Child Support Report - October 1995

The conference, sponsored by OCSE in cooperation with the ABA's Child Support Project, gave participants an opportunity to discuss issues that are expected to have an impact on all of us in child support enforcement under new legislation. Plenary sessions covered changing American families, partnerships within government, and reinventing government, while 30 down-to-business roundtables spotlighted pivotal operational issues. These included: the impact of block grants on child support, reporting of new hires, performance measures and paternity establishment, customer service, regulatory reform and interstate support, and many others.

In opening remarks, OCSE Deputy Director David Gray Ross reminded participants of the Child Support Strategic Plan promise to continually seek input to (OCSE's) goals and objectives from our partners, customers, and stakeholders. Continuing, he said the challenge of making welfare reform work for the child support enforcement community nationwide calls for all of us, working with and for one another, to do our best and then, when we have done that, do more.

In a wide-ranging opening panel presentation moderated by University of Maryland Professor of Law Bill ReynoldsACF Assistant Secretary Mary Jo Bane, Ford Foundation Program Officer Ron Mincy, and Judge Richard Fitzgerald of Jefferson District Court, Louisville, Kentucky considered the role of government in responding to the many needs of today's families. Later, Beverly Godwin of Vice President Gore's National Performance Review moderated a discussion of federal officials on building partnerships with states. A closing plenary session on reinventing government highlighted the Oregon Benchmarks award winning program and Colorado's strategic planning efforts. Both apply measurable indicators to assess progress toward broad strategic goals. Margaret Haynes, director of the ABA's Child Support Project and the conference coordinator, summed up: The child support legislation under discussion proposes such comprehensive changes that attention to details is crucial if we are to be successful. This retreat was designed around hands-on discussion so that we can be ready to implement the legislation. For 2 1/2 days attendees identified implementation issues and strove to reach consensus. The energy level was tremendous."

Proceedings of the conference will be available after November 1. For a copy, contact OCSE's Tom Killmurray at (202) 401-4677. ***

My job was to receive and initiate all cases under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Support (RES) Act. I handled about 800 new responding cases a year, plus the usual repeated contempt litigation, all of which yielded about $10,000 a week in collections.

Truly, those were the dark ages compared with today. Where there is now open, publicized, and continuing support from the IRS, I routinely had doors shut in my face. My investigators were persona non grata. Where the Social Security branch offices are now open, accessible, and cooperative, I was viewed as an interloper. Where computers now make all things possible, we did the best we could with typewriters and carbon paper and were held to a strict accountability for each ribbon issued from the main office.

Use of the telephone was restricted. Calls were monitored and audited. Our office was tucked away in a dark and airless (or so it seemed) room in the basement of the courthouse at 4th and E street NW. If my caseload grew too fast, I could expect the presiding judge of the Domestic Relations Branch of Municipal Court to issue a contempt warning for cluttering his calendar.

Moreover, while the original RES Act, pioneered by New York in 1945, became the basis for all of the substantially similar state laws which followed, this (then) new, two-state concept for enforcing child support seemed to be snakebit from the beginning. The landscape was strewn with obstacles to its smooth operationnot the least of which were lawyers, judges, and law professors. These worthies were aided and abetted by employers, subsequent families, a cynical media, and various government agenciesincluding the so-called participating statesthat could have been helpful but chose not to be.

But that was then. And now, as I realized at the OCSE luncheon, listening to speakers and talking with those at my table, is a very different animal. Advanced technologies, supportive agencies, and a vibrant staff have combined to bring about the well-earned success the program now enjoys. Take it from one who's been there. The good old days are right now.

Earl Smith

New York State legislation now makes it possible for the IV-D agency to directly seize the liquid assets of parents who are delinquent in paying child support by eight weeks or more. New York City's Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) has successfully implemented an administrative process utilizing this legislation and the State's Child Support Management System (CSMS).

Since the project, called Property Execution, or PEX, was begun in 1994, the child support office has seized over $1 million for both public assistance and nonpublic assistance clients. Deputy Commissioner Michael Infranco, who directs the city's child support program, attributes the success of the new process to its high degree of automation and to the fact that it does not require court action. Legislation grants the agency the authority to serve a property execution upon any financial institution where a delinquent parent has an account. The financial institution is legally bound to honor the execution and to forward the funds to child support.

Here's how it works. Every day CSMS identifies nonpaying cases eligible for PEX by scanning the bank account records and delinquency data of all NYC child support cases. The main source of bank account data is the IRS-supplied form 1099, information from which is maintained on CSMS. Once a case has been identified for a potential execution, a quick review is completed. If a property execution is indicated, a computer generated notice is sent to the financial institution to freeze the assets. A letter to the parent is sent within a few days, giving 30 days to submit proof in writing that he or she does not owe the arrears. If the parent does not respond, or simply denies the claim, the bank is required to turn the funds over to child support.

The PEX process can run fully automated from start to finish. However, the agency has chosen to involve caseworkers at several points in order to accelerate issuance of the PEX and to ensure that the most timely and accurate information available is included in each case. As a result of the success of the project, New York City encourages clients who are aware of bank account information to contact the child support office. Although we are pleased with the results so far, we could be more successful, says Frank Olton, director of the child support office fiscal services, if we had more current IRS data. Right now we're working with information from 1993 tax returns.

The PEX project, Deputy Commissioner Infranco says, is a breakthrough in our efforts to collect on difficult cases where there is no employment information on file or where the parent is self-employed. In these situations, PEX allows us to provide families with needed, though often unexpected, sums of money. For more information about New York City's PEX program, call Frank Olton at (212) 274-6923.

• Establishes the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), which eliminates multiple orders and jurisdictional disputes, allows direct income withholding by the controlling state, mandates registration for enforcement purposes, and authorizes administrative enforcement without the need for registration of an order;
• Allows for suspension, revocation, or restriction of a license to operate a motor vehicle; authorizes the suspension, revocation, renewal and issuance of existing occupational, professional and business licenses, and/or prevents the issuance of new ones; allows for the revocation of hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses;
• Authorizes restriction on the registration of motor vehiclesan annual process which affects the majority of parents owing child support, encourages the settlement of debts before large sums accrue, and assures continued support to children;
• Ensures that the Child Support Enforcement Program has access to utility company and financial institution information by requiring any utility company or financial institution doing business or incorporated in North Carolina to provide information to a child support agency in order to locate an absent parent or to establish, collect, or enforce a child support obligation;
• Provides that insurance settlements greater than $3,000 constitute an asset to the obligor and may be used to satisfy a child support debt; and
• Authorizes the use of print and electronic media in locating absent parentse.g., Ten Most Wanted posters.

The forms are now ready to be pilot tested. The pilots, which will last from 4-6 months, will be divided into three phases: planning, testing, and evaluation. Periodic conference calls will be conducted to identify problem areas. After evaluation of the pilot projects, the UIFSA-friendly forms will be available to all jurisdictions.

So far, 15 jurisdictions have expressed interest in piloting the new forms. Included are counties as well as statesstatewide usage is not a requirement.

It's not too late to participate. To find out more about piloting the forms, call Andrew Williams at (202) 401-1467 or Karen Bartlett at (202) 401-4630.

• To maximize paternity acknowledgment and, when legal process is required, to speed-up paternity and support establishment;
• To foster family and parental responsibility;
• To help young families to become healthy and supportive of their children; and
• To help prevent unwanted pregnancies.

• Explains the paternity acknowledgment process, and parental rights and responsibilities;
• Collects the information needed to obtain a paternity judgment and support order, if court action becomes necessary;
• Helps parents complete paternity acknowledgment forms and file them with the state; and
• Screens families for other health and related service needs, and, when appropriate, refers family members to other human service agencies.

In the first two months after the position was established, half the families visited by the outreach worker completed the paternity acknowledgment process. Also, the outreach worker referred about half the families she visited to other agencies for needed services.

There are other benefits, as well. The outreach worker has cultivated good working relationships with other agencies, including the Women, Infants and Children Supplemental Food Program, county public health nurses, local family planning clinics, and hospitals. Coordination of services has improved and referrals from the IV-D agency to other agencies, and vice versa, have increased.

For more information call Lucille Repka, Director, Kenosha County Child Support Agency, at (414) 697-2750.

This latter provision, according to Wharry, will greatly increase efficiency. The minute the man signs the affidavit and the woman signs a sworn statement to the effect that he is the father, he is the father, Wharry explains. This will save us months per case trying to establish paternity.

Insofar as license revocation is concerned, as a practical matter, states have found they rarely need to go all the way to revocation. The threat alone is normally enough to persuade obligors to come forward with millions of dollars in payments. (See April CSR).

The OCSE Model Office projects are scheduled to be refunded for the second year of operation early in this fiscal year. Located in Maine and Colorado, the model offices demonstrate the development and operation of offices characterized by more efficient management processes. (See January '95 CSR for more on model offices.)

The purpose of these projects is to obtain information on improvements in child support enforcement services and program cost effectiveness by testing innovations. Methods being tested include interventions relating to maximizing automation, reallocating staff resources, enhancing location processes, and improving interviewing techniques. Innovative uses of long-arm jurisdiction and ways of establishing linkages and outreach into the community are also to be tested.

Barbara Cleveland, the Federal Project Officer, said, the main goal of these projects is to bring the offices to cutting-edge management. These two states are willing to innovate and try something new. Their automated systems have fast computers and software capable of a variety of interfaces with other systems.

Historically, these two state programs operate in a contrasting manner. Maine has favored a centralized operation. They now plan to decentralize so the county offices will have more access to information. In Colorado a strong county system has predominated. They now want to centralize some aspects of their program at the main office.

The Maine model, which is being supported by the Department of Human Services Training Institute, a creation of the Department of Human Services and the University of Southern Maine, accomplished many of its first year objectives, including: implementing the complete project management structure; identifying and analyzing current job descriptions at the district and central offices; and establishing workgroups for custodial parent education and intake. The office also created user groups to give feedback on current problems, system use, and information flow.

Second year plans include: continuation of the project management structure, maximum automation through the introduction of personal computers, a field test of new locate strategies, and the introduction of intake procedures to improve IV-A/IV-D interface and communication. Also being planned: a team approach to case management.

The Colorado model opened its first year by forming a Model Office Project (MOP) committee to oversee operations and hiring a director and contractors for the organizational analysis and evaluation components of the project. The contractors conducted a comprehensive organizational analysis of the systems in the three participating counties and the state office. The analysis led to a reorganization of the state office and to some organizational changes of the Denver county operations.

The MOP committee also assessed and decided upon interventions for the second year based on the contractor's report. These include automated mass processing, done without caseworker involvement; modifications to the automated system to provide better management of locate resources; and improved interviewing through employment of a variety of joint interview techniques at different sites.

For more information on the Maine project, contact Larry Ullian at (207)626-5239. For more information on the Colorado project, contact Kathy Rodriguez at (303) 727-2628.

OCSE Deputy Director David Gray Ross has again invited states to apply to be GPRA demonstrations. I would suggest," he wrote the IV-D Directors, that projects focus on specific issues that figure in the child support provisions of approaching welfare reforms. I would particularly encourage demonstrations that deal with voluntary paternity establishment, problems in large cities, noncooperation, central state registries, and state CSE self-evaluation projects.

Current state demonstrations focus on:

• Improving paternity establishment (District of Columbia, Missouri, New Jersey);
• Securing medical support (Kansas, Sacramento County, California);
• Helping noncustodial parents find work (Arkansas, Chicago);
• Streamlining management and program restructuring (Massachusetts, Michigan, Wyoming);
• Improving overall program performance (Idaho, North Carolina, Ohio).

Highlights of the three regional GPRA projects include:

• Region I (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont): a compact among the six states to improve interstate enforcement;
• Region II (New Jersey, New York Puerto Rico): improvements in identification of assets, collection of arrears, criminal nonsupport, and voluntary paternity acknowledgment, education and outreach. The aim of the demonstration is to transfer successful practices among the jurisdictions.
• Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska): projects covering improvements in medical support enforcement, community-based paternity establishment, and improved effectiveness of review and adjustment of ordersin this, Iowa is employing JOBS participants.

The GPRA pilot project has invigorated the state/federal CSE partnership, according to Anne F. Donovan, OCSE's GPRA director. We in the federal government are following the states' lead, she notes. In strategic planning several states have been doing this for yearssetting program goals and measuring resultsand now we have a national strategic plan for the whole program.

State and federal CSE leaders and workers can be particularly pleased with increases in paternities and collections. For fiscal year 1995, OCSE identified two measures of successful program results: the number of paternities established and total child support dollars collected. On the basis of available FY 95 data:

• the number of paternities established may reach 736,000, exceeding our projected 718,000.
• collections will reach $11 billion, and may exceed the $11.6 billion target.