# Presentation: 199021

## Enhanced Parental Involvement Collaboration(EPIC)

- San Francisco Department of Child Support Services
- Karen M. Roye, Director

## Overview

- Performance Challenges
- San Francisco’s Enhanced Parental Involvement Collaborative (EPIC)
- Project Results
- Lessons Learned

## Performance Challenges

- High Presumed Income/Default Orders
- Little to no interaction with NCPs on Default/Presumed Income cases
- Growing arrears debt for both welfare and non-welfare cases
- Increased locate activities by staff
- Little money getting to families

## EPIC - Project Goals

- Streamline establishment of orders  procedures
- Reduce the number of non-collectable judgments  and high arrears orders due to unreasonable and unrealistic establishment of orders
- Provide better customer service allowing Non-custodial Parent (NCP) participation

## Description

- The EPIC Model provides an alternative to traditional establishment of support  orders by addressing educational, cultural, financial  and institutional barriers encountered by Non-custodial Parents  (NCP) and includes the NCP in the establishment process.

## Comparative Analysis

- Existing Process
- Is linear in concept and implementation (see flowchart) with each step requiring a followed progression
- Once each  progression is completed the matter is rarely revisited
- Strengths
- The existing model is proficient
- Weaknesses
- Requires the NCP to engage in a legal process after 30 days notice
- Is based on an assumption that the NCP has a basic understanding of the legal process

## Comparative Analysis, Cont.

- EPIC Process
- As the EPIC alternative measures are implemented the process is simplified.
- Strengths
- Includes more outreach strategies
- Includes the NCP in the establishment processes
- NCPs are given opportunities to develop relationships with the child support professional
- Less default Judgments
- Weaknesses
- None identified

## Traditional Establishment Model 

## Establishment Model – EPIC Model

- Summons and
- Complaint
-  Filed

- Locate

- Standard
- “Come and Get It”
- Letter

- Service
- Is Successful

- Service of
-  Process

- Service is
- Unsuccessful

- Stipulation

- Court Judgment

- Answer

- Default Status
- Court Hearing

**Establishment Model – EPIC Model**

## Alternative Measuresof EPIC

- Alternative I: EPIC “COME AND GET IT” LETTER
- 3.6% Response to EPIC
- 0% Response to Standard
- Alternative II: Pre-Service Outreach
- 78% Response to EPIC
- No corresponding standard measure
- Alternative III: Service of Summons & Complaint with Friendly Flyer
- 1.2% Response to EPIC
- 32.3% Response to standard measure

## Alternative Measures

- Alternative IV: Post-Service Outreach
- 14.6% Response to EPIC
- 3.4% Response to Standard
- Alternative V: Status Conference
- 1.25% Response to EPIC
- No corresponding standard measure
- Alternative VI: Post Default Letter
- 0% Response to EPIC
- 0% Response to standard measure

## Effectiveness of Alternative and Standard Measures

## Project Results

- Service of Process – 899
- Personal Service - 523
- EPIC Cases (52%) – In house service
- Non-EPIC Cases (48%) – process server
- Sub-Service of Process - 366
- EPIC Cases (21%) – In house service
- Non-EPIC Cases (79%) – process server
- Default Rate
- EPIC Cases (10%)
- Non-EPIC Cases (65%)

## Team Resources

- Staff
- 4 Child Support Professionals with working supervisor and support clerk, trained by Court Family Law Facilitator, who was integral in every aspect of EPIC startup
- Location
- 	-  	EPIC Team housed separately from other  	Operations staff
- Support & Outside Services
- 	- 	 EPIC staff interviews their own clients and 	sends their own services to a service provider

## Other Highlights

- Interviews- The average length of interviews of EPIC participants is 45 minutes to an hour because of the direct contact involving personal service of process followed by resulting Stipulations and Answers
- Non-EPIC interviews average 25 to 30 minutes often with pressure to staff to get to the point of the interview as quickly as possible, dismissing the interviewee and moving on to the next customer
- EPIC procedures includes working closely with the San Francisco Sheriff Department’s Prisoner Legal Services (PLS) Program to assist NCPs incarcerated in local county facilities with their child support issues.  This includes the PLS Attorney to provide the EPIC staff with the names of recently incarcerated individuals. The names are cross referenced with the EPIC database.  The PLS Attorney will work closely with EPIC staff to establish paternity and a support order

## Other Highlights

- NCPs choosing not to contact EPIC are given the opportunity to appear on the San Francisco Unified Family Courts Default Status Calendar

## Lessons Learned	...next steps implementation of the alternative that works - communication, communication, communication

- Communication with the court and with the NCPs
- Communication with staff and agencies regarding changing the organizational structure from functional to cradle-to-grave providing dedicated caseloads

## Lessons Learned	...communication continued

- Use of the telephone whenever possible to speak to customers and not just send another letter as a means of doing something
- Communication that allows joining forces with the Sheriff’s Department, Public Defender and District Attorney, and Adult Probation to facilitate movement of non-confidential information between shared customers

## In Closing consider...

- Staffing Needs
- Training
- Local Government Requirements
- Flexibility
- Performance
- Communicate any changes to OCSE
- (They are your partners)

## Related Documents

- For additional information contact Maria Kam, Administrative Assistant San Francisco Department of Child Support Services 415-356-2959 or visit website at sfgov.org
- Submit questions to:
- Karen M. Roye, Director 415-356-2919

## Service of Process Comparison

**Service of Process Comparison**

## Historic Default Rate in SF

- * As of June 2006

- EPIC Project 12-04 to 11-05

**Historic Default Rate in SF**

## Federal Performance Measures% of Open Cases with Support Orders

**Federal Performance Measures****% of Open Cases with Support Orders**

## Federal Performance Measures% of Current Support Collected

**Federal Performance Measures****% of Current Support Collected**

## Federal Performance Measures% of Cases with Arrears Collected

**Federal Performance Measures****% of Cases with Arrears Collected**

## Current Support DistributedOn the Project Cases

**Current Support Distributed****On the Project Cases**