(NOTE: Includes Findings from the Final Report)

This 17-month 1115 demonstration grant responded to 2003 Priority Area 4: Projects Which Demonstrated Improved Partnerships Between the Child Support Enforcement Office and Workforce Investment and Other Department of Labor and/or TANF Work Programs. Involvement of Faith and Community-Based Service Providers Is Particularly Welcomed." The project, titled "JobSource Resource Center," (JSRC) was a collaborative effort between Kern County Department of Child Support Services (KCDCSS), Employers’ Training Resource (ETR), Community Action Partnership of Kern, Family to Family Mentoring and LOVE, INC. of Greater Bakersfield. The project mission was to provide services, support and encouragement to noncustodial parents (NCPs) in their pursuit of sustainable employment.

The project’s main objectives were to: (1) increase compliance by NCPs with court-ordered child and medical support and (2) ensure child support orders reflect the true earnings of NCPs. These objectives were achieved by providing employment services and training opportunities through JSRC (such services are not an allowable IV-D expense).

JSRC was located in KCDCSS’ building. It had seven workstations with computers, Internet access, and software pertinent to gaining employment. NCPs visiting their KCDCSS case manager completed an assessment survey, which included background questions about the client’s education, work experience and level of interest in services available through the program. On an as-needed basis, case managers referred the NCPs to JSRC. Within JSRC there were Counselors who navigated noncustodial parent seeking employment through the Employers Training Resource. (NB: employment and training and related case management activities are not eligible for title IV-D program Federal financial participation.)

Findings (From the Final Report)

Overall, JSRC use had increased steadily due to easy access and a central location. However, use of the JSRC by KCDCSS clients has decreased since its inception. A reduction in referrals can be attributed to California’s mandated migration to a different automated case management system. This migration required 18,000 staff hours in preparation, a complete reorganization of the KCDCSS and a retraining of the entire staff. In addition, California implemented an automation change which centralized support disbursements in Sacramento, CA. These changes led to an increase in staff turnover and organizational focus shifted from projects such as JSRC to core child support activities.

Based on the information gained from the implementation and outcome evaluations and through the creation of tables, graphs and other data collected, the following findings were obtained:

• JSRC recorded 3,030 visitors from October 2003 - September 2004. The total increased to 4,024 from October 2004 - September 2005 (994 or 32.81%).
• KCDCSS recorded 1,502 clients used JSRC from October 2003 - September 2004. The total decreased to 1,334 from October 2004 to September 2005 (168 or 11.19%). Seventy-six percent of the 11% decline in visits to JSRC by KCDCSS clients is directly related to the decline in the case manager referrals.
• KCDCSS Case Managers’ referrals to JSRC were 271 from October 2003 - September 2004. The total decreased to 143 from October 2004 - September 2005 (128 or 52.77%).
• The lag between referral of clients for participation with JSRC and collections was about three months.
• Between 2003 and 2005, the average number of KCDCSS referrals per month was 16. The average number of KCDCSS clients using JSRC was 102.
• KCDCSS changed database systems twice since the start of JSRC. These databases were incompatible which hindered the collection of comprehensive data and analysis.
• Given average referrals to JSRC of 16 per month and 102 KCDCSS JSRC participants per month, the total effect of JSRC on collections was over $200,000 per month, about 3.6% of all child support collections.
• Information was not provided to demonstrate the project addressing the second objective which was to ensure child support orders reflected the true earnings of NCPs.

Lessons Learned/Recommendations:

Based on the problems the project faced, it was determined that a recommendation-based evaluation was more suited for JSRC. Many of these recommendations came from KCDCSS personnel.

• Case manager buy in. Case managers reported that JSRC was a one-dimensional answer to a multi-dimensional problem and that the program was more effective for clients who wanted to find a job and make support payments. The case managers recommended that program mangers need to get case managers excited about the program by providing an incentive - perhaps small prizes for a specific number of clients referred in a month.
• Create a better tracking system. Staff suggested that there should have been a computer program that tracked clients through JSRC. This would have allowed case managers access to the data that supported both clients and case managers in feeling successful about achieving employment goals. Staff also suggested that requiring all JSRC participants to complete the survey created by the evaluation team as part of the new tracking system would have helped, too.
• Obtain commitment to participate. Providing incentives to clients, based on participation in workshops and other training services provided by JSRC, had some positive effects, but perhaps requiring a commitment from participants would have been more effective. Once that commitment was given, attendance to workshops and trainings would become mandatory until the client found employment.
• Assign a case manager that deals with employment issues only. It was a difficult task to keep track of all clients’ issues unrelated to employment and make sure that they were taking part in JSRC, if that is what they chose. Having a case manager knowledgeable about employment and employment issues would have allowed clients to have more confidence in the help they were receiving and would have freed up case managers to deal with other issues.

Post Grant

KCDCSS created JSRC with the intent to develop a program to help unemployed NCPs find jobs. The execution of JSRC was designed to be a pilot program that could be replicated by other organizations.

In replicating JSRC, the following is recommended:

• Outline attainable goals and measurable objectives for your new program
• Include staff members in the development of program parameters to encourage "buy-in" and support of program
• Create an in-depth tracking system to monitor participants’ successes
• Include follow-up procedures on referrals by case managers in the tracking system
• Encourage client participation with voluntary sign-up, with the understanding that participation is a commitment until employment is found
• Conduct regular surveys and data evaluations to ensure program is meeting established goals

This two-year project responded to 2003 priority area “Reduce Arrearages of Low-Income Noncustodial Parents (NCPs) through Front-end or Other Improved Management.”

The demonstration tested several strategies that child support agencies could implement to promote the participation of NCPs in proceedings to establish child support orders and reduce the use of default orders. Conducted in two Colorado counties — Denver and Jefferson — the project involved the use of enhanced efforts to:

• locate NCPs ;
• contact, notify, and remind NCPs about pending legal proceedings;
• build relationships with NCPs, expand their understanding of their child support obligations, and promote their participation in order establishment procedures;
• identify parent income and set orders that reflect an ability to pay; and
• remind NCPs about their payment obligations and elicit payment.

Techniques included:

• personal telephone calls;
• financial incentives to those who appeared at order-making proceedings;
• face-to-face meetings; and
• automated reminder calls.

Denver County also experimented with the use of process servers to promote contact and communication with child support workers by distributing a brief needs assessment and a brochure about child support along with the papers they normally deliver to NCPs.

The evaluation was designed to generate empirical information on (1) how a child support agency can do a better job of contacting and involving NCPs in child support proceedings; and (2) how effective early outreach techniques are in preventing default orders, increasing the number of orders that accurately reflect the NCP’s ability to pay, and how effective are these early outreach interventions at encouraging payment of support orders.

Project Design and Implementation

January 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006, cases in Denver and Jefferson counties that were eligible for administrative order establishment and did not have a current order were randomly assigned to one of two treatment categories:

• treatment group 1, the “ENS Only Group” (electronic notification system), received only automated telephone reminder calls; and
• treatment group 2, the “Experimental Group,” received all of the automated telephone calls as assigned to treatment group one; in addition, this group received direct child support worker-generated communications and actions (a prescribed protocol consisting of 12 standard actions).

The control group of comparable cases was generated from an extract of the Automated Child Support Enforcement System (ACSES) and consisted of cases processed during 2003 that would have been eligible for the above-noted project treatments had they come to the attention of the agency in 2005 and the first half of 2006.

Treatment group 1, the ENS-only treatment group consisted of 256 cases or 512 parents and was assigned to 3 workers in Denver County and 2 workers in Jefferson County from May 2005 through May 2006. Treatment group 2 consisted of 433 cases and was assigned to 2 workers in Denver County and 1 worker from Jefferson County for the same period.

Data from numerous sources were collected and analyzed to assess the effectiveness of the worker-initiated and automatic intervention group (Treatment group 2), and the electronic intervention group only (Treatment group 1). The different types of information used for evaluation included:

• selected information on child support case characteristics;
• information on actions taken by workers to establish contact and results of these efforts;
• information on automated telephone calls regarding upcoming child support events and payments;
• reactions of custodial parents and NCPs to negotiation conferences and various worker-initiated and automated telephone calls;
• longer-term reactions of NCPs to various worker-initiated and automated telephone calls and NCP understandings of the child support process; and,
• child support payment patterns and enforcement actions approximately 12 months after the case was referred for order establishment.

Project Findings (from the Final Report)

The project Reducing Default Orders in Child Support Cases in Colorado shows that it was feasible for workers to reach most NCPs at early stages of case processing and that routine attempts to contact and communicate were extremely beneficial.

Workers were able to speak with and/or meet 77% to 86% of parents they tried to reach (in the “Experimental Group”) to establish a relationship and explain the child support process. Although routine attempts to make contact increased the average number of days required to establish a child support order from 75.9 to 86.6 (comparing the “Experimental Group” with the “Control Group”), the process took an average of 69.2 days for the majority of cases where contact was actually achieved. This suggests that lags only occurred in the small fraction of cases (within the “Experimental Group”) where no contact was made.

In addition to being processed more quickly, cases with worker contact were less apt to require service of process and less likely to rely on imputations of income to generate child support orders. Conversely, workers were more likely to identify income using objective data sources and parent affidavits in cases where they had telephone and/or in-person contact with NCPs.

In comparing the experimental with the control group, a number of positive findings emerge. One benefit of having workers attempt to contact and communicate with NCPs was a significant reduction in default orders (45% versus 12%) and an increase in those established by stipulation (51% versus 71%). Another benefit was a significant improvement in the payment rate during both the first and second years after orders were established (45% versus 35%) and a reduction in the level of enforcement activity (50% versus 71%).

The chief reason why worker outreach was associated with higher payments was the ability of workers to induce some NCPs who normally ignore mailed notices to appear and participate in order-establishment procedures. As a result, fewer parents received default orders, and those who did tended to have the lowest rates of employment and the fewest resources (based on an analysis between groups- stipulated cases and default cases- in the experimental vs control groups in this study)..

Nearly all surveyed NCPs found calls and materials from child support workers to be at least somewhat helpful, although there was no consensus on the best way for workers to communicate, with roughly equal proportions favoring in-person meetings, letters, and telephone calls. Following their meetings and telephone calls, most parents were knowledgeable about the child support program, although a substantial number were still confused about the rules governing cooperation and reimbursements for welfare benefits. Finally, while parents gave workers high marks for being respectful and answering their questions about child support, a substantial proportion reported feeling angry with the agency and rated it unfavorably.

Electronic reminder calls were much less effective than outreach efforts initiated by workers. Many calls were not made because phone numbers were not available in the child support system. Other calls were never answered, there was an immediate hang-up, or the message was left on an answering machine. Considering all of these possible outcomes once an electronic reminder call was placed, no message was played to a person in the home of the NCP or custodial parent in 80 percent of the targeted cases. Only 26 percent of the cases with placed calls resulted in a message being played by an NCP. Not surprisingly, perhaps, parents exposed to electronic reminder calls did not stipulate at higher rates than parents in the control group and had similar default and payment patterns.

Finally, the project found that while process servers can be effective in distributing and collecting information from parents about child support and their interest in various forms of help (particularly with parenting time and employment), the effort did not appear to lead to a higher rate of appearance and a lower rate of default.

Lessons Learned

• Telephone contacts and in-person meetings reduce the need for child support papers to be legally served and thereby reduce costs to establish an order.
• Although worker–initiated contact and follow-up in the establishment phase is labor-intensive, the eventual payoff in cases where contact was actually achieved is that order establishment is significantly faster in these cases.
• Also, cases with worker-initiated outreach will more likely have a higher rate of orders set by stipulation and lower rates of orders established by default, given any representative comparison group.
• Both immediately after the negotiation conference with the child support worker and three months later, most NCPs report feeling well-treated by child support staff workers, although a quarter report overall anger with the agency and half give the agency a rating of “fair” or “poor.”
• A majority of the attempts to convey messages to NCPs using electronic notifications are unsuccessful with most calls not being made or played due to the lack of a phone number, unanswered calls, answering machines, and immediate hang ups.
• Process servers can engage NCPs and obtain additional information about their child support interests and needs.
• Nearly all NCPs who complete a brief assessment of needs understandably want information about how child support works, but many also want help with getting to see their children and with employment.

(NOTE: Includes Findings from the Final Report)

This 17-month grant responded to Priority Area 4: Projects Which Further the National Child Support Mission, Vision and Goals as Outlined in the National Strategic Plan. The "Connecticut Partners Executive Council" initiative was to improve the coordination performance of the State’s primary partner agencies in conducting the child support program.

Five agencies share responsibility for Connecticut’s child support program. The lead agency, BCSE, is in the executive branch. Support Enforcement Services, Court Operations Unit and the Family Support Magistrate Division are in the judicial branch. The last agency is the Attorney General’s office which is a constitutionally separate entity. Successful operation of the program required an alignment of vision, mission, goals and activities of the five agencies, which the Council achieved.

Subordinate Objective 1:
Establish Partners Executive Council (PEC), including methods and processes for developing, implementing and overseeing the Cooperation and Coordination Plan (CCP) and related operational strategies. The PEC met this objective by establishing regular meetings, delineating the mission and vision of the program, developing a charter and naming workgroups to address program issues. The Council also addressed two significant organization challenges: membership and staffing.

Subordinate Objective 2: Train Council members and staff on successful approaches to team building, problem solving, business process improvement, meeting planning and facilitation. The Council met this objective by training in team development, problem solving, facilitation skills and some business process improvement skills.

Subordinate Objective 3: Facilitate development of Interagency CCP including goals and objectives and measures. To accomplish this objective, the PEC engaged in strategic planning. In January 2003, the Council adopted a modified version of the National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan as the strategic plan for Connecticut’s child support program.

Subordinate Objective 4: Facilitate development of operational plans among the partner agencies in accomplishing the CCP goals and objectives. This would create a vision all staff can unite behind and improve morale, leading to a higher productivity rate. The PEC developed action plans for several strategies adopted through the strategic planning process. There was less progress than anticipated on this objective, in part because of the lack of resources (staff and time) and the need to attend to the immediate budget.

Subordinate Objective 5: Facilitate process for CCP and operational plan implementation, monitoring, feedback and corrective action by Council. The Council monitored action steps as resources allowed. The most successful operational work of the Council has been working together to resolve specific child support issues. Examples include the "docket issues" (court caseloads not being processed as effectively and efficiently as possible, court hearing backlogs and intermittent spikes in court volume in various locations), implementation of the National Medical Support Notice, and working together to secure a vendor for the State Disbursement Unit.

Subordinate Objective 6: Establish a process for evaluation of the Council. The PEC used an outside evaluator for its first formal evaluation. When the evaluator’s report did not prove useful, the PEC turned instead to an ongoing, less formal evaluation. Members continue to evaluate informally the benefits and shortcomings of their partnership and continue to make changes in the way they work together.

Findings (From the Final Report)

The goal of the grant was to demonstrate an approach to coordinating the work of agencies that have a role in administering Connecticut’s child support program. Coordinating the work of government agencies is a very difficult job, especially when each agency is itself a subdivision of a larger agency and each has long-standing roles and responsibilities. To achieve their coordination goal, they focused on the goals of the child support program and posed the key question: How can we better serve Connecticut families? In answering this question, the partners improved their communication and cooperation.

Prior to instituting the PEC, partners had very little communication with each other. Each operated independently. As a result of the grant, agencies increased the frequency and openness of their communication and are meeting monthly as the PEC. In addition, some agency leaders met in groups of two or three to resolve specific issues or simply to keep updated with one another. For example, the IV-D Director met bi-monthly with the Director of Support Enforcement Services. As a result of improved communication, all agencies were more aware when their work and decisions affected other agencies.

There was also increased cooperation among the agencies. Each was more mindful of times when others needed to be informed or included in decisions. All were asking questions of the others before proceeding to take action or make decisions. Agencies were sharing drafts of their work, not just the final product.

The work of the PEC began to change the culture of Connecticut’s child support program. The values of acting together, combining resources, cooperating and sharing information were replacing former values of acting alone, keeping resources, competing and owning information.

In addition to accomplishing specific objectives, the Council had been instrumental in making several positive changes to the program: (1) resolving the docket issue; (2) implementing the National Medical Support Notice; (3) working collaboratively to secure a vendor for the State Disbursement Unit and the Interactive Voice Response System; (4) completing a draft IV-D program and agency duties handbook; and (5) developing a coherent legislative package annually.

Lessons Learned/Replication Advice

1. Secure at least one "champion" for the partnership. In the case of a child support partnership, the IV-D Director must champion the partnership and its efforts. The role of the champion is primarily to reinforce the role of the partnership among external entities. These include the agency in which the champion him/herself is located as well as entities, such as the legislature and the media, that play a significant role in advancing the goals of the partnership. If the purpose of the partnership is to advance the child support agenda, it is imperative that the IV-D Director be its "champion." It is equally important that the partnership have champions in the leadership of each partner agency. It is the responsibility of the champion to remind agency leaders of their commitment to working issues through the partnership and then to do so.

2. Be flexible!
There are many ways in which members of a partnership need to be flexible. These include flexibility with regard to:

• Their own procedures. Program change will require everyone to take a serious look at the way they have "always done things."
• The external environment. Since child support program leaders, even heads of the agencies they represent, do not have control over political reality or expectations, partners must be able to recognize the changing winds and adapt to them. They also need to pool their talents and capabilities in order to influence the external world.
• Expectations for themselves and each other. Most leaders enter a partnership with ideas about how the other partners fit into their work. In fact, these ideas may be the very impetus for the partnership in the partnership. Partners likely do not have the same ideas, however, about how their work fits together. All partners need continually to be open with each other about their expectations and how they might adjust expectations to accommodate other partners and, ultimately, the customers they serve.

(NOTE: Includes Findings from the Final Report)

This 17-month 1115 grant responded to 2003 Priority Area 4: Projects Which Demonstrate Improved Partnerships Between the Child Support Enforcement Office and Workforce Investment and Other Department of Labor and/or TANF Work Programs. Under this project, Iowa’s Bureau of Collections, the State’s Child Support Enforcement Program, proposed that Black Hawk County, Iowa, be the site of an innovative program. This program intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of child support agencies building new partnerships with co-located workforce, faith-based and other community-based organizations to foster responsible fatherhood, including regular payment of child support. Funds awarded through this grant were used to plan, implement, and promote a Fatherhood Improvement Resource and Support Team (FIRST). Team members were located in a "one-stop shop" to address multiple needs of non-custodial parents (NCPs) in a convenient, supportive manner. A broad spectrum of agencies provided services to NCPs to help strengthen families in their community.

Findings (from the Final Report):

Through FIRST, working in partnership with other agencies, Iowa was able to establish various components to improve responsible fatherhood in Waterloo, Iowa. Below are some of the major components of the project:

• "Empowering Dads" - This support group, run by a team of professional social workers and a former Empowering Dads participant, was expanded to include project FIRST participants. During the term of the grant, a total of 462 men attended the weekly support group and a monthly educational presentation including such topics as child support, co-parenting and financial management for fathers in Black Hawk County. The program continues, funded by its host organization.
• "Man to Man" - The Project Coordinator of FIRST designed a structured curriculum to provide education and motivation covering parenting responsibilities and personal accountability. The component "Man to Man" was added as a twice-per-week offering to those fathers who wanted to learn specific skills and tools for improving their ability to succeed as a responsible father. A total of 112 men attended these sessions.
• "Young Parents Together" - The YWCA Young Parents Together program for teenage mothers was made available to fathers who met at the same time as mothers to encourage participation of both parents. This program served 25 young fathers, ranging in age from 16 to 24. Two married the mother of their child.

(NB: employment, training, education, fatherhood education and teen parent education activities are not eligible for title IV-D program Federal financial participation.)

The FIRST major project partners, included the following:

• Judge Thomas Bower, of the 1st Judicial District of Iowa, was a strong supporter and member of the FIRST advisory committee. During the last few months of the grant after FIRST components were firmly established, Judge Bower began ordering fathers who were in contempt of court due to non-payment of child support to FIRST as an alternative to jail. The judge also encouraged other judges of the 1st Judicial District to utilize the FIRST program.
• Employers - Three local employers, Tyson Fresh Meats, Bertch Cabinets, and Sedona Staffing, partnered with FIRST and hired 7 men with minimal job skills and other barriers to employment during the grant period. (The project did not offer employment incentives or child support debt reduction to encourage participation.)
• Educators - Hawkeye Community College and the University of Northern Iowa’s Center for Urban Education (UNICUE) made education coordinators and counselors available to individual FIRST participants as well as for presentations to groups such as Empowering Dads. As a result of this partnership and the information and assistance readily available to program participants, 12 men pursued educational programs at Hawkeye Community College.
• Agencies and Organizations -- Throughout the term of the grant, the FIRST Project Coordinators invited many potential community partners to hear about the project’s mission and goals. They made efforts to reach out and educate organizations, businesses, and agencies about the need for a united community partnership, and the benefits of improving the well being of children and families. Partners such as Head Start, YWCA and Waterloo Community Schools were important to the success of the project.

Results and Lessons Learned:

• The largely voluntary nature of the FIRST program presented a challenge to the collection of personal information that is critical to measuring child support payment results. Of the nearly 600 participants in the three main components of the FIRST initiative, less than 20% of them voluntarily provided enough personal identification information to confirm the existence of a child support case from which to gather payment data. Of the 120 participants who provided identifying information, Child support case records showed that 26% had no IV-D case, 11% were not making payments in any amount, 11% were making sporadic payments, 29% were making regular payments, 18% had not been making payments and began making payments during the term of this grant, and 5% were custodial parents. Of the 6 fathers who were mandated by the court to participate in the program, 3 made some payments toward their child support obligation, and 1 obtained full-time employment and began paying the full monthly child support obligation through income withholding.
• This data suggests that the fathers who seek out and choose to participate in non-mandated fatherhood programs are those who are actively making child support payments, or are most likely to do so, when connected with available resources. The minimal data available indicates the need for more diligent data collection techniques, even when fathers are voluntarily participating in the program.
• Since fatherhood programs attract men with a wide range of needs and goals, meetings would be more productive if designed to address similar needs, such as child support and related issues. Also, some fathers have more emotional issues, which would be better addressed by individualized sessions.
• A community partnership can be successful in offering an array of services to improve responsible fatherhood. However, there is a need for multiple funding sources to support the various components needed.
• There is a real need for preventive programming for teenage fathers as well as young mothers.

(NOTE: Includes Findings from the Final Report)

This 17-month FY 1999 project, titled "Enhancing Inter-Agency Collaboration and Client Cooperation in Massachusetts," was a collaborative effort between Child Support and Public Assistance Agencies. The project mission was to improve workers’ and parents’ understandings of child support program requirements, promote the benefits of paternity establishment and child support orders and explore the effectiveness of new staffing approaches.

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) collaborated with the Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA) to improve worker understanding of the child support program requirements and the need for client cooperation with child support efforts. The project was conducted in two urban DTA offices. The project objectives were to study: (1) the amount and quality of information that custodial parents typically provide about the noncustodial parent for child support purposes; (2) the subsequent actions taken by DOR in order to establish paternity and obtain a child support order; and (3) the effectiveness of placing DOR Child Support staff members in DTA offices to address communication problems between the agencies, improve information collection about noncustodial parents from clients and increase the rate of "pursuable" child support cases.

Findings

A comparison of case processing patterns for clients served at two Boston-area DTA Offices before and after the introduction of child support liaisons shows some limited evidence of improved case processing.

• There was an increase in the speed with which information about the noncustodial parent was elicited from the custodial parent following the initiation of public assistance benefits and the rate at which this information was communicated to DOR.
• The comparison of information on the Client Application for Child Support (CA/CS) showed no consistent evidence that clients interviewed at DTA when the child support liaisons were based at those agencies provided more complete information about the other parent that would lead to his location by DOR.
• There was no consistent evidence that DOR undertook various follow-up steps more regularly and with greater speed in the sample generated after the introduction of child support liaisons, although action patterns and time frames were more favorable for cases processed by the liaison that was skilled in establishing cases.
• While the impact of child support liaisons on case processing patterns and information quality are ambiguous, the reactions of DTA workers are clear. Focus groups and surveys conducted with DTA workers in two large, Boston-area DTA offices showed strong support for the placement of full-time child support liaisons in their offices.
• Although some DOR workers said that cases handled by the liaisons were easier to process because the information was more complete and the needed documents were provided, they generally failed to see the value of housing DOR workers at DTA. DOR workers’ lukewarm assessments of the impact of child support liaisons reflected the simultaneous introduction of DTA’s new computerized system. Due to system implementation problems, some noncustodial parent information that was supposed to be automatically transmitted to DOR’s system did not transfer and workers were unable to open many cases and initiate actions to establish child support orders. DOR assessments also reflected long-standing trust factors between the two agencies. Because DOR workers suspected that DTA workers failed to pursue information about noncustodial parents as thoroughly as they should, they viewed child support liaisons as "rewards" for DTA workers’ not stressing cooperation with DOR.
• Workers at both agencies experienced several other difficulties at about the same time the child support liaisons were introduced, and these problems may have offset any benefits provided by the liaisons. A State hiring freeze, coupled with early retirement incentives, translated into sharp reductions in staffing. For DTA workers, this meant a dramatic rise in client caseloads, while DOR experienced a dramatic shortage of attorneys that slowed the process of filing cases in court and establishing orders. DTA workers had also confronted serious cutbacks in benefits for clients, leaving them less equipped to prevent evictions, provide emergency assistance, and/or provide food stamp assistance. According to workers in both agencies, the net result of these developments is a serious erosion of worker morale and productivity.

Lessons Learned/Recommendations

Co-location may not be feasible in the face of staff shortages, budget shortfalls and cutbacks that strain agency resources. Nor is co-location the only way to foster cooperation between DTA and DOR. More to the point, the limited impact that full-time child support liaisons in Massachusetts had on case processing patterns underscored the fact that child support liaisons alone are not sufficient to achieve improvements in the quality of information about noncustodial parents and the processing of cases for child support purposes.

The analysis of pre- and post-liaison case processing patterns suggests that other steps are needed to achieve improvements in client cooperation and inter-agency communication. DOR and DTA began following up on this project with initiatives that include increased on-line access to data, cross-training, continued use of liaisons statewide and improved case processing. The needed steps included the following:

• Resolve interface problems between DTA and DOR that delay the initiation of child support action. Some of these issues should be addressed through new technology. For instance, the agencies should explore the feasibility of permitting inter-agency communication about cases using e-mail techniques.
• Conduct additional training with DTA workers on interview techniques and develop approaches to use with evasive clients. DTA and DOR were developing a cross-training program. The curriculum for DTA workers will include the importance of child support for public assistance recipients, how child support can help DTA and interviewing skills. DOR workers will receive training on DTA benefits and program requirements.
• Use child support personnel to conduct interviews with clients who provide incomplete or inaccurate location information. DOR designated staff in each regional office who visits local DTA offices at least once a week. Every DTA office in the State received this liaison assistance.
• Do a better job of explaining the importance of child support to clients and improving the performance of the Agency in generating support. DOR has taken several steps to improve communication with DTA workers and clients. These steps are: the development of a video and brochures that convey the importance of child support for the child’s emotional well-being and the long-term financial security of the custodial parent’s household; implementing an online system offering customers accessibility to case information; and providing DTA with an affidavit of paternity that DTA workers can complete with clients. DOR files this affidavit with a complaint to establish paternity and a child support order.

(NOTE: Includes Findings from the Final Report)

This grant responds to 2002 Priority Area IV:  "Projects which further the national goals of the Child Support Program."  The Child Support Enforcement Division of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) was concerned with the rate at which arrears owed by child support obligors in Massachusetts continued to grow even though DOR set new collection highs each year.  The goals of this project, which only applies to arrears that have been permanently assigned to the Commonwealth, were to better understand this problem and to develop strategies that would help manage arrears.  A key part of the demonstration project was a detailed data analysis of delinquent child support obligors in Massachusetts.  DOR also conducted a pilot program to develop eligibility criteria for equitably adjusting arrears under an arrears management regulation that was promulgated at the time of the demonstration project.

The project was based on a review of all of the obligated IV-D cases, whether current support or arrears-only, that were open on May 31, 2003; this population remained static and IV-D cases that were opened after that date were not included in the analysis.  The data analysis included a comparison of reported income of obligors as reflected in state and federal tax returns as well as quarterly wage reports submitted by employers to the Massachusetts Department of Revenue.  Although reported income data has some inherent limitations because it does not necessarily reflect the true financial circumstances of obligors who have income sources not reported to federal or state tax agencies, it is the only data easily available for study and it provided some valuable information that can be used to develop successful strategies for preventing the accrual of arrears and collecting arrears once they have accrued.

Project Findings (from Final Report)

More than half of the total arrears owed by obligors in Massachusetts are owed by just 10 percent of all obligors and the minimum amount owed by any of these obligors was more than $44,000.  In contrast, more than half of the obligors in Massachusetts owe less than 3 percent of the total arrears and the most any of these obligors owe is less than $3,900.

There were four major factors that contributed to the growth of arrears:  the introduction of the assessment of interest and penalty in January 1998; the amount of some child support orders which appeared too high in relation to the reported income of obligors, although it is important to note that these orders were established by judges who would not have been limited to looking at reported income alone; cases remaining open that appeared to meet federal case closing criteria; and some lack of non-compliance by all obligors, regardless of their income levels.

The pilot program involved selecting cases that might qualify for DOR’s equitable adjustment regulation.  A sample of 411 cases was selected and the noncustodial parents were contacted by case workers assigned to the project.  The response rate of 25 percent was higher than anticipated.  Out of the 103 obligors who responded to DOR’s pilot program, almost three-fourths of the obligors had received some form of government benefits or had been incarcerated.

The pilot program resulted in very little collection activity, although DOR did issue income withholding orders for a number of obligors.  The two most common actions taken in the pilot project cases were to enter exemptions from interest and penalty for any periods obligors met any exemption criteria and to make participants aware of DOR’s program to waive interest and penalty.  Under this program, DOR will waive all interest and penalty owed to the Commonwealth if the obligor pays all principal owed to the other parent and the Commonwealth and any interest owed the other parent.  Other actions taken in pilot cases were referral for equitable adjustment, filing a complaint for modification of a current obligation, or closing the case because it met federal case closing criteria. 

Twenty nine percent of the respondents were receiving Social Security Disability Insurance or Supplemental Security Income, 23 percent indicated that they were unemployed or underemployed, 14 percent had received General Relief or Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), and 9 percent were or had been in jail. Thus, most of these obligors had circumstances that might warrant equitable adjustments of their arrears.  Nonetheless, 29 percent of the respondents had a good or fair credit rating, suggesting that some of them had the ability to pay something toward their arrears.  Given these mixed findings, DOR has continued case-by-case reviews and has identified the following category of cases that can be referred on a fast-track for the possible equitable adjustment of arrears:  If all arrears are assigned to the Commonwealth and the arrears accrued while the obligor received means-tested benefits, the obligor currently receives these benefits and is likely to continue to receive these benefits, DOR may adjust to zero the arrears owed to the Commonwealth and close the case, on grounds that there is no past, present or future ability to pay based on the particular circumstances in the case.

Lessons Learned

This demonstration project provided DOR with valuable information regarding the arrears owed by obligors in Massachusetts and about the obligors themselves.  DOR gained better insight into how arrears grow and areas to focus on to help prevent the arrears from growing and to address those arrears that have accrued.  DOR has used the information from this grant to develop different strategies to manage arrears for different obligor populations.   

Two key points emerged from this demonstration project that will help DOR as it continues to develop its arrears management strategy:  first, a large percentage of obligors owe a very small percentage of arrears and second, a small percentage of obligors owe a large amount of arrears.  Although the total owed by obligors is slightly more than $2 billion, it is important to note that more than half of this is owed by only 10 percent of the obligors and that most obligors owe $3,800 or less.

As for the small group who owe significant arrears, many of these are older arrears-only cases and only a portion of these arrears may ever be collected.  DOR initiated its Top Ten Arrears project, where caseworkers regularly review the ten cases in their caseloads owing the highest amount of arrears to see what could be done about the arrears.  The first group of Top Ten Arrears obligors owed more than $68 million in arrears when the project began, but this amount was reduced by 14 percent in the first eight months of the project.  The reduction resulted from closing eligible cases, aggressive enforcement resulting in increased collections, and correction of DOR’s records, as many of these were older cases that had not been reviewed in years.  Continuous updating of the Top Ten lists allows a systematic way to address this small group of obligors. 

DOR’s main focus going forward will be to prevent obligors who are in the large group who owe little arrears from becoming members of that second group.  To do this, DOR is working to improve its early intervention techniques, use aggressive enforcement in cases of noncompliance and equitably adjust arrears when appropriate.  DOR also began a program that focused enforcement case owners on cases where obligors owed $5,000 or less.  Enforcement caseworkers received lists of these obligors to contact about paying their child support debts before they become unmanageable amounts.  Caseworkers were encouraged to use different methods of communication to see which methods were most effective in generating payments or bringing obligors into compliance.  It is too early to determine the results of this project but the initial reports appear encouraging.

DOR continues to develop creative ways to deal with the assessment of interest and penalties.  For example, obligors who have paid 125 percent of their orders for the last three years but still owe arrears, interest and penalty will be contacted to inform them that DOR will waive a portion of the penalty that they owe for prior years.  DOR’s goal in this project is twofold:  generate additional lump sum payments from obligors who want to take advantage of the full waiver of interest and penalty program and encourage continued compliance with current support payments. With these and other initiatives, DOR hopes to make significant progress in the on-going battle to slow the growth of arrears.

(NOTE: Includes Findings from the Final Report)

This 17-month 1115 demonstration grant responded to 2003 Priority Area 4: Projects Which Demonstrate Improved Partnerships Between the Child Support Enforcement Office and Workforce Investment and Other Department of Labor and/or TANF Work Programs. Involvement of Faith and Community-Based Service Providers is Particularly Welcomed. The Tennessee Department of Human Services proposed that the Child Support Employment and Parenting Partnership (CSEPP) of Knox County provide employment assistance for noncustodial parents (NCPs) to obtain a subsidized or unsubsidized job so they could begin paying or become current on their child support obligations.

CSEPP sought to improve not only the employment services available to these NCPs, but also to provide support services. To this end, the grantee identified and worked with a wide range of government agencies and faith-based groups to: screen and refer parents to drug, alcohol and mental health treatment; housing, transportation, domestic violence, anger management, and parenting classes. (N.B.: Federal title IV-D funds are not available for these activities nor are they available for work activities.)

Objectives of CSEPP Program Were to:

• Help parents gain and sustain employment;
• Improve parents’ compliance with child support obligations; and
• Increase parents’ positive involvement in their children’s lives

Socio-demographic Profile of the 207 Program Participants (at time of participation):

• 70.5 percent male, 29.5 percent female.
• 58 percent black, 40.6 percent white, 1.4 percent "other."
• 23.2 percent divorced, 7.7 percent married, 22.7 percent separated, 45.4 percent single.
• 59.5% were high school graduates/GED.
• 40.5% did not graduate from high school.
• 77.8% of these parents were not employed; 22.2% were employed but three fourths of the employed group had reported incomes of $1,000 or less per month. No participants reported incomes over $2,000 per month. Only two of the employed CSEPP parents received health benefits and paid leave from their employers.
• Unemployed CSEPP parents fell into three categories: 41% listed "no jobs" or were laid off; 31% had personal health problems and 29% had no transportation.
• 17.3% of parents had no barriers to employment and were referred to Tennessee Career Center only; 64.4% had some barriers and were referred to support services in addition to career services; 18.3% of the parents had multiple, significant barriers and were referred to local service agencies, but not career services.

Project Findings (From the Final Report)

• A total of 359 referrals were made and 207 men and women NCPs participated within the first 11 months of program operation. Unemployment and underemployment were the primary reasons for participant inability to pay child support. Consequently, the majority of service referrals were for employment assistance and education.
• The program also made some referrals for mental health counseling and assistance with basic needs (e.g., housing, food, and transportation). However, the limited availability of these services hampered efforts to address these needs.
• Program participants (involved in activities for the 17-month project duration) were satisfied with CSEPP program and counselors and attributed personal changes in their lives to participation in CSEPP. These changes included securing a job and improving their parenting abilities and relationships with their children.
• CSEPP participants were significantly more likely to make child support payments than those in the comparison group of Chattanooga residents.
• There were some significant differences in gender and race between the two groups. CSEPP participants were 29% female, about twice the national rate of NCP mothers.
• The data comparing child support payments before and after the program participation did not reveal significant positive findings. In fact, the participants actually had a better record of paying child support prior to participation than after. While the factors contributing to this phenomenon are not clear, it is thought that barriers/instability in individual’s lives and the small amount of time to impact them might be factors.

Lessons Learned/Replication Advice:

• Build a solid foundation of community support for the program.
• Hire dedicated coordinators who work together as a team in the best interests of their clients.
• Develop positive working relationships and effective communication methods.

(NOTE: Includes Findings from the Final Report)

Project Plan

This grant responded to 2003 Priority Area V: An Innovative Approach Testing Strategies to Increase Paternity Knowledge, Paternity Establishment, and the Utilization of Child Support Services by Teens and Young Parents.

The demonstration project tested delivery by teen parents of the Parenting and Paternity Awareness (P.A.P.A) curriculum. P.A.P.A. had previously been a formal, educational curriculum presented by trained teachers in all secondary schools in Texas. The evaluation component of the project was focused on three measures: 1) an anticipated increase in knowledge regarding the legal aspects of parenting and paternity; 2) retention of this information based on a defined time period (i.e., short-term post-test and long-term post-test approximately – one to three months after completion of the curriculum); and 3) changes in attitude about the desirability and feasibility of having a baby as a teenager.

Following the test period, the program continued appropriately without IV-D funding. A replication site was established in El Paso through foundation funds and cooperation with the Local Workforce Board (Upper Rio Grand at Work). Subsequently competitive discretionary funding was awarded through the ACF fatherhood grant program under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2006.

Resources Available

A seven-minute marketing video (named after the project) was produced under this grant to promote the program. A copy of the video (DVD format) can be obtained by contacting Gilbert Chavez at: gilbert.chavez@cs.oag.state.tx.us

Project Findings

The OAG collaborated with Austin-based non-profit YouthLaunch to adapt selected P.A.P.A. program content into a format that could be presented in the classroom by peer educators who were themselves teen parents. The "No Kidding" teen interns typically presented three 50-minute sessions on consecutive days in school settings.

Approximately 387 students (Grades 6-12) were evaluated in the "No Kidding" program in four schools. The program included three sessions (I: Telling Our Stories; II: Paternity; and III. Child Support and Money Matters) delivered over the course of three days. Surveys were administered to students as the basis for collecting data for the project evaluation. However, the presentations were given to almost 10 times more students (3,800) during the project period.

Texas posited that students might be more receptive to the parenting and paternity message if it came from someone like themselves who could speak first-hand about the challenges a teen faces raising a child.

The results of this demonstration project tend to support this hypothesis.

1. Teen parents felt they benefited (emotionally and financially) from the opportunity to serve as trained interns and remained optimistic about their own future potential. Most anticipated completing their education and developing professional careers before having more children.
2. Students in school settings increased their knowledge about paternity and parenting (from 35.2% baseline data to 60% short-term post-test) after completing the "No Kidding" program. Students also scored high on the knowledge retention scale (3 to 6 months post-test).
3. Overall, positive attitudes about the importance and responsibility of parenting were reinforced via student participation in this program. "Total Attitude Change" improved from 77.1 percent positive scale score before the No Kidding intervention to 80 percent at the short-term post-test.

Lessons Learned

The program’s use of trained teen parents in schools to deliver presentations on parenting, paternity, and child support is an effective intervention.

A longitudinal study would be required to determine the program’s potential impact on reducing teen pregnancy rates or improving the use of paternity establishment and child support among teen parents.

Not anticipated was the delay and difficulty Texas encountered in obtaining the necessary clearances from education officials to implement this project in the four schools. Part of the delay was attributed to the time it took to negotiate agreements with school officials after the grant was awarded to Texas (nearly 10 months). To smooth the start-up process at sites considering replication of the "No Kidding" program, Texas recommends that school representatives from the administrative and classroom levels should be involved in the planning from the earliest phases. School administrators had concerns that the curriculum would lead to conversations about potentially controversial topics such as sexual behavior. The program was delivered without such discussion.

This 2003 project, the Employment Partnership Project, addressed Priority Area 4: Projects which demonstrate improved partnerships between the child support enforcement office and workforce investment and other Department of Labor and TANF work programs to increase employment and child support payments among noncustodial parents (NCPs). The project was conducted by the Texas Office of the Attorney General (OAG), Child Support Division and the Tarrant County Workforce Board (Work Advantage). The project aimed to (1) identify unemployed NCPs when they first establish child support orders, as well as when they are delinquent in their child support payments; and (2) refer NCPs to a special career counselor at the workforce agency who would assist them with job search and employment. The goal of the project was to increase employment and child support payments. The referral process began in one Tarrant County child support office and was subsequently expanded to two additional offices. At all three offices, child support workers identified and referred to the project unemployed, male NCPs who came to the agency to establish orders using administrative procedures. Child support workers and attorneys also flagged and referred unemployed NCPs at order establishment and enforcement proceedings in court. The recruitment procedure was later amended to include mass mailings to delinquent NCPs.

538 NCPs were enrolled in the project. NCPs were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups based on the last digit of their Social Security numbers. 126 NCPs were assigned to the control group, which was slated to receive normal treatments at the local workforce agency. The remaining 412 NCPs were enrolled in the experimental group, which was targeted to receive enhanced services by a dedicated staff member at Work Advantage. These services included transportation assistance, work clothes or equipment, short- and long-term job training, apprenticeships, job referrals, and education, child support information, and a non-mandatory referral to FOCUS, a faith-based entity that offered a 10-week fatherhood, parent education, and mentorship program. Members of the experimental group who participated in the Employment Partnership Project were exempt from enforcement actions for non-payment of child support (such as driver’s license suspension and contempt proceedings).

Findings (From the Final Report):

• It was difficult to identify unemployed NCPs and get them to participate in an employment program. Courts and child support agencies were equally effective in generating participants, but mass mailings were ineffective. More than half (57 percent) of the NCPs assigned to the experimental group failed to meet with the career counselor for an intake and assessment. Another 17 percent came for the intake and assessment but never returned for additional services. The most common reasons cited by NCPs for not participating more fully were that the initial visit did not translate into employment and skepticism that the program would be able to help. Ultimately, only 26 percent of those assigned to the experimental group appeared more than once and received some measure of assistance and case management from the specialized worker.
• Nearly all (89.9 percent) the noncustodial parents who met with the project career counselor for an intake and assessment were interested in finding a job. A majority (53.3 percent) wanted job training, and many (42.7 percent) wanted additional education. They also wanted help with child support payments or debts (43.2 percent). There was less interest in getting help with visitation (19.1 percent) or parenting skills (7.5 percent).
• According to the project’s career counselor, most participants who saw him more than once received some form of help with employment (87 percent), most typically a job referral (68 percent). Only 15 and 9 percent received job training and/or education, respectively. There was little interest in pursuing non-mandatory referrals to FOCUS, a faith-based program offering 10-week parent education and mentorship opportunities, and only four individuals (3.4 percent) ultimately participated. Nearly a quarter (23.6 percent) of the NCPs who saw the career counselor more than once reported becoming employed during project participation. These 30 individuals comprised 7 percent of the experimental group and 15 percent of those who completed an intake and assessment.
• Employer-reported wage reports for the 12 months prior to and following assignment to the project suggest that the rate of unemployment remained high and unchanged, with approximately 40 percent of NCPs in the control and experimental groups not appearing in the wage database. Among those who showed some earnings, earnings were extremely low, ranging from $6,557 to $11,077 in the 12 months prior to project participation and $6,243 to $12,084 in the 12 months following. The group with the highest earnings was NCPs who appeared for the intake and assessment but did not continue to receive additional services, although they only earned a few thousand dollars a year more than their counterparts in the other treatment groups.
• Child support payments increased significantly for those in the experimental group but not for members of the control group. In the 12 months prior to and following assignment to the project, NCPs in the control group paid approximately 25 percent of their child support obligations. Payments for members of the experimental group during comparable time periods rose significantly, from approximately 25 percent to 33 to 42 percent. Improvement patterns were identical for all members of the experimental group: NCPs who failed to appear for services, NCPs who appeared only once for intake, and NCPs who appeared multiple times and showed several months of project activity. The most plausible explanation for these improvement patterns is that experimental cases were more visible to and more actively worked by child support workers.

Lessons Learned/Recommendations:

• Strong Marketing: Effective programs must do an excellent "sales job" on the front end to motivate NCPs to participate. Child support workers who make referrals have to be familiar with the program and confident of its effectiveness.
• Program and Staff Quality: Effective programs must offer an excellent "product" so that those who appear have some hope that they will be helped and find a job quickly. Staff has to be accessible and energetic. The outreach effort has to be backed up with tangible resources. Programs need to cultivate sympathetic employers who will employ NCPs with limited education and criminal backgrounds, and provide transportation assistance, concrete job leads, and access to job training.
• Performance Expectations: The Employment Partnership Program lacked objective performance measures and outcome requirements. The child support agency should consider structuring future contracts with workforce agencies to identify performance goals and reward achievement.
• Responsive Child Support Policies: Noncustodial parents who cooperate should experience some debt relief or payment adjustment so that they see a way of managing their child support obligations.
• Consequences for Non-Compliance: Alternatively, those who do not cooperate need to experience stiff and swift consequences from the court. This requires that the judiciary be engaged in the process of requiring parents to attend the program and to participate in prescribed employment activities. Minimally, judges must routinely issue orders to parents to compel attendance or face serious consequences. For greater impact, they should manipulate the threat of jail to improve compliance and if NCPs still fail to adhere to program requirements, they should be incarcerated.

Project Post-Grant

Texas has incorporated many of the lessons learned from this demonstration to design a more successful initiative "NCP Choices" which uses State TANF funds for employment-related services. One of the major changes under "NCP Choices" is having the cooperation of the courts to enforce consequences, such as incarceration, if NCPs fail to comply with program requirements.

See Compendium of Best Practices for 2007 (IM-08-02):http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2007/best_practices/tx_ncp_choices_project.html

This grant responded to 2001 Priority Area 3: Projects of Broad Collaborative Efforts and Outreach by Child Support Agencies with a Wide Range of Human Services Programs in the Community in Order to Promote Family Self-sufficiency (Serving our Clients). Originating from a discussion with a judge on the Juvenile and Domestic Relations (J&DR) District Court in Fredericksburg, Virginia, this project proposed to measure the effectiveness of using Case Managers (separate from Support Enforcement Specialists) in a single child support office and its affiliated J&DR District Court to assist noncustodial parents (NCPs) referred to the Program by the court in lieu of incarceration, to identify and address the problems or “barriers” adversely affecting their ability to pay the support for which they were responsible.

Two key goals were to address systematically the most common barriers to paying court-ordered child support, and to expand the collaboration and networking among existing community-based agencies that could serve these clients. Key community agencies included the Virginia Employment Commission; private, temporary employment agencies; area Community Services Boards (a publicly-funded system of services for mental health, intellectual disability, and substance abuse), local departments of social services, the local Commonwealth’s Attorney; sheriffs and the regional jail; regional adult education, the Salvation Army; mediation services; and similar resources. The desired outcome was to increase both the amount and rate of collections for court-ordered child support among these NCPs.

Common barriers found in the first phase of this project included: issues involving visitation with the noncustodial child(ren); continuing parental conflict, which a number of parents believed could be mitigated through mediation; arrearages that were so large they adversely affected NCPs’ motivation to make payments; the perception by some NCPs that they were treated by staff in an adversarial manner (e.g., as “deadbeats”) as opposed to “customers;” and vocational issues that revolved around loss of employment through layoffs, inconsistent employment, disabilities, and insufficient education, work experience and job skills to advance and improve one’s circumstances. Additional barriers, identified in the second phase of this project, included the inability to secure housing, reliable transportation, and periods of incarceration for other than non-payment of child support, which adversely affected job retention, earnings, and the NCP’s ability to pay support.

In the second phase of this project, the Case Managers concluded early on that the inability to earn sufficient income (a “livable wage”) was the major barrier to an NCP’s ability to make consistent payments, so they focused their efforts on addressing NCPs’ vocational barriers. Their assistance included making referrals to the State Employment Commission or to temporary employment agencies, finding job training opportunities, and continually encouraging unemployed NCPs to seek steady employment. The Case Managers encouraged participants to pay some amount weekly, to get into the habit of making regular payments, and sent monthly statements to keep them apprised of the status of their child support accounts.

Project Findings (from the Evaluation and Final Report)

The Program operated for more than five years, from March 1, 2000 to June 1, 2005, and, during this period, 294 NCPs representing 490 cases (and 23 custodial parents) were enrolled. At the Program’s conclusion, 194 NCPs (representing 349 cases) and 20 custodial parents were still enrolled. One hundred NCPs left the Program, 46 because they were non-compliant with Program requirements. Twenty-seven NCPs complied with Program requirements, and the court released them. Sixty percent of the Program participants had only one case, 22 percent had two cases, and 18 percent had three or more cases active.

Using a random sample of 30 of the 294 NCPs, 26 of the 30 were judged able to pay their support - although only half of the 26 were willing to make the payment. The remaining four NCPs were unable to pay their support, three of whom were also unwilling to make payment.

Using a pre-test/post-test design, the evaluator identified that NCPs who entered the Program between March 1, 2000 and June 30, 2004 made payments that were 106 percent greater in the 6 months after entering the Program, compared to the 6-month period prior to entering it. The increase in collections for these NCPs was $211,869. The percentage increase in payments after enrollment in the Program, compared to the 6-month period prior to enrollment, grew in every year except 2001, when the first Case Manager left the position at the end of March and continuity in case management was adversely affected. It took approximately four months to hire a replacement Case Manager, who was new to both social services and child support enforcement, necessitating on-the-job and other training to become familiar with the job responsibilities. After 18 months in the Program, NCPs were continuing to make payments between 16 and 70 percent higher than they made prior to enrollment.

Using a sample of 121 participants from May 2004 to March 2005, a period when the Program was managed by the same two Case Managers and supported by a Database Administrator, the grantee learned the following:

• 30 percent of the 121 NCPs who owed arrears only or arrears plus current support made sufficient payments so their combined arrears declined by 20 percent;
• 67 percent of these 121 participants saw their arrears increase an average of 13 percent; and
• Overall, the combined arrears of all 121 NCPs increased barely over 5 percent.
• By comparison with NCPs in another Virginia study where the NCPs did not receive the services of a Case Manager, the changes in mean arrears balances of the 121 participants were 44 percent better than in the comparison study.

If the 260 NCPs who participated in Barriers between March 1, 2000 and June 30, 2004 had been incarcerated for six months instead of being referred to the Program, their children would not have received $412,000 in support payments. Add to this incarceration costs to the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the total would have exceeded $2.3 million.

Finally, based upon data gathered in the Program and the estimates of manageable caseloads by the final two Case Managers, who served together for 18 months, had the Program continued:

• For each $1.00 of program cost, the net annual benefit would equal $3.37 in additional support payments, and
• This net annual benefit would increase to $5.16 in additional payments per $1.00 of program cost if the Case Managers had become full-time employees, which would allow them to handle twice the existing caseload of Barriers participants.

Lessons Learned

• Turnover in Case Managers - During its 5 and a quarter years of operation, the Barriers Program employed seven Case Managers, whose turnover affected the consistency and tenor of relationships between participants and the Case Managers. The longest serving Case Managers were the first one (16 months) and the last two (18 months, simultaneously). Four served for fewer than 12 months each. The effect was a lack of stable management, combined with an inability to establish and maintain a professional relationship with the NCPs referred to the Program. While the causes for turnover were the temporary, grant-funded nature of the position and lack of employee benefits in a tight labor market, the turnover necessitated extra time and effort to recruit, train, and allow for on-the-job training for such a unique position. Lesson Learned: It is critical to have consistency in Case Managers to establish the rapport and develop the trust necessary to maintain a productive relationship with the NCPs the courts refer to this kind of program.
• Skills of the Case Managers - It is important to hire Case Managers who have the requisite interpersonal and technical skills to assist NCPs who are struggling to make their child support payments.
• Availability of Community-Based Agencies that can address of issues - Without having the community-based institutions with which to collaborate and to refer an NCP for assistance or support (e.g., transportation, housing, medical, employment), it is difficult to address the array of existing “barriers.”

For a copy of The Barriers Project: Evaluation and Final Report, please see: http://www.dss.virginia.gov/geninfo/reports/children/child_support.cgi

This grant responded to 2002 Priority Area 1: Projects which ensure that technology pays off for families by increasing the rate of cases with collections through better use of automation and through improved public-private collaboration projects in interstate cases. The demonstration project proposed to eliminate the backlog of "dead file" cases, so both paternity and child support obligations could be established and the case worked to secure support payments. "Dead file" cases are those in which a support obligation cannot be established because the noncustodial parent (NCP) cannot be located. At the time of the demonstration, child support agencies in the U.S. were establishing support orders in 74 percent of cases. Conversely, 26 percent of prospective cases were, by definition, "dead file" cases – not able to be worked because the NCP could not be located.

The three principal Chesapeake agencies involved in this project were the Chesapeake Child Support Office, the Chesapeake Sheriff’s Office, and the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations (J&DR) District Court, the court in Virginia through which judicial (as opposed to administrative) child support cases are handled. Each agency resides in a separate branch of government and has a different role in locating NCPs and establishing their obligations.

The project had four main goals: (1) to reduce the backlog of "dead file" cases in both the Chesapeake Child Support Office and the J&DR District Court; (2) to increase the number and percentage of cases where Service of Process (SOP) on prospective NCPs was personal, in that documents were personally delivered to the NCP by an Investigator in the Child Support Enforcement Unit in the sheriff’s office; (3) to increase the amount of support collected in cases where personal SOP was used rather than posted SOP of documents on the door at the NCPs last address of record; and (4) to improve the SOP procedures agreed upon and used by and among the three agencies noted above.

There were two desired outcomes: (1) to reduce the number of outstanding "dead file" cases by using more effective automated technologies to locate NCPs and completing personal SOP of documents; and (2) to identify and implement operational efficiencies among the three agencies to eliminate the backlog, and prevent the occurrence, of "dead file" cases so deserving children would receive their support payments.

"Dead file" cases included the following:

• Hundreds of cases in Locate status because the NCP’s current address could not be found using the standard automated systems, i.e., the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, the Virginia Employment Commission, and the Virginia Department of Taxation;
• Cases with legal documents for NCPs with "apparent" current addresses sent to the Chesapeake Sheriff’s Office for posted SOP, including the Initial Petition for Child Support, but the addresses were found to be outdated, and the sheriff’s office lacked sufficient staff to locate, pursue, and serve;
• Cases with legal documents that were "posted" at the last known address of the NCP, without sheriff’s office follow-up or additional verification to find the current address, resulting in two of the three judges in the J&DR District Court being unwilling to issue a Motion for Show Cause Summons or Capias [i.e., a warrant for arrest for non-support] without evidence that the NCP had, in fact, received the posted legal document; and
• Docketed cases in the J&DR District Court, that were backlogged for periods ranging from 8 to 24 months depending on the document, because of unclear procedural practices among the three agencies on how to resolve situations involving NCPs with outdated addresses who could not be located. Virginia law dates the beginning of support payments using the date the legal document was filed with the court. NCPs who had not been personally contacted because they couldn’t be located were unaware that they should already be making support payments, so arrearages were accruing to their NCP accounts.

As a result of the "dead file" cases, NCPs’ arrearages were increasing. For example, from 2000 to 2001, the arrearages of NCPs with incorrect addresses in the Chesapeake District Child Support Office increased 8.5 percent, compared to an average 7.9 percent increase in the arrearages of all Virginia NCPs. For these Chesapeake NCPs, this 0.6 percent difference amounted to an additional $381,600 in continually accruing arrearages.

The three principal agencies took a number of actions to meet the stated goals and desired outcomes in the demonstration.

• First, to reduce the "dead files" backlog in the child support office and the court, the project established a separate Child Support Enforcement Unit (CSEU) in the sheriff’s office. This unit was comprised of a sergeant, who directed the operation of the unit, and two Investigators who spent most of their time conducting personal SOP of documents. The addresses of the "dead file" NCPs were found using advanced automated technologies, similar to those already used by debt collection and law enforcement agencies. Also, the Investigators, through their continual presence in the various communities, developed a network among residents to locate the NCPs’ addresses or places of employment. The CSEU also employed a part-time Court Liaison (someone who had worked in and understood the court system), to interface with court staff and troubleshoot "dead file" paperwork among the child support district office, the CSEU and the court. The tasks involved in fulfilling these roles were especially appreciated by staff in all three agencies.
• Second, increase the number and percentage of cases where personal SOP was used.
• Third, as more of the "dead file" NCPs were found and served papers to appear in court, both the dollar amount of payments and their regularity increased.
• Fourth, the newly established CSEU in the sheriff’s office was the catalyst that clarified and moved all three agencies forward in working existing "dead file" cases where, for example, the case was stalled in the court or the child support district office. Without the expert knowledge, staff, resources, and agency linkages that the CSEU represented and could expend on a "dead file" case, these cases would most likely have remained in the "dead file" category, whether at the court or in the child support office.

Project Findings (from the Evaluation and Final Report)

The creation of the CSEU, the procedural collaboration established among the three principal agencies, and the personal SOP of child support documents resulted in:

• Eliminating a backlog of 1,600 "dead file" cases within the first 6 weeks of operation;
• Collecting approximately $312,975 in payments from NCPs in Work Release and Home Electronic Monitoring programs. This total includes an estimated $50,000 in payments made by NCPs with outstanding warrants seeking to avoid incarceration.
• Achieving a success rate of 95% in completing personal SOP of 8,008 documents. This compares favorably with a 26% success rate for the Civil Process Unit in the sheriff’s office that traditionally completed SOP of child support documents.
• Docketing 7,777 cases;
• Arresting 903 NCPs, for a success rate of 73% in serving capiases or warrants for non-support;
• Arresting 107 NCPs owing child support in Chesapeake but located elsewhere in Virginia, by using the automated State Police Virginia Criminal Information Network to locate them;
• Arresting 4 NCPs owing child support in Chesapeake but residing outside Virginia, by using the automated FBI National Crime Information Center;
• Conducting a series of highly publicized "roundups" of non-paying NCPs;
• Developing a coordinated network of contacts who aided completion of personal SOP and subsequent arrests; and
• Developing and implementing a series of interagency procedural and operational changes in the sheriff’s office, the child support district office, and the J&DR District Court that facilitated working these "dead files" cases collaboratively.

In a pre-test/post-test study of SOP for three child support documents, the CSEU: (1) performed personal SOP for 91% to 100% of the documents, depending on the document; an increase ranging from 145 to 852% of past performance; (2) decreased the failure to locate NCPs by between 57 and 91%; and (3) took from 12 to 48 more days to serve two of these documents and reduced by 42 days the time required to serve the third.

In a separate experimental study, NCPs who received personal SOP of Administrative Support Orders from Investigators in the CSEU made 34% higher monthly payments and paid 11% more of their monthly obligation amounts, in spite of having 21% higher monthly obligations, compared to NCPs in the control group who received posted SOP from Deputy Sheriffs in the Civil Process Unit of the Sheriff’s Office.

In summary, this demonstration saw increases in the number of docketed cases, the number of NCPs who received personal SOP, the number of NCPs and custodial parents who appeared in court, and the amount and number of child support payments made by NCPs in previously categorized "dead file" cases. The demonstration also resulted in reductions in continuances in court cases, in cases delayed because of "no shows," and in the need for issuing more capiases or warrants for non-support.

Lessons Learned

• Designing effective, collaborative procedures among child support offices, law enforcement agencies, and the courts can have a significant impact on reducing "dead file" cases while simultaneously increasing the amount and frequency of child support payments by these formerly "dead file" clients.
• Using the most advanced automated systems available for locating NCPs, such as those used by debt collections agencies and law enforcement agencies, can make a major contribution in locating, establishing obligations and receiving support from NCPs in "dead file" cases.
• Personal SOP of child support documents is the linchpin in establishing orders and obtaining regular payments from NCPs once they have been located.

For a copy of Reducing Judicial and Administrative "Dead File" Cases Through Better Use of Technology and Interagency Collaboration, please see: http://www.dss.virginia.gov/geninfo/reports/children/child_support.cgi

This grant responded to 2003 Priority Area 5: Projects that further the national goals of the Child Support Program. The two-year demonstration collaborated with the Office of the Executive Secretary (OES) of the Supreme Court of Virginia (and, through it, the state Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Courts) and the National Center for State Courts, to strengthen the case management of child support cases in state Juvenile and Domestic Relations (J&DR) District Courts. To accomplish this meant that improvements in managing all types of cases under the jurisdiction of the court had to be addressed and changed systemically so that improvements would not favor one type of case over another. Fundamentally, improvements had to change the basic approach these courts took to managing their caseloads. The project had three goals and five objectives.

The project goals were:

• To improve case and calendar management of child support cases;
• To improve the level of support and information available to pro se (i.e., self-represented) litigants; and
• To increase the accuracy and timeliness of providing paternity and support orders to partner agencies, including the Department of Health, Division of Vital Records and Health Statistics (more commonly, the Division of Vital Records).

Project staff and the Advisory Committee members set five objectives by which success of the eight pilot courts' efforts could be evaluated:

• To reduce the time from case filing to first hearing;
• To reduce the time that litigants wait in court for their case to be heard;
• To reduce the time required to complete a child support hearing;
• To reduce the proportion of incomplete paternity orders; and
• To increase the satisfaction of litigants in child support cases.

Organization: Advisory Committee, Three Subcommittees, Best Practices, and Pilot Courts Advisory Committee and Three Working Subcommittees

A 12-member Advisory Committee consisted of four judges (Warren, Campbell, Fairfax, and Arlington J&DR District Courts), two court clerks (Harrisonburg and Norfolk), three practicing attorneys (family law, child support), and four agency representatives (Office of the Attorney General, Department of Health Division of Vital Records, Department of Juvenile Justice, and the Virginia Poverty Law Center). The representative from the Attorney General’s Office is a practicing attorney also. The Advisory Committee was divided into three working subcommittees: (1) Assisting Pro Se Litigants; (2) Developing "Best Practices;" and (3) Improving Interagency Operations and Communication. Each subcommittee had at least one staff member representing the National Center for State Courts; the Office of Executive Secretary; the Supreme Court of Virginia; or the Division of Child Support Enforcement. The objective for the subcommittees was to develop "best practices" for their areas (see "Best Practices" section below).

Pilot Courts: Implementation of "Best Practices" and Design of Demonstration

The eight pilot J&DR District Courts selected to participate in the demonstration included Arlington, Campbell, Chesapeake, Chesterfield, Hampton, Montgomery, Frederick/Winchester, and Wise. They represent all geographic regions of the state as well as urban, suburban, and rural jurisdictions.

The project allowed each of eight pilot courts to pick which "best practices" they wished to implement; provided 12 months to implement the practices they selected; evaluated the impact of each implemented practice in the pilot courts on the efficiency of child support litigation for all participants, after implementation; and began disseminating the "best practices" tested in the pilot courts to other J&DR District Courts interested these "best practices."

Best Practices

The 25 "best practices" developed by the three subcommittees of the Advisory Committee and presented at the Pilot Courts Training Seminar in October 2004 were made available for 12-month testing, during calendar 2005, by the eight pilot courts. The practices were categorized as follows:

Docketing Concepts

1. Dedicated DCSE Docket – Placing all DCSE cases on specialized dockets to make more efficient use of DCSE staff attending child support hearings.
2. Hour-Certain/Optimum Sized Dockets – Scheduling cases for staggered times rather than setting them all for the start of the morning or afternoon docket, to reduce litigant and lawyer waiting time. Consolidating dockets so that a judge would have from 50-to-60 cases per day.
3. Docket the Easiest and Quickest Cases First
4. Court Differentiation Between Child Support Case Types – Note DCSE and non-DCSE and IV-D and non-IV-D cases in court records, and use these differentiations in calendaring cases.
5. Meaningful Events Only in the Courtroom – Lawyers and litigants should have the expectation that cases called in court will proceed to resolution on that date and be prepared, consequently, to move the case forward.

Pre-Court Concepts

6. Running Child Support Guidelines – Guideline calculations should be conducted prior to a court appearance. If the parties dispute the figures on which the guidelines are computed, multiple calculations should be computed in advance of court.
7. Complete Genetic Testing and Paternity Order in Advance – Do not use court time to fill in forms requesting genetic testing or paternity orders. Forms should be completed in advance and ready for court approval at the hearing.
8. Capacity of DCSE to Excuse Parties – When DCSE can resolve a matter prior to a hearing, it should prepare a consent order for the judge’s approval and then excuse the party from appearing before the judge.
9. Early Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) Appointments in Disestablishments – Appoint a GAL at the time genetic testing is ordered, to reduce the time required to resolve the case.

Courtroom Management Concepts

10. Leave with an Order – Whether or not the amount of child support has been changed. If the matter is continued, the order should identify the unresolved issues.
11. Keep Cases with the Same Team – Of DCSE and court staff.
12. Minimize Transition and Down Time – By checking parties in when they arrive in court, having all parties in the courtroom, or calling them into court through a public address system.
13. Verify Addresses at Each Hearing – To maintain the currency and accuracy of court records and ensure that future notices will be received by the parties.
14. Use Recognizance Forms – Court orders that require a parent’s appearance at the next scheduled court hearing.
15. Automation Support – Have a computer, printer, and Internet connection in each child support hearing courtroom for access by DCSE staff to the DCSE APECS database. (Automated Program to Enforce Child Support)
16. Capacity of DCSE to Interview Parents before Court

Innovations

17. Genetic Testing at Court – Arrange for taking DNA samples at the courthouse to eliminate additional appointments for litigants.
18. Terminate Court-Issued Income-Withholding Orders – By creating a new form for use by litigants seeking termination of an income-withholding order.
19. Revamp and Use Form DC-603 – To inform litigants, in advance, what they need to bring to court for a child support hearing.
20. Tackle the Employment Dilemma – By replicating successful programs initiated in Spotsylvania/Fredericksburg (e.g., the Barriers Project), to provide resources and motivation for NCPs to obtain employment.
21. Make Information Available to Self-Represented Litigants in Advance – Through dissemination of the handbook developed by the project.
22. Advisement Letter/Hearing – In which litigants are informed by mail (rather than during a court hearing) of their right to counsel and how to obtain verification of their right to appointed counsel at the clerk’s office.
23. Administrative Review Hearings – In which the judge or DCSE staff checks the status of an NCP by telephone or during an ex parte process that does not require court hearing time.
24. The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Option – Use court mediation coordinators to arrange for mediation of all appropriate cases, including DCSE, non- DCSE, and non-IV-D cases (i.e., those not handled through DCSE).
25. Create Scripts and Formats – Standardize courtroom proceedings prepared in the project.

Project Findings[1] (from Final Report and Evaluation)

Since the eight pilot courts were allowed to implement any of the "best practices" they selected during the pilot year (calendar 2005), findings are best presented by courts that had the most success with a given practice, with discussion of the experience in other courts implementing that same practice serving as context.

• Time from Case Filing to First Hearing – The Hampton J&DR District Court was the fastest of the eight pilot courts from case filing to disposition. Its average time during the last nine months of 2005 was 83 days, a week short of three months. By contrast, the Chesapeake J&DR District Court was the slowest, with an average time to disposition for the last nine months of 2005 of 292 days, almost ten months. The only court to show a consistent reduction in time from case filing to first hearing in this nine-month period was Campbell County.
• Reduction in Litigant Waiting Time – Campbell County maintained an exemplary waiting time record. Even though its average and median times increased during the baseline and pilot periods, it still called half its cases within five minutes of their scheduled starting times. Seven of the eight pilot courts rejected the best practice of hour-certain scheduling, preferring to maintain the existing practice of setting times for all cases for either 8:30/9:00 a.m. or 1:30/2:00 p.m. This type of scheduling guarantees longer waiting times for litigants.
• Reduction in Case Hearing Time – With one exception, the pilot courts appear to have moved toward a common range of hearing times during the project. The court with the longest initial average hearing time in the baseline period reduced its average and median times to fall within the range of the other courts during the pilot period. Wise County, the court with the shortest average and median hearing times in the baseline and pilot periods, was the one exception yet still reduced both hearing times dramatically (to 1.8 and 1 minutes, respectively).
• Reduction in Proportion of Incomplete Paternity Orders – Among the five pilot courts submitting paternity orders for baseline and pilot periods, only two – Campbell and Hampton – showed decreases in percentage of incomplete orders. Nevertheless, for these five pilot courts as a whole, the percentage of incomplete orders decreased from 43 percent to 23 percent during the pilot period, almost 50 percent.
• Litigant Satisfaction – The average scores that show the largest increases were for increased litigant comprehension of the court process, followed by increased feelings of being treated with respect, and increased understanding of the order entered by the court. These results were consistent with the project goal to educate self-represented litigants about the child support process and to improve the responsiveness of court staff to self-represented litigants. In contrast, the largest decrease in litigant satisfaction was for having an opportunity to present one’s case, followed by feeling that one was treated fairly in court. Only the Chesapeake court showed increased litigant satisfaction across all five issues.

Lessons Learned

• In retrospect, the project would have gained more useful information about individual "best practices" implemented by the eight pilot courts if it had used a quasi-experimental, pre-test, post-test design for the "best practices" the pilot courts selected.
• Not enough time was allowed to implement the "best practices" and enable them to become routine practice in the pilot courts before evaluating their impact and results.
• The menu of "best practices" developed in the project can serve as a foundation for widespread improvements in the processing of child support cases in J&DR District Courts throughout the Commonwealth, for courts interested in adopting/adapting the "best practices" implemented during the pilot courts' phase of the demonstration.
• The Judges Bench Book (in Appendix F) should prove a valuable resource for any judge or court handling child support cases.

For a copy of Strengthening Case Management of Child Support Cases in Virginia Juvenile & Domestic Relations Districts Courts: Collaborating http://www.dss.virginia.gov/files/about/reports/children/child_support/2006/strengtheningcasemanagementinjdrcourts_10-06.pdf to Benefit Child Support and Self-Represented Clients, please see: http://www.dss.virginia.gov/geninfo/reports/children/child_support.cgi.

NOTE: [1] All findings are based on a "before and after" research design. Court outputs after the pilot projects began are compared to the same outputs from the previous calendar year. It is possible that changes in court outputs during the pilot projects are attributable to causes other than the implementation of a given "best practice."