locating missing parents was identified as a factor which
lengthened children\'s stays in foster care. Although Title IV-D has
permitted the use of parent locate resources in child custody cases for
many years, South Carolina had not established a special procedure for
allowing child welfare staff to utilize child support locate resources
in a systematic way. Individual child welfare workers would occasionally
make requests for locate assistance. However, with no special priority
for these cases and extremely high caseloads within the Child Support
Enforcement Division, response time often was slow.

The Diligent Search Project built on existing, standard child support
locate procedures. The project permitted funding for a special IV-D
staff position within the child support division's Central Parent Locate
Service. Child welfare workers from throughout the state mail in the
standard form used for child support locate requests with applicable
information filled in. Their forms are stamped \"DS\" (for Diligent
Search) on the top to distinguish them from child support requests in
the mailroom. The mailroom clerk turns these requests over to the
special staff member, who is responsible for locate activities in these
cases.

That staff member uses standard child support locate procedures and
resources to locate the missing parents. All resources, including the
Federal Parent Locator Service, are used in these cases. Credit bureau
requests, among other techniques, have proved a fruitful source of
locate information in these cases, for example.

In many cases, the missing parent is already known to the Child Support
Enforcement Division. The initial foster care referral to the IV-D
agency often results in the completion of locate activities and, in some
cases, an ongoing child support case. However, there was no systematic
process for providing locate information developed by the child support
division to child welfare staff. New child welfare case workers were
often unaware that such a referral had been made to the Child Support
Enforcement Division before they were assigned the case. The Diligent
Search Project tapped into this information already available within the
agency as well as initiating new locate activities.

The project has made extensive efforts to inform frontline workers about
the availability of the Diligent Search process and to train them in its
use. A professionally produced video explains the process and its
advantages. This video was made available to all child welfare offices
in the state. Project staff (including both child welfare and child
support staff) have trained in many local offices. Training on the
Diligent Search process is now incorporated into the initial training of
all child welfare caseworkers. (South Carolina has a state-administered
child welfare program and provides similar training to workers
throughout the state.) Outreach to others involved in the child welfare
process has been important also.

**[Results]{.underline}:** The Central Parent Locate Service currently
locates \"missing\" parents in 80 percent of the cases referred by child
welfare staff. The average response time to child welfare staff is 45
calendar days. In over half the cases, the missing parent is located
within 27 calendar days.

Successful locate efforts aid in moving foster children more rapidly
into permanent homes, saving dollars as well as benefiting children.
Cost savings result from shorter foster care stays, child welfare staff
time not spent on searches, and savings on published notices of legal
proceedings. Necessary when a parent cannot be found for personal
service of court documents, published notice costs \$500 per case, on
average.

The number of searches conducted by the project has been much lower than
anticipated. At the outset, 1600 children were identified as backlogged
in the foster care system. The assumption that this was the result of
difficulty in locating missing parents proved untrue. Once the cases
were actively addressed, child welfare workers could locate the missing
parent easily in a majority of cases. Thus, the need for locate services
was less than anticipated.

**[Location]{.underline}:** The Diligent Search process was tested
initially in Charleston County -- an urban county. The project went
statewide approximately four months after piloting.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** This is a three year project funded by OCSE
under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act. Project cost is \$150,000
over three years, including \$45,000 in evaluation expense.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** Develop a strategy for reaching
frontline workers who must make locate requests in appropriate cases.
According to Robert Bradford, who heads the project on the child welfare
side, "The biggest obstacle in the project was selling the workers on
using the program, informing them of the availability of this tool."
Linda Dean, who headed the project on the child support side agrees. "
Get the word to the frontline workers," she says.

Some staff thought the new procedure interfered with their job. Some
thought it was extra paperwork. Some didn't trust the system to do a
better job than they thought they could do themselves. Bradford now
begins his talks to frontline workers with, "How would you like someone
else to do your work for you and you get credit for it."

The training video, training new workers who educate "old" workers,
outreach to other groups who influence the process such as guardians *ad
litem* and foster care review boards, are useful activities and
products.

Create a large initial advisory group. Members could relay information
to frontline staff and become local champions of the project.

**[Contacts]{.underline}:** Child Welfare contact \-- Robert Bradford,
Program Director, Special Services, SC Dept. of Social Services, P.O.
Box 1520, Columbia, SC 29202-1520; phone (03) 898-7546. Child Support
contact \-- Linda Dean, Assistant Director, Central Program Operations,
DSS/Child Support Enforcement, P. O. Box 1469, Columbia, SC 29202-1469,
(803) 898-9402, fax (803) 898-9262, e-mail: <ldean1@dss.state.sc.us>.

10/99

**TEXAS (Bexar County)**

# Collaboration, Enforcement, Employment and Training for NCPs

# [Description/Goal]{.underline}: Bexar County Texas' Child Support Probation Unit tackles a tough job: getting non-custodial parents with a long history of non-payment and failure to respond to enforcement actions to start paying child support.

# 

# The non-custodial parents referred to the unit are at the end of the line in the child support system \-- a child support master has found them to be in contempt of court for failure to pay support and they could be sentenced to up to 180 days in jail. Instead, they are allowed probation with the Child Support Probation Unit (part of the Bexar County Juvenile Probation Office) in lieu of incarceration. Texas law now permits civil probation for up to 10 years in lieu of jail time in child support contempt cases.

# 

# Most haven't paid in years or at all. Some simply refuse to pay. Most suffer from at least one substantial problem which impedes their paying child support -- unemployment or underemployment, substance abuse, mental health problems, physical impairments, legal problems (e.g., in and out of jail, on and off adult probation), illiteracy, little education, inability to speak English.

# 

# The eight person unit (one manager, six certified probation officers, and one office assistant) initially takes a service-oriented approach to working with those referred for probation. Both an initial meeting with an intake officer (directly from court) and mandatory attendance at an orientation meeting (held every other Tuesday afternoon from 5 until 6 to accommodate work schedule) serve to inform non-custodial parents about the process. These address obligations, the probation process, services available, and consequences of failure to pay. The most frequently asked questions address accrual of interest on arrears and getting help with visitation enforcement.

# 

# Initially, a probationer must meet monthly with an intake officer. Problems to be overcome and payment status are discussed. Referrals are made to appropriate community resources. For example, an unemployed non-custodial parent is referred to temp agencies, job training programs (i.e., Goodwill with a special welfare-to-work grant), job development programs, or to employers seeking workers.

If the parent succeeds in making full payment for three consecutive
months, he or she goes into unsupervised status and no longer is
required to come downtown monthly. If the parent makes some payments,
but doesn't pay perfectly, the non-custodial parent is referred to a
long term worker after the initial three months and must continue
monthly meetings.

If no payment or only partial payments are made for three months, the
Child Support Probation Unit submits a non-compliance report to the
field office handling the case and recommends a motion to revoke
probation. An arrest can be made in the probation office if a warrant is
issued.

#  [Results]{.underline}: Approximately 85% of this difficult caseload of 1,500 in supervised probation pay something. The other fifteen percent are in administrative status (jail, prison, address unknown). Approximately 38 percent pay regularly. About 36 percent are the subject of a non-compliance report each year. The balance of the 85% pay intermittently or partially and continue to be supervised. 

Unfortunately, the incompatibility between county and Attorney General
(IV-D) computer systems has prevented determination of the amount
collected each year from non-custodial parents supervised by the Child
Support Probation Unit.

**[Location]{.underline}:** Bexar County (San Antonio), Texas is an
urban county. One downtown Child Support Probation Unit serves the
entire county although there are multiple Texas Attorney General child
support field offices in San Antonio.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** The annual cost of the program was
approximately \$275,000 in Fiscal Year 1999. The program is operated
under a cooperative agreement between Bexar County Juvenile Probation
Department and the Texas Attorney General, which is the Texas IV-D
agency. Thus, 34% of total program funds come from the Bexar County
General Fund and 66% from federal IV-D match.

# [Replication Advice]{.underline}: "Collaborate, collaborate, collaborate," says Michael Kopatz, the Manager of the Child Support Unit. This project, which begin in 1983, requires ongoing cooperation among County Commissioners, the District \[Court\] Clerk, County Auditor, Attorney General's office, and the variety of community agencies to which parents are referred. 

# 

# Adds Liz Herrera, "It is important to have a good working relationship with the attorneys, judges and people involved in these cases. You want to be able to tell the probationers one thing and be able to enforce what you tell them."

"You have to be willing to explore *why* people are not paying. You have
to ask, 'Are you just blowing this off or is there some issue that keeps
you from paying?'" says Kopatz. "If there is an issue, you have to link
people with the right resource in the community."

Staffer Charles Gentles expected better payments to kids to be the most
satisfying part of his job. "I was wrong, however. The most satisfying
part of the job has to be aiding probationers in establishing
responsibility, dependability and consistency in their lives."

Finally, "Devoted staff are key," says Kopatz. "They get flack from both
the NCP and the CP. When CPs don't get their money, you will know it."
In addition to working with parents, probation officers each spend a day
a month in the community keeping up with the latest community programs
and volunteer to conduct outreach programs in the schools and community.

**[Contact]{.underline}*:*** Michael Kopatz, Bexar County Child Support
Probation Unit,

P.O. Box 839901, San Antonio, TX 78283, phone 210-335-2815.

**TEXAS**

**Public Information (PAPA), Collaboration, Teen Pregnancy Prevention,
Fatherhood**

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** In 1988 Texas was struggling with
both rising teen pregnancy rates and child support collections. In an
effort to reach kids *before* they became parents, Texas Office of the
Attorney General's Child Support Division began sending outreach staff
into the public schools to talk to teenagers about parenthood and child
support. It quickly became clear that both boys and girls were lacking a
clear idea of a father's role in providing emotional and financial
support to a child. Nor did they have a clear understanding of what
paternity establishment was all about.

To fill this gap, the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) developed the
PAPA outreach program. PAPA stands for Paternity/Parenthood. Fourteen
OAG staff members, scattered throughout the state, began presenting
basic information on the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood to
students in grades six through 12. In the space of a class period, they
attempted to explain the legal, financial and emotional responsibilities
of fatherhood -- usually successfully connecting with the students in
the process.

Their presentations were so popular and the demand so great that the
outreach staff could not keep up easily. To solve the problem they
developed a curriculum package -- the PAPA program \-- which can be
presented by OAG staff *or* classroom teachers. Adapting a video from
California -- *What Kind of Parent Would You Be? Think About It* -- Ann
Costilow, manager of OAG's outreach and volunteer programs and a former
teacher, and OAG staff, wrote a curriculum to go with it. The package
includes teacher instructions and student exercises as well as the
video.

Carefully gauging the community values, they decided to focus on the
legal issues \-- i.e., what happens *after* a baby is born in order to
avoid additional approval processes that otherwise would be required for
a sex education program. They also sought and obtained endorsements from
the Texas PTA, teachers organizations, the statewide principals' and
superintendents' association, and religious groups. They made
presentations on the curriculum to many organizations, often providing a
demonstration of the video and a short version of the curriculum.

In 1995 the OAG sent a curriculum package to 3,000 public schools (every
junior and senior high school) in over 1,000 school districts in the
state. The results have been so positive and the program so well used,
the OAG is investing in an updated -- and expanded -- version of the
program, now in development.

The new version will include a new video featuring teens talking about
their experiences in dealing with paternity and parenthood issues. As a
result of their work with the Texas Fragile Families Initiative, the OAG
is increasingly aware of the need to make their program more father
friendly. The new video, for example, will emphasize the importance of
fathers. It will encourage both fathers and mothers to "consider your
child first."

This time, presentation of the new curriculum will go beyond sending the
new curriculum package to each school. The OAG hopes to provide
in-service training on how to present the curriculum through the state
department of education's regional service centers. Teachers considering
presenting the curriculum may attend workshops free of charge and
receive copies of the material.

**[Results]{.underline}:** Teen pregnancy rates are down in Texas and
the program's creators would like to think they made a contribution.
Evaluations from both teachers and students are glowing. Evaluations
from kids reflect their intention to do things differently as a result
of the program. Staff in the Attorney General's office continue
receiving repeat requests to speak. There are over 500 presentations of
the PAPA curriculum each year by staff and teachers. No hard data are
available on the efficacy of the program.

**[Location]{.underline}:** This program is provided statewide in Texas.
The curriculum was developed in Texas by Child Support Division staff.
It makes use of a video developed in California. It is not known whether
it has been replicated elsewhere.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** Regular IV-D funds.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** Ann Costilow, Manager of the
Outreach and Volunteer Program of the Child Support Division of the
Attorney General's office, makes several recommendations to those
considering similar programs for the schools:

-   Don't be afraid to steal other people's good ideas. Many states have
    good programs in this area. There is a lot of good material out
    there to be taken.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Be sure the curriculum is father-friendly.

-   Plan to do a lot of marketing to promote the program/curriculum to
    the education community.

-   Slick products are wonderful to have -- but what makes the point
    with kids is hearing other kids. Just telling about the law and
    having fancy graphics won't do it. Kids telling their own stories is
    what makes a difference. Texas will be doing more of this.

**[Contact]{.underline}:** Ann Costilow, Manager, Outreach and Volunteer
Program, Child Support Division, Office of the Attorney General, P.O.
Box 12017, Austin, TX 78711-2017, phone 512-460-6124, fax 460-6043,
Ann.Costilow@oag.state.tx.us.

**TEXAS (Victoria)**

# Establishment of Support Orders, Paternity Project Day

**[Description]{.underline}:** Not too long before Christmas in 1996,
David Kabela was wracking his brain about how to get a lot of paternity
cases done quickly "without sending a lot of folks to court." He had a
brainstorm. With planning by the establishment team and the blessings of
the state office, the Victoria Office of the Attorney General, Child
Support Division, scheduled a "Paternity Project Day." The staff's goal:
get a lot of work done fast while making it a pleasant experience for
themselves and those coming in.

That first Paternity Project Day in December 1996, the office's big
foyer was set up with toys and games for children plus refreshments for
everyone. Over 600 people, involved in 200 cases, came through in an
eight-hour period. The court Master came to the child support offices to
be available to sign orders. Staff were available as required for blood
and DNA testing.

Now, the "Paternity Project" process is used in most paternity cases.
Cases are commenced with the preparation of a Petition to Establish the
Parent Child Relationship. After the Petition is filed in court, a
letter is sent to both the putative father and the mother with the
petition -- but no summons -- attached. It informs them of the pending
case and invites them to attend a meeting at the Child Support Unit
Offices on the next Paternity Day. The tone of the letter is positive.
The themes are "avoid court," "save money," and "help a child."

The letter informs both parents that genetic testing can be commenced
that day. The custodial parent is asked to bring in the child or
children so that DNA samples can be taken. Parents who are minors are
directed to bring their own legal guardian with them. Parents are also
asked to bring photo id, W-2 forms, and current pay stubs.

Seventy-five to 100 cases are scheduled each time a paternity day is
held. Fifteen are scheduled every hour and a half throughout the day.
Cases involving parties living in outlying areas are scheduled later in
the day to give them time to get to the child support office. Whether
they live close by or far away, about 70 percent of those receiving the
letter come to the meeting. (This process is not used in cases with
domestic violence concerns. These are set directly for court.)

At the appointed time the mother and putative father meet with a staff
member. They address child support, retroactive child support, health
insurance and paternity. Paternity is the first topic addressed. Staff
make sure parents understand they have a right to a blood test. If the
parties wish to agree to paternity without genetic testing they are
asked to sign a letter indicating their understanding of their right to
such a test.

If the putative father wants genetic testing, all sign indicating their
desire for the test. The parties are escorted to the laboratory staff
who are on the premises for the day to have their samples taken. These
tests are scheduled directly for court at a date after test results are
expected (six to eight weeks).

When the parties agree to paternity, a support calculation is based on
the parents' statements of income and information they have brought in.
In addition, staff have access to Texas Employment Commission income
information online during the meeting.

The staff member fills out the order and gives copies to the parents.
The Court Master signs at a later time.

If neither party attends, the case is set for court and both parties are
served. If only one parent appears, he or she is asked to sign a waiver
of service and a setting notice which allows the Attorney General to
proceed with service on the other parent only.

**[Results]{.underline}:** About 500 cases each year are scheduled for
Paternity Project Day meetings in Victoria. Parties appear in about 350
cases per year. The state saves approximately \$200 per case in service
and processing costs when both parties appear and service is
unnecessary; \$125 when one party appears. Estimated annual savings in
service and processing costs are \$70,000 in the Victoria office. In
addition, the state has savings in court costs and time and travel time
for attorneys and other staff members.

Perhaps most importantly, this process gets paternity cases into paying
status much more quickly than the full court process. This results in
state savings in TANF costs and provides much needed support more
speedily to non-TANF families.

**[Location]{.underline}:** The Victoria, Texas office of the Texas
Attorney General, Child Support Division. Victoria is a town of 60,000.
The office serves nine, primarily rural counties (e.g., county
population of some counties is only 12,000). While the project has not
been duplicated, some additional offices in Texas have adapted the
concept to fit local needs.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** Regular IV-D funds.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** "Start small at first," says David
Kabela, the Project's originator. "We were too aggressive the first
time. We had over 200 cases set one day. It took us three days to
recover." Kabela also advises trying the procedure at least three times
before making a final decision about whether to make it a permanent part
of an office's paternity process. "It takes three or four times for
everyone to get comfortable with this."

Because all their staff are trained in court procedures and how to
complete court orders, special training on these topics was not an
issue. It might be elsewhere. The Victoria staff did find that they are
more involved in really talking things through with the parties in this
process. They found that many folks seem to just want someone to listen
to their concerns. Staff should be prepared for this and allow
sufficient time for the process. (One and one half hours is allotted per
case in Victoria.)

Finally, the office always has a security guard present on Paternity Day
to avoid problems with large crowds present.

**[Contact]{.underline}:** David Kabela, Team Leader, Child Support
Enforcement Officers, Office of the Attorney General, P.O. Box 530,
Victoria, Texas 77902, phone 361-582-2922, fax 361-578-8027, e-mail
<David.Kabela@oag.state.tx.us>.

**TEXAS**

**Interstate, Customer Service, Internet**

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}**: Texas created an internet service
enabling customers, CSE staff from other states and the general public
to ask CSE-related questions. The service site offers an email address
for people to ask generic child support questions. For those with a
child support case, there is a form that can be used via the internet
site. A caseworker in another state wanting information on an existing
case may make an internet email inquiry using another feature of the
system.

The case-specific form asks for basic information and has a place for
"free form" text. The inter-agency inquiry form requests more
information to identify the case and also includes "free form" text.
Because each form is sent to a different email recipient, the ability to
respond quicker is enhanced.

Texas built this 3-part system on their original e-mail address for the
public. This address was created under the previous and current Attorney
Generals. At a Big 8 Interstate Workgroup session, Florida and Michigan
suggested all Big 8 states have a generic email address to facilitate
interstate communication especially with states that did not offer an
email address for all CSE employees. The suggestion was to use
xxcenreg@emailaddress where XX was the state abbreviation. Texas
established a comparable address for agencies using
[txcsnreg@oag.state.tx.us]{.underline} While surfing other agency web
sites, Texas discovered that California had a web form that allows
inquiries about case status. Thus, the idea for the current TX system
was formed.

**[Results]{.underline}**: Both the individual inquiry form and the
inter-state state agency form are now available for use. Use of the case
specific forms enable the inquirer to furnish the basic information
needed to properly respond.

All the forms can be found at the Contacting the Texas AG - By e-mail
page [http://www.oag.state.tx.us/agency/contacts.htm]{.underline}

The e-mail for general questions is located at
[child.support@oag.state.tx.us]{.underline}

The form for individual case inquiries is located at
h[ttp://www.oag.state.tx.us/forms/cs_case_status.html]{.underline}

The form for other agencies to submit case status inquiries is located
at

[http://www.oag.state.tx.us/forms/cs_agencies_case_status.html]{.underline}

**[Funding]{.underline}:** Regular federal matching funds are used.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** Use of e-mail is increasing. It
has become a medium of communication that often gets quicker responses
than letters or calling into a user "unfriendly" VIRS system. However,
there are issues related to use of e-mail for case specific information.
These include the confidentiality of information as well as the security
of a reply. With proper safeguards in place, the ability to communicate
with customers regardless of location enhances the ability to provide
improved customer service.

**[Contact]{.underline}:**

Joe Chauncey, phone: 512-463‑2162, email:
[joe.chauncey@oag.state.tx.us]{.underline}

**VIRGINIA**

**Automatic Income Withholding Case Clean-up Project**

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** The need for a case clean-up project
was identified as a safeguard to assure that accurate information would
be processed on the batch-generated Income Withholdings. A preliminary
review of test Income Withholdings was conducted during the week of
March 15, 1999. This allowed staff to identify situations that could
result in possible over-collection and negative exposure. It also
enabled staff to identify situations that could result in possible
incorrect participant data being processed, as well as identifying
service issues, notification issues, and other clean-up issues. The
report was used to update/correct pertinent information that was related
to Income Withholdings.

A comprehensive list of data elements that would have the most direct
impact on Income Withholding, was identified. Among them were: case
type, interstate status (Initiating or Responding), medical support,
noncustodial parent employment history, correct order information,
Health Insurance Order indicator, Alternative Payment indicator, pay
order type, and correct extension information.

Workers were given a variety of routine and ad hoc reports to assist
staff in identifying items that needed to be corrected so that the
income withholding would not result in an over-collection of arrears.

The clean-up project, which began April 9, 1999 and ended May 27,
included all Child Support Enforcement staff directly involved with
processing Income Withholdings.

**[Results]{.underline}:** Extra precautions were taken before the
automatic generation of the Income Withholding was implemented and the
results have been excellent. There have been few, if any, adverse
effects. As of July 1999, 8,933 Automatic Income Withholdings have been
sent to employers. The Income Withholding clean--up project resulted in
batch income withholdings being sent to employers with accurate
information from the APECS system. Collections have also been noted on
some of these cases.

**[Location]{.underline}:** This clean-up project was implemented
statewide in all of the 22 Child Support Enforcement offices in the
Commonwealth of Virginia.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** The funding source was Regular Federal
Matching.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** Conduct some type of clean-up
effort before implementing the automatic generation of the Income
Withholding form. It is better to take a proactive approach at
preventing negative exposure and interruptions to customer services than
to have to deal with the repercussions later.

# [Contact]{.underline}:

# Lisa R. Johnson, Information Systems Support Analyst, Commonwealth of Virginia (804) 692-1534

# LRJ900@DCSE.DSS.STATE.VA.US 

VIRGINIA

Enforcement, Public Information (KidsFirst Campaign)

# [Description/Goal]{.underline}: In fewer than three years, Virginia's KidsFirst Campaign has netted over \$96 million from 38,624 noncustodial parents who began paying in response to the Campaign's warnings, amnesty and enforcement sanctions. The latter have included a variety of high visibility actions: round-ups of the most delinquent noncustodial parents, drivers license suspensions, hunting and fishing license revocations, and boots on delinquent obligor's cars. These actions were always preceded by written warnings and accompanied by intense media attention generated by the Campaign.

# 

# "The success of the Campaign has surpassed our expectations," says Nick Young, Director of Virginia's Child Support Enforcement Program. "When we started out, we viewed the Campaign as just one more tool with which to arm our workers -- one more way to get the attention of delinquent noncustodial parents. We certainly didn't anticipate that this lone initiative would reap such a mushrooming response." 

In June 1997, as part of Virginia's welfare reform initiative and a
gubernatorial commitment to collect child support to aid in family
self-sufficiency, the Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement
mailed 57,000 letters to the most egregious evaders. Addressed to
noncustodial parents who owed more than \$500 in child support arrears
or who had not made a payment in 90 days, the letters offered a limited
one-time amnesty for a two-week period. If appropriate payment plans
were arranged, the noncustodial parent's case would not be referred to
court and the state would recommend that the parent not go to jail.
During the two-week amnesty, lines of NCPs went out the doors of child
support offices and staff worked overtime. 9,300 parents responded and
768 made arrangements to pay arrears totaling \$5.6 million. An
additional 4,039 responded with cash payments totaling \$1.2 million.

In preparation for the June 20, 1997 deadline, 450 warrants and 1,200
summons were prepared. Ten days after the end of the amnesty period,
local law enforcement officials rounded up delinquent noncustodial
parents with outstanding warrants and issued additional warrants to
others. This intensive crackdown resulted in 512 arrests and show cause
notices issued. The roundup was picked up by major news sources and
widely publicized through a gubernatorial press conference. The response
from delinquent noncustodial parents was overwhelming. In addition to
those targeted, many others paid as a result of hearing about a friend
or relative who had been arrested. A second roundup in September 1997
was tied to children going back to school. That action netted \$4.4
million.

A third round-up in 1997 made use of a new tool to "encourage"
delinquent noncustodial parents to pay up: boots. Boots are steel
mechanisms that attach to a car wheel, making it impossible to drive
without damaging the car until the boot is removed by the authority that
placed it there. Virginia's DCSE officials had "Property of Child
Support Enforcement" printed on each boot. Designed to get attention,
boots were not released until the obligor settled the child support debt
or made a payment agreement. This approach was used in Fairfax County,
the only jurisdiction in Virginia, at the time, with the authority to
boot vehicles. In December 1999, booting went statewide. As of early
April 2000, 72 bootings have resulted in cash payments of \$351,000.

A fourth round-up in late May, 1998 targeted noncustodial parents who
had made payment arrangements but failed to live up to them. This effort
resulted in the issuance of notices to suspend 1,411 drivers' licenses
statewide.

As of early April 2000, numerous periodic roundups throughout the state
have kept Virginia's Child Support Enforcement Program before the
public.

**[Results]{.underline}:** To April 2000, \$96.1 million has been
received from 38,624 obligors who began paying in response to KidsFirst
enforcement activities. Says Phyllis Sisk, Principal Assistant/Deputy,
of Virginia's Division of Child Support Enforcement, "Delighted as we
are with the collections, the positive media attention we have received
has been a real boon to our program. At a minimum, this initiative has
caught the attention of delinquent parents and communicates...the
Commonwealth's lack of tolerance for child support evaders." She cites
as an added bonus the enhanced rapport with law enforcement colleagues
and the judiciary. Local sheriffs have been both willing and eager to
help with the campaign.

# [Location]{.underline}: Statewide in Virginia. 

# 

# [Funding]{.underline}: The Campaign has utilized regular IV-D funding -- state funding with federal match. Staff from the State's Attorney General's Office and local law enforcement staff also have contributed to the effort. 

# [Replication Advice]{.underline}: Says Sisk, "I would encourage any state to conduct this kind of a campaign. It will immediately get attention. Get the highest level endorsement of it possible. Try for the governor. If that doesn't work, ask the Secretary or the Commissioner to hold a press conference." 

# 

# Sisk notes, "Public relations played a critical role. We constantly made ourselves available to the media, issued press releases, and generally kept reporters informed of spinoff stories. The results have been very encouraging. Virginia's program garnered more than a little positive state and national media attention. Each successive roundup generates even more attention to the problem. In Virginia, arrearages are right at \$1.65 billion and growing by \$200 million a year, so we look for creative ways to focus attention on child support and increase collections." 

# 

# Being able to project a sense of fairness in the campaign is important. The initial letter and amnesty offer contributed to this, according to Sisk. She recommends balancing hard hitting quotes with statements indicating appreciation for those NCPs who pay on a regular basis to support their children. 

Also recommended: advance planning with local sheriffs or law
enforcement and the courts; and positive attention to child support from
high levels to encourage child support workers. Court and legal staff,
as well as the child support workers, must often work grueling hours
preparing for and responding to a special initiative. In Virginia, Nick
Young, state IV-D Director, moved around the state, visiting offices and
sometimes staffing the phones himself to encourage staff and keep up
morale during the initial amnesty period.

**[Contact]{.underline}:** Phyllis J. Sisk, Division of Child Support
Enforcement, Department of Social Services, 730 East Broad Street,
Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 692-1501,fax (804) 692-1543, (804)692-2353,
e-mail: pjs900@dcse.dss.state.va.us.

**VIRGINIA**

**Management Methods, Staffing Levels**

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** In 1993 Virginia received a federal
grant to test whether adequate staffing levels could make a significant
difference in performance and productivity in a local child support
office. By the end of 1998, the results in Fredericksburg, VA were
clear. Increasing staff to the "optimal" level not only increased
overall collections, but increased collections per employee as well.
Employee satisfaction and customer happiness with the performance of
Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE) staff also increased during
the project period.

The study design called for the study of one large and one small office
of DCSE, each with a comparable control site in which staffing levels
would not be changed. Fredericksburg, VA was chosen as the small office;
Charlottesville, VA as the comparable control site. (The large office
site, Roanoke, VA, is not discussed in this description because data
analysis is not yet complete as this is written.)

The study was conducted over a three-year period in three phases: 1) a
base period during which baseline performance statistics were gathered
and the staffing standards analysis was conducted (7/95-5/96), 2) the
staffing standards period during which 14 additional staff were added in
accordance with the new standards (6/96-8/97), and 3) a post-staffing
standards phase in which the new staff were terminated and additional
data was gathered (9/97 -- 4/98).

Virginia's contractor subcontracted to conduct a staffing standards
analysis of DCSE workers using an analytical tool called the Delphi
technique. This technique would allow the state to determine how many
DCSE workers are needed to provide effective and efficient services at
an appropriate level of quality. The accuracy and reliability of the
results also could be validated statistically using this approach.

A functional team, drawn from each of the six small offices in Virginia,
worked with its contractor to identify tasks done by workers in each of
the following functional areas:

-   Intake

-   Locate

-   Customer Service

-   Establishment of Paternity and/or Support Obligation

-   Enforcement

-   Judicial Support

Questionnaires were developed for each functional area. For each task,
they asked, *"How much time is needed to perform this task at an
acceptable level of quality (i.e., in compliance with federal
regulations and state policy)?"* These questionnaires were given in
several rounds to experienced workers (six months or more on the job) in
each area in each of DCSE's small offices.

By combining the time standards for each task with the number of times
the office did each task, it was possible to calculate staffing needs by
specialty. Determining optimal staffing levels for the entire office
requires calculation of the numbers of managers, support staff, and
fiscal staff as well. From this analysis, it was determined that the
Fredericksburg office was understaffed by 33 percent. An additional 14
staff members would be needed to reach optimal staffing levels.

During the second phase of the project, 14 additional staff members were
hired. The Fredericksburg office decided to use the additional staff --
who were expected to be temporary only -- first to assist in conducting
a strategic review of the entire caseload of the office. Such a thorough
caseload review had not been done since 1986. The review made it
possible to eliminate many duplicate cases, to close cases which should
have been closed earlier, and to ensure that all cases included in the
caseload were ready to be worked.

After completion of the strategic review of the caseload, the new staff
members were assigned to help experienced workers in their specialty
areas. They did the more routine tasks, freeing the experienced workers
to focus on more complex duties.

At the conclusion of 15 months, the new staff were terminated and the
Fredericksburg office returned to its previous staffing level.

**[Results]{.underline}:** Initially, as would be expected with the
addition of new and inexperienced staff, collections per worker declined
in the Fredericksburg office in comparison with collections per worker
in Charlottesville. It took 13 months until the collections per worker
in Fredericksburg began to exceed those in Charlottesville. At that
point they began to exceed both prior collections per worker levels in
Fredericksburg and simultaneous collections per worker in
Charlottesville. Collections per worker (including the 14 new staff)
increased modestly by the end of August 1997. It was expected that
increase would have continued had it been possible to retain those
workers.

The productivity increases were dramatic for the remaining staff after
the new staff departed. These increases reflected the results of
activities carried out during the optimal staffing period. Collections
per remaining employee per month increased by 62 percent over the base
period. Wage withholdings per remaining employee increased an average of
29 percent, locates, 72 percent, and paternity establishments, 87
percent.

Total collections increased by \$1.08 million. Net dollar benefits/
dollar costs increased by \$1.80 for every dollar expended.

In addition, employee satisfaction increased by 19 percent. Customer
perceptions of employee performance increased as follows: perception of
staff courtesy increased by 14 percent, of staff helpfulness increased
by 21 percent, and of case timeliness increased by 37 percent.

**[Location]{.underline}:** The small office portion of this project was
conducted in Fredericksburg, VA, a small city. The control site was in
Charlottesville, VA, another small city.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** \$935,000 was received in demonstration
project grant funds from OCSE over the three year period of the study.
Those funds were used as the state match for additional IV-D funds
during the project.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** Assigning the additional personnel
to strategically review cases and otherwise assist specialty workers --
versus assigning them their own caseloads initially -- had a powerful
impact on increasing most measures of performance and productivity and
is recommended to others. Had it been possible to retain those workers,
managers believe they would have been prepared to move into
responsibility for a full caseload at that point.

While the staffing standards analysis was both costly and
time-consuming, the time standards developed in this study are available
to other states, who may wish to make use of them in their own staffing
decisions. (Virginia is a state-administered state which makes
substantial use of administrative processes.) States should expect an
eight- to twelve-month lag time before significant performance gains are
experienced.

**[Contact]{.underline}:** Todd Areson, Divison of Child Support
Enforcement, Virginia Department of Social Services,

730 E. Broad St., 4^th^ Floor, Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 692-1463,
e-mail: txa900@dcse.dss.state.va.us.

04/00

VIRGINIA (Prince William County)

Public Information, Collaboration, (Wise Guys, Sneakers and RAP:
Community Outreach to Teens)

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** In 1998, Barbara Nye, a veteran
child support worker, grew increasingly concerned about the number of
girls her own children knew who were showing up in her office as child
support clients. With the blessings of her Director, Nancy Hill, she
contacted the Assistant Superintendent of Schools responsible for
programming in Fauquier County. She volunteered to talk with pregnant
girls taking family life education courses about what she had seen as a
child support worker and to provide them with information on child
support. This was the beginning of **RAP** (Responsible Adolescent
Program), now in its second year -- just one of the volunteer youth
education programs of the Manassas District Office of the Virginia
Division of Child Support Enforcement.

Using staff volunteers, the Manassas Office has added to its mission
reducing the future need for child support services through outreach to
youth. Volunteers in all the school outreach programs are expected to
maintain required productivity in their usual child support caseload in
addition to their volunteer work in outreach programs. As with **RAP**,
many of the programs are the result of initiative taken by concerned
child support workers.

**RAP** is presented each year to some 1600 students in 9th and 10th
grade health classes and early childhood development/life management
skills classes in Prince William and Fauquier Counties, VA.
Presentations are made in a single class session. Generally, both young
men and young women are in the classes. No special consent is required
because parents have already consented to the classes.

A film or video captures students' interest. Through case studies,
overheads, interactive activities and writing assignments, students
learn about paternity establishment, child support awards and support
enforcement. Nye also tells the teens about the experiences of girls who
have come into her office and describes the reasons guys give for
"knowing" they are not the father.

**Wise Guys** targets young men ages 14 through 17, starting at the
middle school/junior high level. Working together in 1998, child support
agency volunteers and volunteers from a community organization,
Interfaith Caregivers, found an existing curriculum which covered many
topics the group wanted to address with young men. The Wise Guys
curriculum they selected was developed originally by the Family Life
Council of Greater Greensboro in Greensboro, North Carolina and had
enjoyed success there.

Wise Guys is offered as an after school program to young men, starting
in 7th and 8th grades. Students must elect to participate in the program
and their parents must agree. While open to all young men, guidance
counselors refer some students to the program. Among the program's
goals:

-   To empower young men with the knowledge and information they need to
    make sound decisions.

-   To encourage respect for themselves, as well as others.

-   To help young men understand the importance of male responsibility
    especially in the area of sexuality.

-   To help young men improve communication with their parents, peers
    and others.

Topics addressed include personal and family values, communications,
dealing with your masculinity, dating violence, abstinence, goal
setting, sexuality. An important goal is to make young men aware of
their many options. Workbooks cover the curriculum and "homework,"
designed to provoke thought about these important topics, is assigned
each week.

Working in teams -- one male and one female on each -- volunteers
conduct 10 weekly sessions of about an hour each covering a different
topic each week of the course. With 10 volunteer teams offering the
classes, 400 to 500 young men participate in the program each year.
Currently eight of the volunteers are child support workers and two are
from Interfaith Caregivers. Interfaith Caregivers administers the
program.

**Sneakers** is a comparable all-girls program which reaches 400 to 500
girls per year, 25 kids per session, with four sessions run concurrently
several times each year. It, too, is based on a pre-existing curriculum
developed by Florence Crittendon Services.

**[Results]{.underline}:** While a formal evaluation has not been
conducted in Virginia, Wise Guys did find that teen pregnancy went down
by 30 percent in Greensboro, NC where the program originated. (Other
factors may have contributed to the drop.) In Fauquier and Prince
William Counties, VA, community agencies talk about the impact the
school programs have had; their directors mention them in community
meetings. Kids have heard about the programs. Parents call to ask for
them in their kids' schools. Also hoped for: a decline in the need for
new child support cases.

In addition to providing information to 2,000 to 3,000 students per year
using child support volunteers, the school outreach programs have
brought more involvement with the community. The community knows who
they are; the reputation of child support enforcement has been enhanced.

The Manassas District Office of the Virginia DCSE has built strong
networks with social service agencies, through these school based
programs, other youth outreach programs and participation in fatherhood
initiatives. They are teaming up with both private and public agencies
on projects, jointly seeking grants. They can now refer noncustodial
fathers to programs which can help with parenting, job search, job
training, and financial management.

**[Location]{.underline}:** Prince William County is suburban. Fauquier
County is a combination of suburban and rural areas. The Wise Guys
program originated in Greensboro, NC. The Sneakers program utilizes a
curriculum developed by Florence Crittendon Services based in Baltimore,
MD.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** Manassas District DCSE has no special funding
for these projects. Most of what they do is volunteer staff time---in
addition to maintaining required productivity. Interfaith Caregivers
received a small grant to purchase the curriculum and workbooks and to
cover administrative costs.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** Gaining the interest and
cooperation of the schools is crucial. Contact the Superintendent or the
person in charge of curriculum. Alternatively, it is possible to contact
particular teachers within a school who may invite speakers to their
classes. It helps to have a good curriculum.

"It is important who you put in the programs," says Nancy Hill, District
Manager. "They must have the ability to relate to and communicate with
young people. They have to be people who do not go out and preach. One
of our volunteers, Colby Poteat, is two years out of college. He is
young enough to relate to these young boys. Barbara Nye has children in
college. She relates to the kids, too. The volunteers must be outgoing,
comfortable talking about the subject, comfortable around kids....You
can expect kids will ask sexual questions. You should also pick people
who are good workers."

**[Contacts]{.underline}:** Nancy Hill, Barbara Nye (Rap), Jan Judy
(Wise Guys, Sneakers), Manassas District Office, Courthouse Station,
9309 Center Street, Suite 101, Manassas, VA 20110-5599,
703-368-3010,fax: 703-335-9137 or 703-335-8015, e-mail:
<nvh978@dcse.dss.state.va.us> (substitute bvn for Nye, jaj for Judy).

WASHINGTON STATE

Community Relations Unit

Washington's Division of Child Support has a Community Relations Unit
(CRU). CRU reports to the agency Director and responds to customer
complaints that could not be resolved at the field office level. The CRU
also responds to complaint letters written to the Governor, Department
of Social and Health Services (DSHS) Secretary, the Division of Child
Support (DCS) Director and elected officials. The CRU is also
responsible for outreach, education and coordinating statewide media
campaigns. The CRU manager is also responsible for media inquiries about
the child support program. The nine field offices handle all routine
calls and many of the offices have Customer Service Units.

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** The CRU was established in 1987. Its
goal is to provide speedy resolution to all of our customer's
issues/problems. CRU receives approximately 500 calls per month. The
three most common complaint calls are (1) collection action, (2) general
questions, and (3) questions about cash distribution. The key partners
for problem resolution include custodial parents, noncustodial parents,
staff, other agencies and employers.

No matter what time the e-mail arrives today, the sender will receive
not only the preliminary response but also the specific response to
their question before 5 p.m.

**[Results]{.underline}:** Since November 1998, as an added convenience
to our customers, CRU has had an e-mail address published on the DSHS
Internet page. From December 1998 to June 1999, the CRU received and
responded to 190 e-mails. Since implementation, half of all
correspondence comes to our office via e-mail. CRU has received several
thank you e-mails for our prompt response.

No late letters is a measurement of success for our unit. Most of our
letters are completed within 7 days of receipt. An exact measurement of
impact on collections is not known. However, anecdotally we know that
failure to resolve our customers' issues can have a devastating impact
on collections.

**[Location]{.underline}:** The CRU is housed within the DCS
headquarters office located in downtown Olympia, WA.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** Take all incoming calls directly
so that the caller gets immediate help. Check the CRU mailbox twice
daily. Acknowledge receipt of e-mail and include in the reply that the
customer can expect a response within 24 hours (same as the DCS
telephone policy). Should you want a similar unit to handle also
centralized Customer Service Unit (e.g., to handle routine questions
such as "Has a payment come in?"), then the unit would need to be larger
than the five Program Specialists assigned to the Washington State CRU.

**[Contact]{.underline}:**

Rob Huffman, Program Specialist, Department of Social and Health
Services, Division of Child Support

712 Pear Street, PO Box 9162, Olympia, WA 98507-9162,
Phone:1-800-457-6202; Direct: 360-664-5447

Fax: 360-586-3274; E-mail: <rhuffman@dshs.wa.gov>

WASHINGTON STATE (King County)

**Modification of Child Support Orders; Enforcement of Visitation
Rights; Customer Service**

**[Description]{.underline}:** Operating since January 1995, the
Self-Help Legal Resource Center is located in the lobby of Seattle's
Division of Child Support. Non-lawyer staff provide free legal resource
lists, court forms, and instructions to DCS customers who want to go
*pro se* (without an attorney) into King County Superior Court to file a
child support modification or a contempt motion to enforce existing
visitation rights. Packets with forms and instructions for respondents
are also available. Customers must have an open collection case at DCS
to be eligible, and King County Superior Court must have jurisdiction to
hear the case. A support enforcement officer trained as a facilitator
deals with walk-in customers. Most customers receive packets by mail
after leaving a voice-mail message at the Center.

A Pro Se Committee, which includes in-house attorneys, oversees the
operation of the Resource Center and the activities of in-house
volunteers who are members of pro se workgroups at the King County
Courthouse and the Northwest Women's Law Center.

King County includes the city of Seattle and is the most populous county
in Washington State. It is also the most urban county. There are no
plans to put Legal Resource Centers in other DCS offices at this time.

**[Results]{.underline}:** In 1998 (the most recent period for which
data are available), the Resource Center averaged 146 customer contacts
per month (62% noncustodial parents, 35% custodial parents, 3% other).
Staff distributed an average of 79 modification packets and 10
visitation enforcement packets per month to eligible customers. We
recently retired our own visitation enforcement packet and adopted one
created by the Northwest Women's Law Center. We continue to maintain and
distribute our own packets for child support modification.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** The project uses regular federal matching
funds.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** The content and format of domestic
relations forms is controlled by Washington State law; consequently,
non-lawyer staff were able to create most of the materials used. It has
not been necessary to have lawyers involved in the day-to-day operation
of the Resource Center. However, it is very important to have lawyers
willing to edit and approve the materials used, oversee the training of
facilitators, and be available for questions from staff.

The anticipated demand for visitation enforcement packets never
materialized. We conclude that although people complain frequently about
visitation problems, they must not see court enforcement as a realistic
solution, particularly if they have to do it themselves.

**[Contact]{.underline}:**

Chuck Treneer, Support Enforcement Officer 3

Seattle Division of Child Support (DSHS)

500 1^ST^ Avenue South

Seattle, WA 98104-2830

[ctreneer@dshs.wa.gov]{.underline}

Tel. (206) 341-7267

Fax: (206) 341-7400

WASHINGTON STATE (with Oregon)

Management Techniques; Interstate Case Reconciliation

# [Description/Goal]{.underline}: Using a computer match of case participants, the neighboring States of Oregon and Washington have identified cases where each state is pursuing the same noncustodial parent for collection of unpaid support or establishment of paternity or an order.

# 

# Often times, both states unknowingly appear to be working the same case \[i.e., attempting to enforce the same order or establishing a support obligation or paternity for the same child(ren)\]. Starting in August 1999, a sample of these cases was reviewed by enforcement staff from both states, who identified situations where the cases can be combined and worked by one state so that duplication of effort can be reduced. Practices will be developed where these cases are identified and combined on an on-going basis. 

Workers in both states reviewed cases side-by-side having arranged for
access to automated files on shared cases from both states.

# 

# [Results]{.underline}: Initially, 22,231 cases have been identified where both Oregon and Washington may be duplicating efforts. This includes 8,805 two-state interstate cases, 9,609 cases where both states have cases with the same noncustodial parent but different participants, and 3,807 cases where both states have cases with the same noncustodial parent and the same participants. Anecdotally, and until the test is completed, staff believe the effort has been cost-effective.

**[Location]{.underline}:** Statewide caseload

**[Funding]{.underline}:** Regular Federal Matching funds are used for
this project.

# [Replication Advice]{.underline}: 

-   Involve case staff, systems and policy from both states from the
    beginning of the process.

-   Work hard to develop useful data collection protocols to meet needs
    of both states. Recognize it is okay if the effort does not result
    in the perfect data collection instrument. It can be improved upon.

-   Be flexible with your plans as priorities may develop in either
    state which would cause delays in a special project such as this
    one.

# [Contact]{.underline}: Dave Stillman, Administrative Operations Chief, State of Washington, Division of Child Support 360-664-5050 (dstillman@dshs.wa.gov) 

# WASHINGTON STATE

Paternity Establishment, Interstate (with Oregon)

# [Description/Goal]{.underline}: Often times, a paternity acknowledgement may have been signed in a state other than the one working the case. Periodic matches of children needing paternity established with border-state birth records can be used to identify these acknowledgments. The states of Oregon and Washington are experimenting with doing computer matches of their paternity caseloads with the other state's birth records to uncover paternity acknowledgements filed in the other state. The project started with the first match being done in June 1999.

# [Results]{.underline}: A match of Oregon's paternity caseload with Washington's Department of Health records resulted in the discovery of over 200 acknowledgements filed in the state of Washington.

**[Location]{.underline}:** Statewide

**[Funding]{.underline}:** Regular Federal matching funds are used.

# [Replication Advice]{.underline}:

# Enter into an agreement with the agency maintaining the birth records that allows for release of the information to another state.

# Determine the best data to use to do the match. It may be better to do the match on the mother's name rather than the child or presumed father. 

# [Contact]{.underline}: Dave Stillman, Administrative Operations Chief, State of Washington, Division of Child Support, 360-664-5050, [**dstillman@dshs.wa.gov**](mailto:dstillman@dshs.wa.gov)

#  

**WASHINGTON STATE (Wenatchee)**

**Income Withholding/Termination Notice Postcard**

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** A simple postcard which employers
can use to notify the Child Support Division that an employee has left
the company had such good results in Wenatchee, Washington that it has
been adopted statewide. Use of the card saves child support staff time,
improves employer relations, and speeds up withholding by the new
employer. (A facsimile of the card is found on page WA 7.)

The postcard was the brainchild of Debbie Thompson of American Silicon
Technologies, a Wenatchee employer. At an employer workshop Thompson
suggested that a simple, self-addressed postcard to send back to the
child support agency when employees left would make employers' lives
easier. In addition, she told Lyn Rindy of the Wenatchee Division of
Child Support Staff, "Many times I actually know where they have gone.
Nobody is asking me if I know where they went, only whether they have
left here."

On-the ball Child Support Division staff recognized a good idea when
they heard it. They quickly realized the potential usefulness of the
card -- including a space for information about the new employer.

The card idea was a great outgrowth of lots of work on employer
relations in Wenatchee. Employers are regularly invited to employer
workshops with the Child Support Division there -- creating an ongoing
dialogue in which such suggestions can be made. Ongoing discussions were
held with the employer community about the postcard. Would it be just
one more form to fill out, or would it make life easier? The employers
they talked with unanimously thought it would help.

With that encouragement, the card was developed and sent to state
headquarters for approval. It was tested in a pilot project in Wenatchee
from August of 1997 through February 1998. The card was sent out with
all withholding orders generated in the Wenatchee office during that
time.

The pilot was a success. Employers quickly adapted to using the card.
Interestingly, they used the cards not only to notify the Division of
Child Support when an employee left the company, but also to notify the
Division if the obligor on a withholding order did not work there when
an order was served initially. Apparently the card is easier for
employers to use than the standard Answer to Notice form provided with
the withholding order. The state office approved this use of the card,
also.

"Most employers say, 'Please send me a supply of these.' When anyone
leaves they send the card in -- even for people who were already there
and having wages withheld before the cards first came out," says Lyn
Rindy, a supervisor in the Wenatchee office.

**[Results]{.underline}:** During the pilot project (August 1997 --
February 1998) 625 postcards were sent back by employers. About a third
reported the departure of an employee who was subject to withholding.
One in three of these provided either information on a new employer or a
new address. The rest were sent back in lieu of the Answer to Notice to
an original wage withholding order. The employer community was
enthusiastic. The postcard has been adopted for statewide use.

Wenatchee staff identified three key positive results of the Employment
Termination Notice postcards:

-   [Time savings for both employers and Division
    staff]{.underline}**.** Every postcard that comes back reporting a
    termination saves a phone call between the employer and the
    department. Without the card, employers would have had to call the
    office or write a letter from scratch -- after looking up the
    address or phone number for the field office. The postage paid,
    pre-addressed card saves the employer both time and money and
    encourages more consistent notification to the Division of Child
    Support.

-   [Less child support is lost when noncustodial parents change
    jobs]{.underline}. When an employer reporting a terminated employee
    provides information on the new employer, it often is possible to
    serve a withholding order on the new employer right away. This
    avoids missed child support payments. The postcard delivers new
    employer information 20 to 30 days faster than new hire reporting.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Better public relations]{.underline}. Prior to the postcard, many
    employers sent a note about the employee's termination along with
    their last payment. However, because these notes went to the payment
    processing unit in the state office there was a delay in the
    information reaching field offices. Field office Support Enforcement
    Officers would call employers to track missing payments only to hear
    that notice had been mailed a month earlier. This wasted time,
    annoyed employers, and adversely affected relationships with the
    employer community. The pre-addressed postcard mailed directly to
    the field offices solves the problem.

**[Location]{.underline}:** The Employment Termination Notice postcard
was developed in Wenatchee, WA, a rural area. It has since been adopted
statewide in Washington.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** The cost of postcard use is minimal --
printing and return postage (with a bulk rate permit) -- and is
overwhelmingly offset by savings on staff time. Costs are paid as part
of regular IV-D administrative costs.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:** The postcard has gone through a
few changes over time. Early versions included a space for the
employee's social security number. Employers rightly objected to sending
this identifying information about their former employees through the
mail on a postcard. Now the case number serves as an identifier.

The original version of the card included a blank for the employer name
and address as a return address on the front of the postcard. Many
employers did not notice they needed to fill this in and the card would
come back with no employer identified. The result: uncertainty about
which job had been left when a parent had multiple employers. Now there
is space for this information on the back of the card.

A copy of the card is available with this Good Idea summary.

**[Contact]{.underline}:** Lyn Rindy, Supervisor, Wenatchee Division of
Child Support, P.O. Box 2929, Wenatchee, WA 98807, phone: 509-886-6852,
e-mail: <lrindy@dshs.wa.gov>.

> STATE OF WASHINGTON
>
> DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES
>
> DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT (DCS)

# EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION NOTICE

Use this form to report termination of employees for whom you had a
requirement to withhold

child support or enroll the employee's children in a health insurance
plan. Be sure to print

your return address on the reverse side.

+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| YOUR BUSINESS OR COMPANY NAME                 |                      |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| EMPLOYEE'S NAME                               | DCS CASE NUMBER      |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| EMPLOYEE'S LAST-KNOWN PO BOX/STREET ADDRESS   | TELEPHONE NUMBER     |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| EMPLOYEE'S LAST-KNOWN CITY STATE ZIP CODE     | SUBJECT TO REHIRE?   |
|                                               |                      |
|                                               | YES NO               |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| NEW EMPLOYER'S NAME (IF KNOWN)                | DATE TERMINATED BY   |
|                                               | YOU                  |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| NEW EMPLOYER'S CITY STATE ZIP CODE            | NEW TELEPHONE NUMBER |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION NOTICE                 |                      |
|                                               |                      |
| DSHS 18-560 (09/1998)                         |                      |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+

POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE

> DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SVCS
>
> DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT
>
> PO BOX 2929
>
> WENATCHEE WA 98807-9953

FEDERAL REGIONS IX AND X

Interstate Task Force

**[Topic]{.underline}:** Interstate -- Interstate Task Force (ITF)
Federal Regions IX and X

**[Description/Goal]{.underline}:** The Goal of the Bi-Regional ITF is
to provide an interactive forum for Federal and State staff from both
regions to identify, discuss and resolve critical interstate issues
within the applicable Federal parameters.

**[Results]{.underline}:**

-   The ITF has reached consensus on several interstate issues such as
    handling of contests in direct enforcement actions, handling
    requests for limited services and handling interest on arrears in
    the enforcement arena.

-   At least two States (and more are expected) in the ITF have
    developed and are using a \"Super Notice\" to alert
    applicants/referrals and parties to an order regarding the broad
    range of enforcement actions that can be taken in both intrastate
    and interstate cases.

-   The ITF has issued three formal reports (the fourth is in progress)
    which incorporate the issues raised and recommendations developed.

-   The ITF has helped establish/foster a strong
    communication/coordination network between the Region IX and X
    States which has served to reduce barriers to resolving interstate
    case issues.

-   The ITF has also provide Federal and State staff with an opportunity
    to be on the same page regarding the interpretation of Federal and
    State policy; this has resulted in a greater uniformity in
    interstate case processing and issue resolution.

**[Location]{.underline}:** There is no formal location as the majority
of the group\'s discussions are handled by monthly conference calls.
Federal staff from Regions IX and X assists in developing the agendas,
facilitating the calls and providing guidance regarding the applicable
Federal requirements. The annual meetings rotate between Region IX and X
locations at no cost to either the Federal or State governments.

**[Funding]{.underline}:** The ITF does not require any special Federal
funding. All yearly meetings have been funded via a registration fee
paid by the attendees.

**[Replication Advice]{.underline}:**

-   Recruit membership from program, policy and attorney staff to help
    ensure that a diverse body of experience will be available to deal
    with resolving a broad range of complex issues.

-   Obtain buy-in from State IV-D Directors and Federal Regional Office
    leadership.

-   Developing an interstate work group encourages all State partners to
    look beyond their own State perspective and fosters a level playing
    field where the benefit to all States is the primary concern.

**[Contact]{.underline}:**

JP Soden/RO IX ACF, 415-437-8421 jsoden@acf.dhhs.gov