# Presentation: 532608

## Fairfield County, OhioChild Support EnforcementSection 1115 Demonstration Grant

_**Navigator Services Project**_
***Motivating Non-Custodial Parents to comply with orders by involving them at the earliest stages***

## Background: Ohio’s Arrearage History

**Arrears only cases – OH: 11% of caseload; Arrears-only ORs owe 20% of state arrears**
**Nation’s arrears – OH: $4 billion or 4% of national arrears in 2003 (OH had 6% of national caseload)**
**Half of arrears are owed by 12% of ORs, avg $22,021**
**Most arrears owed by ORs with little or no income**
**5% of OH arrears are owed by ORs making $40K+**
**OH does not automatically charge interest**
**Source: E. Sorenson, Urban Institute Study of Ohio Child Support**

## More Ohio and Fairfield Statistics

**Fairfield Co CSEA – 8.3% of caseload is arrears only**
**Percentage of cases with arrears in paying status: OH - 49.1%; Fairfield - 51.7% **
**Percentage of cases with Orders: OH - 70.26%; Fairfield – 77.22%**
**Fairfield population: 112,760  - growing about 10,000 every three years **
**Fairfield County unemployment is below the state average**
**Sources: Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Office of Child Support website – statistics for January-July 2005 and U.S. Census Bureau (2000)**

## About the CSEA

**Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA)**
**Structure: Child Support is combined with Job and Family Services, Workforce Development, and Children Services.**
**40 Employees, including 4 CSEA attorneys; no increases in staff since 1997.**
**Caseload: 8,325 (4/05) -  caseload is growing about 600 every year.**
**Collections: $20.770 million, 2004 **
**Number of hearings: 2983, 2004 - increasing about 10% annually (modification, mistake of fact, paternity****).**

## Agency Strengths

**Strong connection with community groups, including faith-based organizations.**
**High customer service standards with federal performance measurements above the state average.**
**A mission-minded culture focused on getting children what they need to be healthy and strong.**
**An established working relationship with governments, businesses, and community groups.**
**Excellent public relations, management, customer service, and communication skills.**

**Notes:**
- As of April 2004, the agency has about 7,700 cases with collections of more than $20 million annually. The federal performance measurements for paternity establishment, support establishment, and collections for the county are above the state average.

## About the Navigator Project

**The Project was designed to address the different perceptions obligors have about child support by focusing on the following priorities:**
_**Placing families first**_** - child support is not merely something collected, but something upon which children and families can rely.**
_**Preventing the build up of unpaid support**_** through early intervention rather than traditional debt threshold-based enforcement.**
_**Building a culture of compliance**_** in which parents support their children voluntarily and reliably...a more customized customer service philosophy.**

**Notes:**
- On page one of The National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan 2005-2009, you will see a statement in bold print that reads, “ A few highlights that distinguish this Plan from the ones that came before it:” What follows is a list of three very clear priorities.

## Navigator Project’s Guiding Principles

**To help those struggling with trying to meet their support obligations.**
**To prevent the accrual of unpaid child support...**
**Ensure both parents are treated fairly, kept informed and their concerns recognized...**
**Respect cultural differences...**
**Provide public education and outreach...**
**Participate with the larger community’s efforts to strengthen families...**

**Notes:**
- Intuitively, there is a growing sense of injustice among obligors, those with a duty to pay child support. Most obligors are fathers and non-custodial parents. The sense of unfairness comes from a number of different thoughts about child support and child support related topics.

## Vision Statement

- “ **So parents can overcome challenges and provide for their children’s healthful development, Navigators will give both parents the opportunity to engage in an active, intensive approach for a better understanding of the child support system, their legal obligations and available community resources.”**

## Purpose of the Program

**To quickly identify potential barriers to the payment of support**.
**To offer encouragement for the payment of support.**
**To provide education about the purpose of child support.**
**To offer referrals for counseling, workforce, legal, and other community resources for those who are struggling with meeting their child support obligations.**

## Navigator Project Objectives

**To increase understanding of the importance of child support.**
**To increase understanding of the child support program.**
**To increase understanding of community parenting resources.**
**To increase understanding of the court system.**
**To measure a reported increase in parental cooperation and sense of family connectedness.**

## Program Approach/Components

**Eligible/Ineligible Cases**
**Only new cases starting 5/16/05 and after were accepted into the Navigator Project.**
**The Navigator Workgroup reviewed all the case types that might be considered appropriate for inclusion into the program. Those excluded were:**
**Ineligible Cases: IV-E Foster Care/Children Services, Care Taker, Non IV-D, Spousal Support, Domestic Violence Cases. **
**Eligible Cases: All other cases were considered acceptable.**

## Measurement Groupings...

- “**Demonstration group” – the group receiving Navigator services.**
- “**Control group” – the group not receiving any Navigator services.**
**Ineligible cases maintained in a separate file.**
**Groups were randomly selected by alternately placing an eligible case into one of the two groups.**
**A total of 171 cases were in the demonstration group and 170 cases were in the control group**

**Notes:**
 - In order to meet grant requirements and provide for proper measurement, it was necessary to establish and maintain two groups.

## Case Assignment/Tracking...

**Workgroup case manager supervisor/designate reviewed all new cases for navigator eligibility.**
**A Navigator referral sheet was initiated for each case selected to be part of the demonstration group.**
**The Navigator attempted to contact the obligor by mail or telephone to introduce the new services prior to notification by Ohio’s CSE system - SETS.**
**Any communication was recorded by the Navigators in a notes log alphabetically by obligor and into SETS by the intake specialist.**
**Any cases with unsuccessful attempts at contact are returned to intake for further handling.**

**Notes:**
The referral sheet goes to the navigators, the original case file remains with intake, and the case is flagged in the CIp1 screen as being in the navigator program.
The referral sheet contains the names of each party, the case number, contact information, and a short case summary.

## Nine Points for Early/Proactive Navigator Contacts

**Courtesy call prior to SETS notification.**
**Two pre/post hearing contacts (face to face prior to administrative hearing, face to face after conclusion of hearing).**
**An orientation class.**
**One-on-one meeting after orientation class.**
**Two, five, ten, and 30 day follow up calls for encouragement and support in meeting obligation.**

**Notes:**
The Navigator Workgroup established nine possible points of navigator contact between the time of the automatic mailings from SETS and a month from the date the order is established.

## Orientation Class

**Detailed 90-minute orientation for both parents covering program purposes and CSEA processes.**
**Group involvement in the selection of topics.**
**A second session is made available for those with additional topics/questions.**
**Class materials/packets are made available to attendees with important contact and referral information.**
**Orientation evaluation given to attendees to rate trainers and course content.**

**Notes:**
Each group (obligees/obligors) are involved in selecting those topics they feel are most important to their understanding of the CSEA.
Orientation class scheduled as early as possible, prior to the hearing to establish support or within 30 days of the establishment of the order.
Orientation evaluation has sections included for suggestions and additional comments.

## Fairfield County’s Lessons Learned

**Sometimes pro-active contact can be difficult.**
**Better to schedule orientation classes after an order has been established.**
**Orientation classes needed to be scheduled further out than originally planned (case establishment took longer than expected).**
**Navigators would probably be more effective working on the more difficult cases.**

**Notes:**
Lack of information, good addresses and telephone numbers, make it difficult to contact some of the parties in a case.
Customers have a better understanding of what applies to their cases after the order has been established.
Sometimes several weeks can pass between the time we initiate contact, hearings are scheduled, and the orders are established ( 6-8 weeks or more). Also, the possibility classes could be presented as a requirement for the intake process (better attendance).
Navigators have the time, expertise, and availability to discuss complicated issues at more than length than the typical cm/cma.

## Fairfield’s Observations of Customer Responses

**Surprised at the agency initiating contact.**
**Appreciative of the personal tone of Navigators’ involvement in their cases.**
**Confirmed the importance of simply having someone at the agency who could be supportive and encouraging in difficult situations.**
**Reported an increased understanding of the child support program, the importance of the program, and the importance of resolving conflicts.**

## Evaluation Component

**The evaluator MAXIMUS **
**assisted Fairfield County CSEA design and develop the project approach, its procedures and surveys **
**evaluated the project for statistically-significant results **
**evaluated the project based on third-party observations and report analysis **

## Evaluation Period

**Beginning May 2005, start up for demo and control groups in the Navigator Project**
**Navigators issued monthly status reports**
**Orientations were limited after initial poor turnouts**
**By December 2005, 170 cases in control group and 171 cases in demo group**
**By March 2006, project tracking ended**
**Longer timeframe needed to go through establishment and initial enforcement cycle for cases entering the study nearer to its end**

## Evaluator’s Conclusions

**Navigator-participating obligors complied at a higher rate with child support orders (71 cases or 41.5% of 171) than the control group obligors did (50 cases or 29.4% of 170)**
**Of the demo group, 9 cases were in locate and 72 did not have an order while 26 were closed from 5/05 through 3/06**
**Only 6 of the 65 open demo cases with orders had no payments; payments were made in 11 demo cases with pending orders (59 cases with orders, plus 11 pre-order paying cases plus 1 closed case = 71 paying demo cases)**

## Evaluator’s Conclusions

**The percentage of an order paid the difference between Navigator-participating obligors (73.6%) and control group obligors (61.9%) was not statistically significant, partly due to the relatively small size of the two groups and the short payment history for late-entering cases**
**Length of the payment history varied from three months to six months or more **
**The C/E ratio was $3.02 in extra collections for every $1.00 spent on salaries for two Navigators and their related costs – using one Navigator would have resulted in a $6.04 C/E ratio**

## Evaluator’s Observations

**Navigator Project had a positive effect on parents and the child support staff in the CSEA based on parents’ and staff’s comments**
**Stakeholders initially skeptical of the project were believers and promoters at the end**
**CSE staff had a better understanding of resources available to parents who have related issues and may be looking for help**
**Paying attention to the concerns of parents at the start of a case leads to more accurate expectations and a more accurate understanding of the CSE process**
**By targeting Navigator services shortly before and after the order hearing, the project could produce most of its intended results  **
**Parents appreciated and benefited from Navigators’ provision of resource referrals for parents’ related issues, positively segueing to the Employment Specialist Project**

## Replication and Transferability

**Navigator is replicable in all jurisdictions – large/small, urban/suburban/rural**
**The positive impact on customer service, the CSEA staff and stakeholders is an extremely important component and will produce benefits beyond order compliance**
**To keep costs down and to produce high cost effectiveness, each Navigator’s caseload could be increased and the type and timing of intervention could be limited**
**To determine the permanency of increased payment compliance requires a longer period of case monitoring and possible ad hoc intervention based on case compliance characteristics**

## For more information...

**Contact: **
**John Langrock at OCSE**
**           ****john.langrock@acf.hhs.gov**
**Carri Brown at Fairfield Co CSEA**
**           **_[brownc10@odjfs.state.oh.us](mailto:brownc10@odjfs.state.oh.us)_
**Jeff Ball at MAXIMUS**
**	****	**** ****jeffreyball@maximus.com**