Enhancing Interagency Collaboration and Client Cooperation...Enhancing Interagency Collaboration and...

August 2003

Jessica Pearson, Ph.D.Lanae Davis, M.A.Center for Policy Research1570 Emerson StreetDenver, CO 80218303 / 837-1555FAX: 303 / [email protected]

Submitted to:Massachusetts Department of RevenueDivision of Child Support Enforcement51 Sleeper StreetP.O. Box 9492Boston, MA 02205

Prepared under a grant from the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement(90FD0030) to the Massachusetts Department of Revenue.

Enhancing InteragencyCollaboration

and Client Cooperation

##

Center for Policy Research

Enhancing Interagency Collaboration and Client Cooperation

Table of Contents

Page #Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Research Design and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Baseline Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Placement of Child Support Liaisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Assessment of Liaison Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Comparison of Pre-and Post-Liaison Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Assessment of Reactions to Child Support Liaisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Data Analysis and Prior Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Results: Case Processing Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Characteristics of Cases in the Pre- and Post-Liaison Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Quality of Information Provided by Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Transfer of Noncustodial Parent Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Actions Taken by the Child Support Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Order and Payment Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Barriers to Obtaining Child Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Results: Reactions to Liaisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Reactions of DTA Workers: Overall Reactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Reactions of DTA Workers: How the Liaison Was Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Reactions of DTA Workers: Changes in DTA Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Reactions of DTA Workers: Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Reactions of DOR Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Summary and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Summary of Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Appendix

DOR/DTA Child Support Specialists StudyLog of Activities for DOR LiaisonsCase Actions by DOR Liaisons: Custodial ParentsEvaluation of the Child Support Liaison

##


Enhancing Interagency Collaboration and Client Cooperation Page i

gency Collaboration and Client Cooperation Pagei

Executive Summary

In order to improve the chance that families receive child support benefits, welfare reform lawsrequire recipients of public assistance to cooperate with child support enforcement agencies(IV-D agencies) in establishing paternity and pursuing child support orders. The project knownas “Enhancing Interagency Collaboration and Client Cooperation” provided the MassachusettsDepartment of Revenue (DOR) an opportunity to study:

# The amount and quality of information that custodial parents at public assistance agencies(DTA) typically provide about the noncustodial parent for child support purposes.

# The subsequent actions taken by the child support agency in order to establish paternityand obtain a child support order.

# The effectiveness of placing DOR child support staff members in DTA agencies toaddress communication problems between the two agencies, improve informationcollection about noncustodial parents from clients, and increase the rate of “pursuable”child support cases.

A comparison of case processing patterns for clients served at two Boston-area public assistanceagencies before and after the introduction of full-time child support liaisons shows:

# An increase in the speed with which information about the noncustodial parent waselicited from the custodial parent and the rate at which this information wascommunicated to the child support agency.

# No consistent changes in the amount of information that clients provided about the otherparent that would lead to his location by the child support agency.

# No consistent evidence that the child support agency undertook various follow-up stepsmore regularly and with greater speed, although action patterns and time frames weremore favorable for cases processed by the liaison in one office who had significantexperience in preparing child support cases for legal action.

The limited evidence of improvement in case processing is believed to reflect:

# The retirement of several DOR attorneys and a hiring freeze in the months after the childsupport liaisons began working at DTA offices. This situation led to serious delays inmany child support activities requiring an attorney during the post-liaison time periodunder study.


Enhancing Interagency Collaboration and Client Cooperation Page ii

gency Collaboration and Client Cooperation Pageii

# The introduction of DTA’s new computerized system in August 2001. Start-up problemswith the new system affected the performance of workers at both agencies during 10 ofthe 12 months that liaisons were housed at DTA.

# A low rate of overt noncooperation. The inability to locate noncustodial parents was amore significant barrier to successful case processing and not one liaisons could influence.

The analysis is also limited by the small number of cases in the two samples (e.g., 272 cases in thepre-liaison sample and 137 in the post-liaison sample) and the uneven quality of informationavailable in DOR and DTA files about case actions and time frames.

The reactions of public assistance workers to liaisons were clearly positive. Focus groups andsurveys conducted with public assistance workers in two large Boston-area DTA offices showedstrong support for the placement of full-time child support liaisons in their offices. According topublic assistance workers:

# Liaisons bridged the communication gaps between the two agencies that resulted fromincompatible computer systems and security measures that prohibited electroniccommunication.

# Liaisons could better explain the benefits of establishing paternity and child support toclients and could more effectively interview clients because DOR is perceived by somein the community to be more powerful.

# Liaisons made child support matters more visible to public assistance workers andgenerated a greater sense of team work and collaboration between the two agencies.

# Liaisons saved workers time because they could avoid time-consuming telephone calls toDOR’s customer service bureau and to individual workers at DOR’s Metro Office to askand answer questions.

# Liaisons improved client satisfaction since clients were able to get answers to the manyquestions they have about their child support status and their checks when they visited thepublic assistance agency.

The reactions of DOR workers to child support liaisons were less enthusiastic, reflecting thesimultaneous introduction of DTA’s new computer system and a serious shortage of DORattorneys caused by a state hiring freeze and a round of retirements.

The perceived benefits of full-time child support liaisons in public assistance agencies inMassachusetts are consistent with those observed in other states that have pursued various formsof co-location. Co-location, however, is resource intensive and may not be feasible in the face ofstaff shortages, budget shortfalls, and cutbacks. Nor is co-location the only way to foster

##


Enhancing Interagency Collaboration and Client Cooperation Page iii

gency Collaboration and Client Cooperation Pageiii

cooperation between public assistance and child support agencies. The following are some othersteps that DOR and DTA might pursue in order to achieve improvements in client cooperationand interagency communication. As a result of this project, DOR and DTA have alreadyundertaken a number of initiatives, including improving interagency access to online data,developing cross-training for staff, sending DOR staff regularly to all DTA offices, andstreamlining case processing.

Technology

# Resolve communication problems between the public assistance and child supportagencies that delay the initiation of child support action, particularly problems with thechild support interface screen in DTA’s new computer system.

# Implement document imaging systems that allow workers to retrieve legal documents andvital records electronically at their work stations.

# Explore the feasibility of permitting interagency communication about cases using e-mailtechniques, while preserving the confidentiality of case information and the security ofeach agency’s systems.

Training

# Conduct additional training with public assistance workers on interviewing techniques,including probing for more noncustodial parent information, sources of missinginformation, and approaches to use with clients who are reluctant to cooperate with childsupport efforts.

# Conduct joint training with IV-A and IV-D workers to promote cooperation, teambuilding, and understanding of each agency’s procedures.

Client Outreach

# Use child support personnel to conduct interviews with clients who provide incompleteor inaccurate location information.

# Improve rates of child support collection among public assistance clients so as todemonstrate the importance of child support and its potential usefulness.

# Continue efforts to present information about paternity and child support using recentlydeveloped videos and brochures in a wide array of community settings.

# Improve communication with clients by assisting them in the use of the DOR Web siteat public assistance agencies.


Enhancing Interagency Collaboration and Client Cooperation Page iv

gency Collaboration and Client Cooperation Pageiv

Leadership

# Implement more regular meetings of administrators, supervisors, and line staff at the twoagencies.

# Promote more substantial forms of IV-A/IV-D cooperation at the federal level throughthe adoption of compatible incentive systems and performance standards.

# Strengthen public assistance agency commitment to child support enforcement at the statelevel through financial incentives tied to increases in collections.

##


Enhancing Interagency Collaboration and Client Cooperation Page 1

gency Collaboration and Client Cooperation Page1

Introduction

The collection of child support helps to reduce poverty and income inequality among childrenwho live apart from a parent. According to recent research (Sorensen and Zibman, 2000):

# Child support constitutes more than a quarter of family income (e.g., $2,000) among poorfamilies that receive it.

# Among poor families that have left welfare and receive child support, it makes up 30 percentof family income (e.g., $2,561).

# As a result of the receipt of child support, an estimated one-half million children were liftedout of poverty.

# Families headed by single mothers who receive at least some child support during the yearhave a lower poverty rate (22%) compared to families who receive no child support (33%).

Fathers’ economic support has strong benefits for children too. Among the findings on childsupport payments and child outcomes are the following (Marsiglio, et al., 2000):

# Child support payments are positively associated with children’s educational success andnegatively associated with children’s acting out.

# Children of both sexes and all races whose nonresident fathers pay child support have higherschool grades, fewer behavioral problems, and more years of school attainment.

# Fathers who pay child support are more involved with their children and provide them withemotional as well as financial support.

Despite the obvious benefits of child support income, many poor families fail to receive it.Indeed, a 1998 study by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) in Connecticut, Florida, andVirginia found that the vast majority of the families (71% to 84%) that reached their time limithad no child support collected for them during the 12 months before their assistance wasterminated. More than half of the families reaching the time limit in these states lacked a childsupport order (47% to 69%). Failure to locate the noncustodial parent was the major reason childsupport agencies gave for their inability to obtain a child support order. As the report notes:

##




Failure to locate the noncustodial parent was the primary reason efforts did not succeedin the three states that had implemented time-limited aid. One half to three-quarters ofthe cases that needed a support order or paternity established could not get these servicesbecause the state could not or did not locate the noncustodial parent (GAO, 1998: 16).

In order to improve the chance that families receive child support benefits, welfare reform lawsrequire recipients of public assistance (TANF) to cooperate with child support enforcementagencies (IV-D agencies) in establishing paternity and pursing child support orders (Roberts, 1996,1999). Under state laws, cooperation by public assistance recipients includes:

# Disclosing the names and other identifying information about the noncustodial parents oftheir children;

# Appearing at interviews, hearings, and legal proceedings; and

# Submitting themselves and their children to genetic testing when a court or administrativeagency so orders.

If the child support agency determines that an individual is not cooperating in good faith inestablishing paternity, or in establishing, modifying, or enforcing a child support order for anychild of the individual, it must notify the individual and the public assistance agency (IV-A) of thebasis for its determination; if noncooperation is determined, the IV-A agency must reduce thefamily’s grant or face a 5 percent reduction in the state’s funding for public assistance agencies.Parents who believe that pursuing child support will put them or their children at risk may seeka good-cause exception to the cooperation requirements (Roberts, 1996, 1999).

States may augment the cooperation requirements, set the standards for determining whether aparent is not cooperating, and impose a more severe sanction. A review of state policies revealsa wide range of practices. While few states automatically eliminate TANF benefits for custodialparents who fail to identify their children’s fathers, many have an information checklist policy thatrequires the custodial parent to provide specified items of information about the noncustodialparent. Sanction policies also vary across the states. About one-third have adopted a 25 percentpenalty against the family’s TANF benefits, another third have adopted full-family sanctionsresulting in total ineligibility for TANF, and the remaining one-third have adopted progressivesanctions, which increase penalty amounts with each occurrence of noncooperation or lengthenthe penalty period. For example, applicants for public assistance in Idaho are required to producethe name of the noncustodial parent plus two other pieces of information, or face the loss of

##




benefits for the entire family if this information is not provided (Turetsky, 1998). InMassachusetts, pursuant to a federal waiver, the sanction is equal to the custodial parent’s shareof the family’s grant.

Massachusetts is one of the few states to develop a protocol for victims of domestic violence sothat they can receive assistance with obtaining a good-cause exemption to the cooperationrequirements and/or pursue child support with heightened safety procedures (Pearson, et al.,2001). Concurrent with a demonstration project conducted collaboratively by the child supportand public assistance agencies (Pearson, et al., 2001), the public assistance agency created adomestic violence unit, which offers on-site domestic violence services to public assistancefamilies. The domestic violence advocates employed by the Massachusetts Department ofTransitional Assistance (DTA) serve clients with domestic violence concerns, including informingthem about waivers and good-cause options. Domestic violence specialists in DTA’s domesticviolence unit also play a critical role in the agency’s good-cause determination process.

In a parallel development, the Massachusetts child support agency became the first in the nationto retain a domestic violence specialist on its staff whose job it is to promote the safe enforcementof child support and to provide more individualized responses to victims in its caseload. Inaddition, DOR developed an at-risk policy, which extends to custodial parents with safetyconcerns heightened measures to safeguard confidential contact information, minimize contactbetween the custodial parent and noncustodial parent in court, and consult with the custodialparent before implementing certain enforcement remedies.

In an effort to further improve client cooperation, the Child Support Enforcement Division ofthe Massachusetts Department of Revenue applied for and received a research and demonstrationgrant from the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) to examine howcooperation might be increased through more effective outreach to clients and better coordinationbetween DOR and the public assistance agency, the Department of Transitional Assistance(DTA).

The project, known as “Enhancing Interagency Collaboration and Client Cooperation,” providedMassachusetts an opportunity to study:

# The amount and quality of information that custodial parents typically provide about thenoncustodial parent for child support purposes.

# The subsequent actions taken by the child support agency in order to establish paternity andobtain a child support order.

##




Background

# The effectiveness of placing DOR child support staff members in public assistance agenciesto address communication problems between the two agencies, improve informationcollection about noncustodial parents from clients, and increase the rate of “pursuable” childsupport cases.

This report summarizes the key features and findings of this demonstration project.

There has been a good deal of debate about the causes of noncooperation and its remedy.Advocates of families receiving public assistance have argued for years that cooperation with childsupport regulations is as much a matter of effective agency performance as it is a matter of clientdecisions (Roberts and Finkel, 1994). They suggest that rather than declining to cooperate, manysanctioned clients simply do not understand the requirements of the child support agency. In part,they assert, this lack of understanding is a result of the way that clients are told about childsupport and cooperation.

Typically, the IV-A intake worker is responsible for informing the public assistance applicant ofthe IV-D cooperation requirements, policies regarding the assignment of child support collectionsto the state, policies around claiming good cause and other exemptions, and penalties fornoncooperation. Additionally, the IV-A worker must collect information about the noncustodialparent from the custodial parent. In a recent study conducted by the federal Department ofHealth and Human Services Office of Inspector General, two-thirds of the IV-A workers whowere interviewed said they spend 15 minutes or less on child support materials during the intakeinterview, which often lasts 1½ to 2 hours (Office of Inspector General, March 2000b). As aresult, clients may fail to absorb or remember all the information about child support andcooperation presented to them when it is delivered within a short time frame and bracketed bypublic assistance considerations.

In the same federal study, IV-A and IV-D staff identified a number of other problems within theirsystems that could interfere with a client’s intent to cooperate and provide information. Forexample, workers cited the lack of training in asking questions of a personal nature, and areluctance on the part of some IV-A workers to jeopardize the fragile relationship with the clientby talking about the custodial parent’s relationship with the absent parent. In addition, workersfelt that in some cases, custodial parents fail to provide needed information about the

##




noncustodial parent because they find the paperwork too difficult and confusing (Office ofInspector General, March 2000a).

Other interagency communication and collaboration problems, sometimes coupled withincompatible computer systems, may also affect the quality of information generated for childsupport purposes. Insufficient interagency coordination may result in incomplete informationbeing generated, information being lost, and processing delays (Turetsky, 1996). Some states thathave taken steps to improve interagency collaboration have experienced success in informationcollection. The General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that Oregon improved itsinformation collection by having a single oversight agency for its IV-A and IV-D agencies, a singlecomputer system, cross-agency training, and joint development of IV-A intake procedures (GAO,1994). California reported improved cooperation and information sharing in two counties that co-located welfare and child support staff to create a “one-stop shop” for public assistance applicants(Turetsky, 1996). Finally, researchers report that Iowa and Wisconsin showed significantimprovements in information collection and paternity establishment after the child support agencybegan conducting one-on-one interviews with custodial mothers (Huibregtse, 1995; McLanahan,Monson, and Brown, 1992).

The Massachusetts project to enhance interagency collaboration and client cooperation was basedon the premise that both client actions and agency performance play a role in cooperation and thephenomenon of noncooperation. The project aimed to improve client cooperation by promotingcollaboration between the IV-A and IV-D agencies. Child support enforcement was part of thewelfare agency until 1987, when child support was transferred to the Department of Revenue.One key feature of the project was the placement of full-time child support liaisons in two publicassistance offices to facilitate interagency cooperation, improve information collection aboutnoncustodial parents from clients, and increase the rate of “pursuable” IV-D cases. Many stateshave explored co-location and/or the placement of a child support liaison at the public assistanceagency and have attributed the following benefits to various co-location and on-site liaisonarrangements (St. Peter, 2001):

# Efficiency. Information can be instantly verified and/or quickly followed up on during orimmediately after an initial client contact.

# Client Cooperation. Rates of client cooperation increase and sanctions decrease, perhapsdue, at least in part, to a clearer understanding of what is required.

##




Research Design and Methodology

# Improved Collections. Improved communications between IV-A and IV-D workers leadto better location and collection efforts.

# Client Self-sufficiency. Physical proximity allows IV-A and IV-D workers to moreefficiently identify the benefits and community resources available for individual clientsseeking self-sufficiency.

# Improvements in Agency Image. Physical proximity and interaction between IV-A andIV-D workers help IV-A workers to better understand the role of child support in self-sufficiency and to view child support enforcement as beneficial rather than punitive.

# Improved Data. Interaction between IV-A and IV-D workers leads both groups to betterunderstand each other’s data needs, pressures, and time constraints. Complications regardingpolicy or procedure are more quickly resolved when interagency, personal relationships exist.

However, states that have attempted co-location and on-site liaison arrangements also cite thefollowing challenges:

# Work Flow. It may be difficult to schedule clients to see a IV-A and IV-D worker duringa single visit. It may also be a challenge for workers to juggle the tasks they do collaborativelywith those that they do separately.

# Duplicated Efforts. While it may be appropriate for both agencies to interview some clients,it clearly will be unnecessary with other clients. It is challenging to get personnel from bothagencies to collaborate while avoiding duplication of effort or unproductive waiting time bystaff of either agency.

The demonstration/evaluation “Enhancing Interagency Collaboration and Client Cooperation”involved the following components, each of which is discussed in greater detail below.

# Baseline Assessment

# Placement of Child Support Liaisons

# Assessment of Liaison Activities

# Comparison of Pre- and Post-Liaison Patterns

##


1 An estimated 4,600 parents are seen at these two offices annually. The sample of 171 providesdata with a confidence interval of ± 7 at the 95 percent confidence level.

2 This Office of Child Support Enforcement-funded demonstration and evaluation project wasconducted collaboratively by DOR and DTA during 1997 through 2001. It explored ways ofidentifying victims of domestic violence and determining appropriate and safe child supportactions in such cases (Pearson, et al., 2001). As part of that project, public assistance workers atthe Newmarket, Dorchester, and Davis Square DTA offices maintained records of all clients seenduring several discrete periods of time. They recorded identifying information about the client,and, because the study focused on domestic violence, they noted whether the client discloseddomestic violence, whether he or she expressed an interest seeing a staff member with expertisein domestic violence, and/or was interested in applying for good cause and/or a waiver to workor time limit requirements. During Phase III of the Domestic Violence and Welfare Reformproject, February through June 2000, workers at the three participating DTA offices recordedcontacts with 1,920 clients (Pearson, et al., 2001).



# Assessment of Reactions to Child Support Liaisons

# Data Analysis and Prior Reports

Baseline Assessment

The baseline assessment for the Enhancing Interagency Collaboration and Client Cooperationproject was based on a review of manual and computerized records for 171 clients who were seenby public assistance workers at Dorchester and Newmarket Square DTA offices during February2000.1 Following a search of manual and automated records maintained by DOR and DTA, datatechnicians extracted information on 171 custodial parents and the 272 child support casesassociated with their children. The data extraction was performed by a retired and a temporarychild support worker during the summer of 2001. A copy of the data extraction form appears inAppendix A (DOR/DTA Child Support Specialists Study).

Although the baseline data was generated at a time when the two DTA offices were sites for theMassachusetts Domestic Violence and Welfare Reform Project (90-FD-0013), the procedures forgathering noncustodial parent data from the applicants were not affected by participation in thedomestic violence project and represent the traditional approach used by Massachusetts.2

##




Placement of Child Support Liaisons

In June 2001, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) placed a full-time, experienced,child support worker in each of the two largest public assistance offices in Boston: Dorchesterand Newmarket Square. Both agencies are served by the Metro Region Office of DOR. In 1999,Metro began sending a child support specialist to Dorchester and Newmarket one day per weekto enhance interagency collaboration.

The present demonstration/evaluation expanded on this earlier effort to see if placing a childsupport worker on-site full time would enhance relationships between workers in the two agenciesand improve the quality of information collected from custodial parents who visit publicassistance agencies to apply for or continue benefits. The tasks the on-site child support workerswere expected to perform included:

# Review information on the noncustodial parent provided by clients to DTA and contactclients to elicit any additional information needed to processes cases;

# Conduct interviews with custodial parents aimed at improving the quality of the informationcollected from clients;

# Meet with clients and caseworkers to answer general questions about child support andspecific questions about a case;

# Meet with clients to complete the Paternity Assessment Form; and

# Meet with noncustodial parents to answer general questions about child support.

The child support workers on-site in the Dorchester and Newmarket IV-A offices had computeraccess to automated child support records (COMETS). They also had the capacity to exchangee-mail messages about specific cases with DOR workers at Metro.

##




Assessment of Liaison Activities

To document the duties that child support liaisons performed, CPR designed a Log of Activitiesto be completed by the liaisons. On it, liaisons recorded the number of hours they devoted tovarious tasks on a weekly basis. The following types of activities were recorded on the log. (SeeAppendix A for a copy of the Log.)

# Attend unit meetings/trainings;

# Attend formal/informal trainings with DTA workers;

# Meet with DTA supervisors;

# Meet with DTA workers about case(s);

# Meet with custodial parents;

# Phone custodial parents;

# Meet or phone noncustodial parents;

# Review DTA files (CA/CS);

# Review/update DOR records;

# Contact DOR technicians;

# Complete general administration duties;

# Visit the Metro DOR office; and

# Attend conferences.

On a second data collection form, Case Actions by DOR Liaisons, liaisons kept track of theclients whose cases they handled. They recorded whether the client was a new applicant,reapplicant, or continuing client. They noted whether the client was receiving public assistance andwhether the client had come to the attention of the liaison as a result of a referral by DTA orDOR personnel. Liaisons indicated whether they met with the client face-to-face, spoke over thetelephone, or had no contact. If there was telephone or in-person contact, they indicated thelanguage in which they had communicated.

##


3 If a client has children with more than one noncustodial parent, DOR creates a separate childsupport case for each noncustodial parent.



The form also elicited information on each child support case for the client served3. For eachcase, liaisons recorded whether a child support order existed, the presenting problem or actionneeded, the action(s) that the liaison took on behalf of this client in this case, and the agency orparty that needed to take the next step in order to progress toward the generation of child supportpayments (see Appendix A for a copy of Case Actions by DOR Liaisons: Custodial Parents).

Ultimately, child support workers completed 79 weekly time sheets that recorded the time theyspent on various tasks — covering more than 2,500 working hours. They provided informationon the actions that they took on behalf of 1,833 clients and their 2,882 child support cases.

Comparison of Pre- and Post-Liaison Patterns

To compare actions and time periods for processing various case actions in child support casesprior to and following the introduction of child support liaisons, information was generated ona sample of 110 clients with 137 cases that were handled by child support liaisons at Dorchesterand Newmarket DTA offices during July 2001. We focused on this time period because itpreceded the introduction of DTA’s new computer system in August 2001. There were seriousproblems with the new system for many months following its introduction, making it difficult toassess the type of noncustodial parent information provided by the custodial parent and/or to relyon the routine transfer of information between DTA and DOR. Another reason for limiting theanalysis to cases handled by liaisons during July 2001 was to allow sufficient time for child supportaction to occur before we reviewed child support records. The review of child support recordsfor evidence of case actions, time frames for processing case actions, and payment activityoccurred in July and August 2002, which was approximately 12 months after the case wasprocessed by child support liaisons.

As in the baseline assessment, the analysis of post-liaison case patterns and time frames involveda search of manual and automated records maintained by DOR and DTA. Using the same dataextraction form developed for the baseline assessment, a child support worker extractedinformation on the custodial parent and all relevant child support cases associated with thecustodial parents’ children. In the ensuing analysis, pre- and post-liaison case actions and timeframes for processing case actions were compared.

##




Assessment of Reactions to Child Support Liaisons

The final feature of the evaluation was an assessment of worker attitudes toward child supportliaisons. In April 2002, ten months after the child support liaisons had been placed at Dorchesterand Newmarket DTA, line staff and supervisors completed a written evaluation of liaisons andtheir perceived impact and utility. The questionnaire gauged each individual’s exposure to theliaisons and their overall rating of helpfulness. In addition, workers were asked to assess whethervarious aspects of their job had improved or worsened since June 2001, when the liaisons hadbeen introduced (see Appendix A for a copy of the Evaluation of the Child Support Liaison).

To further assess the role and utility of child support liaisons, researchers conducted focus groupswith DTA workers at Dorchester and Newmarket in late April 2002. At that time, the researchersalso interviewed the two child support liaisons. Finally, a focus group was conducted with childsupport workers at the Metro office of DOR.

Data Analysis and Prior Reports

All the information recorded by data extractors and data generated by liaisons on how they spenttheir time and the actions they took on specific cases was entered on a computer and analyzedusing SPSS, as were the questionnaires completed by workers. Information gleaned in interviewsand focus groups was incorporated with the results of the quantitative analysis.

The Center for Policy Research has prepared two reports based on the information collected andanalyzed in the Enhancing Interagency Collaboration and Client Cooperation. They are:

# Baseline Assessment of Client Cooperation and Child Support Actions. April 2002.This report presents the results of an analysis of information extracted from paper andautomated records maintained by the public assistance and child support agencies for 171clients and their 272 child support cases. The analysis focuses on client and casecharacteristics, including the nature of the information they provided about the noncustodialparent, the child support actions taken in such cases, the time frames associated with variouschild support actions, and the factors that may affect the generation of child support orders.

# Child Support Liaisons in Public Assistance Agencies. May 2002. This report describesthe duties performed by full-time child support liaisons who were placed in public assistanceagencies based on an analysis of their time cards and records they maintained on the cases

##




Results: Case Processing Patterns

they handled and the actions they took. The report also assesses the reactions of childsupport and public assistance workers to liaisons and their perceived utility.

This final report for the project Enhancing Interagency Collaboration and Client Cooperation inMassachusetts reviews some of the key findings contained in prior reports and presents the resultsof a comparison of actions and case processing time lags in cases handled prior to and followingthe introduction of child support liaisons. The report concludes with a discussion of findings andrecommendations regarding interagency collaboration and client cooperation.

Applicants for public assistance and clients who visit DTA are required to provide informationon putative fathers and noncustodial parents. The information that is elicited includes the father’sname, address, phone number, Social Security number, and employer. Prior to August 2001, thisinformation was recorded manually on a form known as the CA/CS (Client Application for ChildSupport) Following August 2001, information was recorded on DTA’s BEACON computersystem. The manual/automated information about noncustodial parents at DTA must beconveyed to the child support agency for the process of establishing or enforcing a child supportorder to begin. If there are long periods between the generation of noncustodial parentinformation and its conveyance to the child support agency, the information grows stale andaccuracy is reduced. Thus, effective interagency collaboration requires:

# Generation of accurate information about noncustodial parents at the onset of publicassistance; and

# Rapid transfer of noncustodial parent information generated at the public assistance officesto the child support agency for further action.

To determine whether the use of child support liaisons in public assistance agencies affects thespeed with which cases are processed for the establishment and enforcement of child supportorders, cases processed prior to and following the introduction of liaisons were compared on keycase-processing time points.

##




Characteristics of Cases in the Pre- and Post-Liaison Samples

Table 1 compares the characteristics of clients seen by public assistance workers in theNewmarket Square and Dorchester Offices of the Department of Transitional Assistance duringFebruary 2000, which was before the introduction of child support liaisons, and 110 clients seenin July 2001, after the introduction of child support liaisons.

The comparison of the samples of clients seen prior to and following the introduction of liaisonsyields the following patterns:

# All of the clients in the samples were female, with an average age of 30 years.

# Clients were fairly evenly split between the two DTA offices, although in the post-liaisonsample Dorchester is somewhat over-represented.

# Although clients were at all stages of the public assistance process, the proportions of newapplicants and reapplicants were higher in the post-liaison sample and the proportion oftransition review cases was lower.

# Nearly half of both samples had less than a high school education. Thirty percent had a highschool diploma, and about 10 percent had a GED or some college.

# Clients in both samples were from a variety of racial/ethnic backgrounds, although comparedto the pre-liaison sample, the post-liaison sample included more Latinas (40% versus 28%)and fewer African-Americans (46% versus 57%).

# Despite the higher proportion of Latinas in the post-liaison sample, more Spanish languageinterviews were conducted with the pre-liaison sample (12% versus 4% post-liaison).

##




Table 1. Comparison of Boston-Area Public Assistance ClientsPrior to and Following Introduction of Liaisons

Clients Seen Prior to Liaisons (n=171)

Clients Seen Post-Liaisons (n=110)

Female clients 100% 100%

DTA office visited: Dorchester Newmarket Davis

50%50%0%

62%38%0%

Reason for visiting DTA: New applicant Reapplicant Transition review Other

15%29%54%2%

25%56%19%0%

Race/Ethnicity: African-American Asian Hispanic White Other

57%3%28%10%2%

46%5%40%8%1%

Education level: 1-11 years High school diploma GED Some college Completed college

41%32%8%11%8%

45%30%12%9%4%

Language of interview: English Spanish Other

83%12%5%

94%4%2%

Average age 30.9 30.0

The family characteristics of the clients included in the pre- and post-liaison sample were verysimilar. A review of child support records for each client showed that:

# Clients had children with one to three different men, with the average being 1.3 men in thepre-liaison sample, and 1.6 in the post-liaison sample. This translates into 274 fathersassociated with the 171 custodial parents in the pre-liaison sample and 143 fathers associatedwith the 110 custodial parents in the post-liaison sample.

# The average number of children per client was 2.1 in the pre-liaison sample and 1.7 in thepost-liaison sample. This translates into a total of 359 children for the 171 custodial parentsin the pre-liaison sample and 187 children for the 110 custodial parents in the post-liaisonsample.

##




Table 2. Selected Family Characteristics of Boston-Area Public Assistance Clients Prior to and Following Introduction of Liaisons Based on Child Support Data

Clients Seen Prior to Liaisons (n=171)

Clients Seen Post-Liaisons (n=110)

Number of fathers: Average Median Range

1.61.01–3

1.31.01-3

Number of children: Average Median

Range

2.12.01–6

1.71.01-5

Quality of Information Provided by Clients

When they visited DTA, applicants and recipients in both the pre- and post-liaison samples wererequired to complete a CA/CS form requesting information about putative fathers andnoncustodial parents. The CA/CS is conveyed to DOR, where it is used to create a new case fileor added to an existing child support agency case file. A review of the CA/CS prompts childsupport workers to take various actions. If the information is incomplete or insufficient, DORpolicy is to contact the custodial parent for additional information about the noncustodial parent.Alternatively, the DOR worker might refer the case to a special unit for location services. Wherethere is sufficient information about the noncustodial parent, cases are referred to a DOR attorneyfor review and relevant court action.

Data collectors for this project reviewed case files at DOR and extracted the information providedby custodial parents on the initial and subsequent CA/CS forms. They performed the review forcases in the pre- and post-liaison samples. Our analysis focuses on the amount and type ofinformation provided by custodial parents about the fathers of their children in cases that do anddo not result in a court order for child support. We consider all 272 child support cases generatedfor our pre-liaison sample of 171 custodial parents, and 137 child support cases generated for ourpost-liaison sample consisting of 110 custodial parents. Information patterns are broken downfor cases with and without child support orders when data collectors reviewed case filesapproximately 12 months after project intake.

Table 3 compares the information provided by clients in the pre- and post-liaison samples in caseswith and without orders. Cases were classified as having the information if any of the CA/CSforms in the DOR files showed that this information was provided. Not surprisingly, cases with

##




orders had significantly more noncustodial parent information. A key to the agency’s ability toestablish an order is having complete information.

On the other hand, the Table provides little evidence that clients in the post-liaison sampleconsistently provided more noncustodial parent information than their pre-liaison counterparts.When all types of cases are considered, the percentage with each type of information was generallyvery similar for the pre- and post-liaison samples.

Table 3. Clients in the Pre- and Post-Liaison Samples Providing Information Cases With and Without Child Support OrdersCases with Child Support

OrdersCases with No Child

Support OrderAll Cases

Pre-liaison (n=94)

Post- liaison (n=27)

Pre-liaison (n=178)

Post-liaison (n=110)

Pre-liaison (n=272)

Post-liaison (n=137)

Name ** 80% 82% 69% 61% 73% 65%Percent change 2% -8% -8%

Address 68% 78% 43% 41% 52% 48%Percent change 10% -2% -4%

Phone 27% 52% 12% 17% 17% 24%Percent change 25% 5% 7%

Date of birth 68% 78% 44% 44% 53% 50%Percent change 10% 0% -3%

Social Security number 35% 59% 19% 20% 25% 28%Percent change 24% 1% 3%

Employer 20% 15% 8% 5% 12% 7%Percent change -5% -3% -5%

Physical information 76% 82% 61% 51% 66% 57%Percent change 6% -10% -9%

Data on his parents 13% 52% 6% 21% 8% 27%Percent change 39% 15% 19%

** Noncustodial parent name may have been known from other sources even though it did not appear on theCA/CS.

##




Transfer of Noncustodial Parent Information

Once the custodial parent provides information about the noncustodial parent at the publicassistance agency, it is conveyed to child support for case processing. During the time periodwhen the pre- and post-liaison samples of cases were generated, information on the noncustodialparent was recorded manually on a form known as the CA/CS. There were several points in theinterface between the two agencies at which delays could occur.

# One was a possible lag in the generation of the initial CA/CS at the public assistance agency.This reflected in a gap of time between the date at which the client first received publicassistance and the date the initial CA/CS was completed at DTA. Although clients may havetaken a while to complete their application for public assistance, once they were approvedthey received benefits retroactive to the day they first applied.

# The next lag could have occurred in the transfer of the information about the noncustodialparent on the CA/CS from the public assistance agency to the child support agency. Thiswould be reflected in a gap of time between the date that the initial CA/CS was completedat DTA and the date on which it was received at DOR. This gap could have resulted fromDTA staff’s holding a CA/CS until a client’s application for assistance was approved.

Table 4 compares the median length of time between the initial receipt of public assistance, thegeneration of the CA/CS, and the conveyance of the CA/CS to the child support agency priorto and following the placement of liaisons at the public assistance agency. We focused on mediantime frames rather than means because of the small number of cases in the samples and thepresence of a few outlying cases with extended time frames. At both pre- and post-liaison timepoints, cases were divided into two categories: those with a court order for child support andthose without a court order for child support. Additionally, we looked at newer cases separately(those created at the child support agency after January 1, 1999) to determine whether they movedthrough the system any faster.

Table 4 shows that following the introduction of child support liaisons, there was some increasein the speed with which noncustodial parent information was recorded at the public assistanceagency and conveyed to the child support agency. The differences were most pronounced amongcases that did not have a court order for child support.

# In 63 percent of the post-liaison cases without a child support order, noncustodial parentinformation was recorded on a CA/CS form less than one year after the client began

##




receiving public assistance. Prior to the introduction of liaisons, only 40 percent of casesrecorded noncustodial parent information in less than a year.

# In 68 percent of the post-liaison cases with no child support order, cases were sent to DORin less than a year after the client began receiving public assistance. Prior to the introductionof liaisons, only 39 percent of cases were conveyed to DOR in less than a year.

# Among post-liaison cases with a child support order, 17 percent were generated within a yearafter the client began receiving public assistance and 44 percent were generated within oneto two years. Prior to the introduction of liaisons, only 7 percent of cases obtained orders inless than a year and 37 percent obtained orders in one to two years.

# The median number of years it took to establish a child support order after the client beganreceiving public assistance dropped from 3.0 years among cases processed prior to theintroduction of liaisons to 2.0 years in the group of cases processed following theintroduction of liaisons. Among newer cases opened after 1999, the median amount of timebetween when the client began receiving public assistance and the entry of a child supportorder remained the same at 2.0 years prior to and following the introduction of liaisons.

# Most cases received public assistance for two years or less, reflecting time limits in statewelfare reform laws. Massachusetts limits benefits to 24 months in a 60-month period, unlessthe family qualifies for an exemption or waiver.

##




Table 4. Time Lags in the Generation of CA/CS Information and Its Conveyance to the Child Support Agencies in Cases With and Without

Child Support Orders and Newer Child Support Cases Created After 1999

Cases with courtorder for child

support

Cases with nocourt order forchild support

TotalTotal of NewerCases opened

after 1999

Pre-(n=94)

Post-(n=25)

Pre-(n=178)

Post-(n=102)

Pre-(n=272)

Post-(n=127)

Pre-(n=100)

Post-(n=107)

Time between receivedTANF and initial CA/CS:

Less than 1 year1-2 years3-5 years6-10 years11+ years

49%13%13%13%13%

48%17%0%26%9%

40%12%16%22%11%

63%16%7%9%6%

43%12%15%18%12%

60%16%6%12%6%

40%13%11%22%15%

63%13%6%12%7%

Time from received TANFand CA/CS received at

DOR:Less than 1 year1-2 years3-5 years6-10 years11+ years

45%10%16%14%14%

52%20%0%24%4%

35%18%16%18%14%

68%15%5%6%7%

38%15%16%16%14%

65%16%4%9%6%

39%13%11%20%17%

67%14%4%9%7%

Median number of monthsbetween CA/CS

completed at DTA andreceived at DOR:

Range in number ofmonths

1.0.17-37.4

1.3.2-11.9

1.0.07-85.3

1.2.13-70.2

1.0.07-85.3

1.2.13-70.2

.77.07-13.8

1.1.13-70.2

Length of time on TANFprior to receiving child

support order:Less than 1 year1-2 years3-5 years6-10 years11+ yearsMedian # years

7%37%24%21%11%3.0

17%44%17%13%9%2.0

NANANANANANA

NANANANANANA

7%37%24%21%11%3.0

17%44%17%13%9%2.0

16%47%11%16%11%2.0

20%53%7%13%7%2.0

Due to rounding, columns may total to 99% or 101%.

##




Actions Taken by the Child Support Agency

When a case arrives, child support workers create a record on the DOR system and take variousactions in order to obtain a child support order and/or collect payments. If the information aboutthe noncustodial parent is insufficient, they may contact the custodial parent for furtherinformation and/or may refer the case for location services. Once the contact information isverified, the case is referred to an attorney for review. At that point, genetic tests may be orderedand court hearings scheduled.

Because the type of action needed varies significantly depending upon whether the case has a childsupport order established, the data are presented separately for cases with and without orders inTables 5 and 6. In both tables, the analysis is based on the information about case actions andmilestones that were recorded in the manual and automated records maintained by DOR.

Table 5. Selected Time Frames in Pre- and Post-Child Support Liaisons Cases with Child Support Orders

Pre-Liaison(n=94)

Post-Liaison(n=27)

Percent of cases with a DOR case created 64% 67%

Length of time from receipt of CA/CS by DOR to case creationMedianNumber

1.1 months 32

0.2 months12

DOR contacts custodial parent for noncustodial parent information 36% 56%

Length of time from receipt of CA/CS by DOR to custodial parent contact

MedianNumber

3.6 months21

0.4 months 11

Referred to DOR attorney for review 45% 59%

Length of time from receipt of CA/CS by DOR to referral to attorney

MedianNumber

6.3 months26

7.6 months10

Judgment on paternity obtained 30% 37%

Length of time from receipt of CA/CS by DOR to paternity judgment

MedianNumber

8.8 months14

10.6 months4

##


Table 5. Selected Time Frames in Pre- and Post-Child Support Liaisons Cases with Child Support Orders

Pre-Liaison(n=94)

Post-Liaison(n=27)



Court hearing scheduled 43% 82%

Length of time from receipt of CA/CS by DOR to hearing scheduled date

MedianNumber

15.4 months23

9.4 months14

Most recent court hearing held 46% 78%

Length of time from receipt of CA/CS by DOR to date hearing was held

MedianNumber

15.0 months26

11.6 months12

Court order for child support obtained 100% 100%

Length of time from receipt of CA/CS by DOR to date of support order

MedianNumber

13.8 months45

9.5 months14

Table 5 shows that among cases with child support orders, cases processed following theintroduction of child support liaisons showed higher levels of activity and shorter time frames inmost, but not all, areas. The areas with faster action following the introduction of child supportliaisons were:

# DOR case creation for cases that ultimately obtained child support orders (0.2 versus 1.1months);

# DOR contacting the custodial parent for noncustodial parent information for cases with childsupport orders (0.4 versus 3.6 months);

# Scheduling a court hearing for cases with child support orders (9.4 versus 15.4 months);

# Holding a court hearing for cases with child support orders (11.6 versus 15.0 months) and;

# Establishing a child support order (9.5 versus 13.8 months).

The Metro office of DOR suffered a serious shortage of attorneys from June 2001 to April 2002,when the post-liaison sample of cases was generated; this may well have affected the pace of DORactivity for actions requiring attorney intervention. Thus, referrals of cases to attorneys actuallyhappened faster prior to the introduction of liaisons (6.3 versus 7.6 months).

##




Among cases without a child support order, the introduction of the liaison was associated withfaster case processing in some areas. The median length of time between receipt of the CA/CSand case creation dropped from 0.3 to 0.1 months. The median length of time from the receiptof the CA/CS to contacting the custodial parent dropped from 1.3 to 0.9 months. As notedabove, the shortage of attorneys may well have affected the pace of DOR activity for actionsrequiring attorney intervention. The length of time from receipt of the CA/CS to referral to anattorney for review rose from 2.7 to 5.6 months.

Table 6. Selected Actions Time Frames in Pre- and Post-Child Support Liaisons Cases Without Child Support Orders

Pre-Liaison(n=178)

Post-Liaison(n=110)

Percent of cases with a DOR case created 66% 63%

Length of time from receipt of CA/CS by DOR to case creationMedianNumber

0.3 months79

0.1 month54

DOR contacts custodial parent for noncustodial parent information 38% 56%

Length of time from receipt of CA/CS by DOR to custodial parent contactMedianNumber

1.3 months47

0.9 months49

Referred to DOR attorney for review 15% 16%

Length of time from receipt of CA/CS by DOR to referral to attorneyMedianNumber

2.7 months14

5.6 months12

Judgment on paternity obtained 6% 2%

Length of time from receipt of CA/CS by DOR to paternity judgmentMedianNumber

10.6 months6

Court hearing scheduled 10% 6%

Length of time from receipt of CA/CS by DOR to hearing scheduled dateMedianNumber

7.7 months7

##


Table 6. Selected Actions Time Frames in Pre- and Post-Child Support Liaisons Cases Without Child Support Orders

Pre-Liaison(n=178)

Post-Liaison(n=110)



Most recent court hearing held 5% 3%

Length of time from receipt of CA/CS by DOR to date hearing was held MedianNumber

10.4 months4

There were too few cases to calculate time frames.

A closer examination of DOR action patterns following the introduction of child support liaisonssuggests that Dorchester was substantially slower than Newmarket in most areas of activity. Casesinitiated at Dorchester were also less apt to exhibit certain DOR actions.

# Dorchester cases were less apt to show that a DOR worker had contacted the custodial parentfor additional information about the noncustodial parent.

# Dorchester cases were also less likely to show that the case had been referred to DORattorneys for review.

# Dorchester cases were significantly slower than Newmarket cases to be scheduled for a courthearing and to have an actual hearing conducted.

One possible reason for the differences may be the fact that the Newmarket liaison had workedin the case creation department of DOR before becoming a liaison and was adept at taking manyof the child support actions handled by workers at the DOR office. As a result, she was lessdependent on child support staff to prepare her cases for legal action (see Table 7).

##




Table 7. Selected Actions and Time Frames in Cases With and Without ChildSupport Orders, By Site Following Introduction of Child Support Liaisons

Cases with child supportorder (N=27)

Cases with no childsupport order (N=110)

Actions taken by the child support agency andmajor case events

Percent with actionNewmarket Dorchester

Percent with actionNewmarket Dorchester

DOR case created 64% 69% 67% 57% DOR contacts custodial parent for noncustodialparent information 64% 46% 61% 48%

Referred to attorney for review 79% 39% 20% 9% Most recent court hearing scheduled 86% 77% 5% 7% Most recent court hearing held 86% 69% 3% 2% Differences between site totals are statistically significant at 0.1.

Order and Payment Patterns

Table 8 compares child support order levels and payment patterns for cases with orders in samplesgenerated prior to and following the introduction of child support liaisons. The patterns wereessentially the same at both time points. While 82 to 86 percent of noncustodial parents in eachsample showed some evidence of payment activity sometime over the life of the order, only 63to 68 percent were current payers when data collectors reviewed automated child support recordsduring the summer of 2001 and 2002 and noted payment behavior. Overall, 76 percent of casesin the pre-liaison sample had arrears that averaged $9,957, with a median level of $5,571. In thepost-liaison sample, 85 percent had an arrearage that averaged $11,986, with a median of $6,750.

Table 8. Child Support Orders, Payment, and Arrears in the Pre- and Post-Liaison Samples

Cases with court order forchild support in

pre-liaison sample (n=94)


post-liaison sample (n=27)

Amount of weekly child support order:meanmedianrange

$80$65

$12-$446

$72$72

$25-$203

##


Table 8. Child Support Orders, Payment, and Arrears in the Pre- and Post-Liaison Samples


pre-liaison sample (n=94)


post-liaison sample (n=27)



Total arrears:meanmedianrange

$9,957$5,751

$25-$42,490

$11,986$6,750

$0-$56,443

Percent with arrears 76% 85%

Of those with payment activity:Current payment (within past 3 months)Payment made within past 4-12 monthsPayment made within past 13-24 monthsPayment made 25 months or more

63%11%12%14%

68%5%9%18%

Percent with any payment activity: 86% 82%

Barriers to Obtaining Child Support

In an attempt to better understand the barriers to obtaining child support orders, data collectorsreviewed paper and automated files for all cases in the pre- and post-liaison samples and recordedwhether a variety of situations or events were mentioned that may have impeded the process ofgenerating a child support order. They recorded mention of several items associated withnoncooperation by the custodial parent, such as failing to appear for a court hearing or a meetingwith a child support worker.

They searched for evidence of a variety of factors that were believed to have possible impact onthe generation of orders, once a child support case is opened. This included whether thenoncustodial parent moved out of the country or to an unknown state and could not be located;whether there was mention of noncustodial parent unemployment or disability; whether there wasfamily violence; noncustodial parent incarceration; changes in the custodial status of the child;whether there was reconciliation or remarriage of the parties; mention of multiple fathers orgenetic testing exclusions; and/or whether there were case processing errors, case closures,modifications, or child emancipations.

Of course, the reliability of this research effort depended on the quality of recordkeeping by childsupport workers and the extent to which these various situations were documented. These

##




situations are not required to be documented by child support workers. The results of thisanalysis appear in Table 9.

Table 9. Factors Mentioned in Files for Cases With and Without a Court Order for Child Support in Pre- and Post-Liaison Samples

Cases with aSupport Order

Cases Without aSupport Order

All Cases

Pre-liaison (n=94)

Post-liaison(n=27)

Pre-liaison (n=178)

Post-liaison(n=110)

Pre-liaison (n=272)

Post-liaison(n=137)

Noncustodial parent unemployed/disabled 14% 19% 4% 5% 8% 7%

Custodial parent did not cooperate 11% 4% 11% 11% 11% 10%

Family violence 10% 4% 12% 6% 11% 5%

Noncustodial parent incarcerated 5% 4% 6% 3% 6% 3%

Changes in custody, relative care, visitation 7% 5% 4% 5% 5% 4%

Noncustodial parent deceased 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0%

Noncustodial parent cannot be located 11% 4% 39% 39% 29% 32%

Custodial parent/Noncustodial parentremarried/reconciled 3% 0% 3% 1% 3% 1%

Noncustodial parent did not appear forhearing 6% 0% 6% 0% 6% 0%

Noncustodial parent excluded in genetictests/multiple fathers named 2% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2%

DOR case error 8% 7% 6% 2% 7% 3%

New case 0% 4% 5% 5% 3% 4%

Other factors 3% 0% 10% 0% 7% 0%

Case closed, child emancipated, case modified 16% 7% 2% 4% 7% 4%

Cases with arrears, medical support, non-public assistance, divorce 5% 7% 2% 4% 3% 4%

Table 9 shows similar patterns for both pre- and post-liaison cases. In both samples, cases withorders were significantly more likely than cases without orders to contain mention of the fact thata noncustodial parent had been disabled or unemployed. This probably reflects the fact that theseparents had received Social Security or unemployment benefits and were more readily located bythe child support agency. Another difference was that those cases without orders were significantlymore likely to contain mention that the noncustodial parent had moved out of the state or thecountry and could not be located.

##




Results: Reactions to Liaisons

In 39 percent of the cases without orders in both the pre- and post-liaison samples, thenoncustodial parent could not be located. This was much more frequently noted than the problemof explicit noncooperation and suggests that while public assistance clients frequently fail toprovide noncustodial parent information that can be verified and acted upon, they rarely due sodeliberately. There were no significant differences between the pre- and post-liaison samples inthe reported incidence of overt noncooperation by custodial parents, as evidenced in non-appearance at meetings, hearings, and genetic testing appointments. In the pre-liaison sample, theincidence of overt noncooperation was approximately 11 percent. In the post-liaison sample, theincidence of noncooperation was 10 percent, although it was only 4 percent among the smallgroup of cases (N=27) with orders. This suggests that the small number of clients who overtlydo not cooperate are not influenced by interventions such as liaisons. Noncustodial parents whocannot be located are a greater barrier to child support enforcement than noncooperation bycustodial parents.

Reactions of DTA Workers: Overall Reactions

While the comparison of case processing patterns for cases handled by the public assistanceagency prior to and following the introduction of child support liaisons yielded ambiguous results,the reactions of DTA workers to child support liaisons were clear. In both a survey, conductedin April 2002 with 85 DTA workers and supervisors, and in focus groups, conducted at about thesame time with 10 workers at Newmarket and 11 at Dorchester, DTA workers expressed theirstrong support for full-time child support liaisons.

According to questionnaires about child support liaisons completed by DTA workers, includingthose with the greatest exposure who had worked with liaisons three or more times over thepreceding ten-month period of time, it appeared that:

# Two-thirds to three-quarters of the workers at both sites rated the child support liaisons as“very helpful,” while another 15 percent rated them as “somewhat helpful.” Workers withmore exposure to liaisons rated them even more favorably. In Dorchester, 96 percent ofexperienced workers rated liaisons as “very helpful,” and 83 percent of Newmarket workersgave liaisons the highest rating.

##




The overall positive reactions to the liaisons led nearly three-quarters (71%) of surveyed workersto credit the program with generally improving relations between DOR and DTA. Similarpercentages credited the liaisons with generally improving the DTA workers’ opinions of DOR.

Table 10. Overall Ratings of Helpfulness of Child Support Liaisons

All workersWorkers with most exposure

to liaisons

Dorchester

(n=39)

New-market(n=46)

Total

(n=85)

Dorchester

(n=26)

New-market(n=42)

Total

(n=68)

Having full-time child supportspecialist has been:

Very helpfulSomewhat helpful

Somewhat or very unhelpfulNeither helpful nor unhelpful

66%16%11%8%

78%15%2%4%

73%16%6%6%

96%0%4%0%

83%12%2%2%

88%8%3%2%

As a result of the liaisons, relationsbetween DOR/DTA are: Better

WorseSame

71%3%26%

84%2%14%

79%3%19%

88%0%13%

85%2%12%

86%2%12%

As a result of the liaisons, is youropinion of DOR: Better

WorseSame

61%0%39%

71%2%27%

67%1%32%

80%0%20%

74%2%24%

76%2%22%


Reactions of DTA Workers: How the Liaison Was Used

There were a number of different ways that DTA workers involved the child support liaisons.Table 11 summarizes the patterns reported below.

# At least three-quarters of the DTA workers who had extensive exposure to liaisons said thatthey usually got the liaison involved when they had a case with child support issues and thatthey called DOR’s customer service bureau less frequently.

During a focus group interview, several DTA workers noted that having someone on-scene wasfar better than calling for help. In the same focus group, another worker said that when she hadclients who gave limited information or have unusual questions or problems, she had them “walkright over and see [the liaison] on the spot.” This worker viewed liaisons as “1000 times better”than the “old, inefficient way.”

##




Without the liaison, communication between DOR and DTA workers tended to be limited tophone and fax exchanges about a specific client. Nor were there regular training sessions,meetings, or other face-to-face interactions between workers in the two agencies. The exceptionto this was a training program for DTA on child support issues conducted as part of this projectgrant in March 2002. Although workers did not meet their counterparts at DOR (it was a “roadshow format” with presentations), they characterized it as “helpful.”

Child support liaisons were viewed as helpful precisely because they filled the communication voidthat existed between the two agencies. The lack of access to the DOR database and theincompatibilities between the systems maintained by the two agencies only made the presence ofchild support liaisons at DTA more important. As one DTA worker put it:

Child support involves two agencies and the liaison makes it easier. We don’t have access toDOR information. I’m not losing hours on the phone trying to get DOR to answer. She savesus when clients don’t show up in View Direct or the software doesn’t match between DOR andDTA. We don’t have the tools to do this ourselves. That is why she is so helpful.

# About half of DTA workers at each office said that they did some client interviews with theliaison, and 75 percent of Dorchester workers with substantial exposure to the liaison said theylearned from the liaison how to do a better interview about the noncustodial parent.However, less than 20 percent of DTA workers reported using liaisons to show them how tointerview clients about noncustodial parents.

In focus group interviews, most DTA workers expressed the view that they know how to do aneffective interview for child support purposes. Rather, they maintained that they do not have timeto ferret out the truth by asking “the same question about noncustodial parents ten differentways.”

It’s not that we don’t know how to interview. We don’t have the time. Our caseloads are risingdramatically. And what are we judged by? Our performance criteria are court-ordered timeframes. We have to process an application within 30 days. So if they say they don’t know whothe noncustodial parent is, we write, “Don’t Know.”

# More than 80 percent of DTA workers who used liaisons extensively reported having themtalk directly with clients about child support, check a client’s child support status, and getinformation on clients’ child support payments. Two-thirds used liaisons to get more

##




information from clients about noncustodial parents. Workers unanimously reported thatthese forms of assistance were helpful.

During focus group interviews, several DTA workers mentioned that they believed DOR workerscould get better quality information from custodial parents. In their view, there was an“intimidation and novelty factor” with DOR personnel that carried “more weight.” DTA workersbelieved that while they did not “inspire fear,” clients believed DOR could “find out everything”and were, therefore, more apt to be truthful.

They see DOR as an authority figure and they are more likely to give the information andanswer questions from a DOR worker than they do with us. We just process benefitapplications. Also, the liaison is permitted to ask some personal questions that we can’t askabout.

# Workers were divided on whether they used liaisons to review the CA/CS form that clientsfilled out; add new information to a case; or help to establish, modify, or enforce an order.About half said they did and half said they did not call upon liaisons for this form ofassistance.

Table 11. How DTA Workers Use Child Support Liaisons


to liaisons

Dorchester

(n=39)

New-market(n=46)

Total

(n=85)

Dorchester

(n=26)

New-market(n=42)

Total

(n=68)

When a case has child support issues, NoI usually get a liaison involved: Yes

43%57%

27%73%

34%66%

27%73%

24%76%

25%75%

The liaison and I have done some client No interviews together: Yes

61%40%

59%41%

60%40%

48%52%

56%44%

53%47%

Have you used the liaison to:

Review the client’s CA/CS form NoYes

If yes, was this: Helpful

Not helpful

65%35%

100%0%

48%53%

100%0%

55%45%

100%0%

57%43%

100%0%

46%54%

100%0%

50%50%

100%0%

##


Table 11. How DTA Workers Use Child Support Liaisons


to liaisons

Dorchester

(n=39)

New-market(n=46)

Total

(n=85)

Dorchester

(n=26)

New-market(n=42)

Total

(n=68)



Show you how to interview aboutnoncustodial parents: No

YesIf yes, was this:

HelpfulNot helpful

81%19%

100%0%

83%18%

100%0%

82%18%

100%0%

81%19%

100%0%

81%19%

100%0%

81%19%

100%0%

Get more noncustodial parent informationfrom clients: No

YesIf yes, was this:

HelpfulNot helpful

55%45%

100%0%

34%66%

96%4%

43%57%

97%3%

38%62%

100%0%

32%68%

96%5%

34%66%

97%3%

Check a client’s child support status: No Yes

If yes, was this:Helpful

Not helpful

22%78%

100%0%

29%71%

100%0%

26%74%

100%0%

8%92%

100%0%

28%72%

100%0%

20%80%

100%0%

Add new information/dependents to a case: NoYes


Not helpful

71%29%

100%0%

43%57%

100%0%

55%45%

100%0%

61%39%

100%0%

41%59%

100%0%

48%52%

100%0%

Get information on support payments:

NoYes


Not helpful

23%77%

100%0%

27%73%

97%3%

25%75%

98%2%

8%92%

100%0%

27%73%

96%4%

20%80%

98%2%

Help establish/modify or enforce an order:

No Yes


Not helpful

58%42%

86%14%

44%56%

100%0%

51%49%

94%6%

56%44%

90%10%

42%58%

100%0%

48%52%

96%4%

Differences between sites in the “all workers” category are significant at .05. Differences between sites in the “workers with most exposure” category are significant at .05.


##




Reactions of DTA Workers: Changes in DTA Work

The survey found a number of ways in which DTA workers felt the presence of the liaison hadchanged their own practice. For example, more than half of all surveyed workers reported thatsince the child support liaisons started working in their office, there had been improvements in:

# How they explained the importance of child support to clients;

# Their ability to get answers to clients’ questions on child support;

# Their understanding of child support and how DOR works a case;

# Their feelings about dealing with clients’ child support issues; and

# Feeling supported around child support issues.

For example, during a focus group one DTA worker noted:

[The liaison] has shown me various ways of obtaining information from clients who arereluctant to give information on absent parents. I feel this is one of the best things that hashappened within the office. We no longer have to feel like our backs are up against the wallswhile trying to obtain true, complete and accurate information from clients.

The proportion of respondents reporting improvements was even higher among those whoworked most closely with liaisons. The items receiving the highest improvement ratings amongthese respondents were feeling supported around child support issues and getting answers toclients’ questions on child support issues.

On the other hand, the majority of workers felt that their workload was the same or worse thanit was before the liaisons came to the office. This probably reflects the fact that since June 2001,there have been substantial staff layoffs and early retirement incentives at both DTA offices; asa result, average caseloads have risen about 25 percent.

##




Table 12. Worker Reports on Changes in DTA Workers Since the Introduction of Child Support Liaisons

All workers Workers with most exposureto liaisons

Since the child support liaisonstarted, have there been changesin...

Dorchester

(n=39)

New-market(n=46)

Total

(n=85)

Dorchester

(n=26)

New-market(n=42)

Total

(N=68)

How you explain the importance of child support to clients: Better

WorseSame

58%0%42%

69%0%31%

64%0%36%

76%0%24%

69%0%31%

72%0%28%

The way you personally questionclients about the noncustodial parent:

Better WorseSame

47%0%53%

46%2%52%

46%1%53%

65%0%35%

49%2%49%

55%2%44%

Getting more complete noncustodialparent information on the CA/CS:

Better WorseSame

46%0%54%

61%2%36%

54%1%44%

58%0%42%

66%2%32%

63%2%35%

Getting answers to clients’ questionson child support: Better

WorseSame

63%0%37%

86%0%14%

76%0%24%

75%0%25%

90%0%10%

85%0%15%

Your understanding of child support and how DOR works a case: Better

WorseSame

61%0%39%

69%2%29%

65%1%33%

72%0%28%

69%2%29%

70%2%28%

Your feelings about dealing withclients’ child support issues: Better

WorseSame

54%0%46%

67%0%33%

61%0%39%

75%0%25%

67%0%33%

70%0%30%

Feeling supported around childsupport issues: Better

WorseSame

71%0%29%

73%0%27%

73%0%28%

92%0%8%

74%0%26%

80%0%20%

Since the liaison came, I call DORcustomer service less: True

Not True65%35%

78%22%

72%28%

79%21%

81%19%

80%20%

I have learned from the liaison how todo a better interview about thenoncustodial parent: True

Not True60%41%

39%61%

48%52%

75%25%

42%59%

54%46%

The changeover to BEACONS madeit hard to focus on child support: True

Not True42%58%

51%49%

47%53%

43%57%

53%48%

49%51%

It is hard to focus on child supportwith so much to cover: True

Not True67%33%

61%39%

64%36%

63%38%

63%37%

63%37%

##


Table 12. Worker Reports on Changes in DTA Workers Since the Introduction of Child Support Liaisons


Since the child support liaisonstarted, have there been changesin...

Dorchester

(n=39)

New-market(n=46)

Total

(n=85)

Dorchester

(n=26)

New-market(n=42)

Total

(N=68)



Your workload: BetterWorseSame

19%14%67%

49%7%44%

36%10%54%

28%12%60%

50%7%43%

42%9%49%



Although DTA workers reported many changes in their own approaches to cases as a result ofthe introduction of the liaison, most rejected the notion that the loss of child support liaisons attheir office “wouldn’t make much of a difference.” Among workers who used liaisons heavily,only about 10 percent agreed with this statement.

As Table 13 indicates, DTA workers at both agencies overwhelmingly agreed that the absence ofliaisons will make it harder to get answers to clients’ child support questions. At least two-thirdsagreed that it will be harder to get good information from clients about noncustodial parents,harder to review CA/CS forms and catch missing items, and harder to explain the importance ofchild support to clients.

Indeed, during focus groups, DTA workers were unanimous in asserting that part-time coveragewas not sufficient. Staff at both agencies reported that “there is always someone sitting with [theliaison].”

Our [part-time] liaison was great but he was only here one day per week. If you can refer themto a liaison the same day they come into DTA, you get more information. With the part-timeliaison, you’d have to make an appointment with the client to come back. And you really don’twant to give them time to think about their answers and what not to say.

##




Table 13. Expected Impact of Removing Child Support Liaisons


to liaisons

Dorchester

(n=39)

New-market(n=46)

Total

(n=85)

Dorchester

(n=26)

New-market(n=42)

Total

(n=68)

How would things be different without a child support liaison at your office?

It would not make much of adifference. True

Not True24%76%

14%86%

18%82%

9%91%

13%87%

12%89%

It would be harder to explain theimportance of child support toclients. True

Not True61%39%

59%41%

60%40%

76%24%

61%39%

66%34%

It would be harder to get goodinformation from clients aboutnoncustodial parents. True

Not True67%33%

67%33%

67%33%

83%17%

68%33%

73%27%

It would be harder to review CA/CS forms and catch missing items. True

Not True57%43%

64%36%

61%39%

65%35%

64%36%

64%36%

It would be harder to get answers to clients’ child support Truequestions. Not True

78%22%

88%12%

84%16%

95%5%

90%10%

92%8%

It would be easier to focus onTAFDC. True

Not True48%52%

29%71%

37%63%

58%42%

31%69%

40%60%



Reactions of DTA Workers: Recommendations

Table 14 shows that there were a number of areas in which DTA workers believed DOR and DTAcould make further improvements in their collaborations.

# Virtually all workers who completed the questionnaire agreed that DOR and DTA could doa better job together if the computer systems at the two agencies could interface.

In focus group interviews, DTA workers described the new computer system as complicated andfraught with the typical difficulties of a new system start-up. The introduction of the new system

##




has been stressful for DTA workers. There have been problems with the conversion of old caseinformation onto the new system. And the noncustodial parent information that workerspainstakingly enter on ten different screens has been found not to filter over to DOR on a reliablebasis. As a result, some DTA workers get frustrated calls from DOR reporting that they havefailed to complete the noncustodial parent screens when it is a system problem, and they are askedto print ten different screens and fax them to DOR.

# Approximately 90 percent of responding workers favored having DOR’s outreach services fornoncustodial parents available at DTA.

# About two-thirds to three-quarters of the DTA workers at the two agencies cited the need tocollect child support in more cases so that the benefits of child support become more visibleto DTA workers.

As one worker noted in a focus group interview, it would be easier to motivate DTA workers tospend time on child support if DOR were able to generate child support payments in more cases.While the contact information that clients provide to DTA may not always lead to DOR’s locatinga noncustodial parent or collecting support, DTA workers believe that their clients are providinggood information and are frustrated when their efforts to collect this information do not result inchild support payments. DTA workers also stated that they did not get overall statistics showingthe proportion of cases with orders or the amount of child support collected on behalf of theirclients, and that such information would be welcome.

# Approximately two-thirds of the DTA workers supported delaying cash assistance until DORsays an applicant has cooperated and increasing the pass through so that public assistancefamilies get more child support.

# There was disagreement across the two offices about the value of doing more training withDTA workers about child support, with Dorchester workers favoring this suggestion stronglyand Newmarket workers being less supportive.

# Only about a third of the workers at both offices agreed that agency performance would beenhanced by having DTA workers spend more time on child support issues.

##




Table 14. Recommendations for Improvement


DTA and DOR could do a better job together if:

Dorchester

(n=39)

New-market(n=46)

Total

(n=85)

Dorchester

(n=26)

New-market(n=42)

Total

(n=68)

Their computer systems were compatible. 97% 93% 95% 100% 92% 95%

DTA had more training about childsupport. 71% 60% 65% 83% 58% 68%

DTA and DOR staff did team-building. 83% 71% 77% 88% 74% 79%

DTA saw more clients get child supportchecks. 71% 83% 78% 71% 82% 78%

DTA could spend more time on childsupport. 27% 44% 37% 35% 44% 41%

DOR’s noncustodial parent services wereavailable at DTA. 91% 88% 89% 92% 87% 89%

There were stricter penalties fornoncooperation. 81% 90% 86% 86% 92% 90%

Cash assistance could be delayeduntil DOR says an applicant hascooperated.

61% 76% 69% 71% 74% 73%

The pass-through was increased so publicassistance families got more childsupport.

71% 73% 72% 69% 77% 74%

Differences between sites in the “workers with most exposure” category are significant at .05.

Reactions of DOR Workers

Like their counterparts at DTA, DOR workers experienced many frustrating changes in the tenmonths following the introduction of full-time liaisons at DTA offices that have affected theirmorale and productivity. One of the primary problems was the new DTA computer system. Atone point, due to technical difficulties with the transfer of information from DTA to DOR, therewere approximately 2,000 cases at DOR that could not be matched with DTA records on thesystem. Since the problem occured on a random basis, workers never knew if information that hadtraveled across the two systems was complete. DOR workers also found printing noncustodialparent screens to be inefficient and time consuming. As a result of retirements and the state’shiring freeze, the DOR metro office lost and was unable to replace four of its six lawyers, leadingto huge delays in filing cases in court and obtaining orders. Finally, DOR workers continued to

##




face problems with their own computer system, COMETS; their lack of access to DTA’s systemand birth certificate records; and restrictions on e-mail communication with DTA workers.

Not surprisingly, given the presence of these other problems, DOR workers failed to see too manybright spots in their work lives and did not notice overwhelming benefits to having full-time childsupport liaisons at DTA. They cited a number of complaints about DTA workers.

I haven’t seen any change. Applications are not being filled out. . . . There’s lots of missingand incorrect information. . . . We need a notarized statement if they change the name of thenoncustodial parent and they don’t get it. . . .

Although they conceded in focus groups that they did not meet with DTA workers and that theremay be some confusion about what DOR workers need to take a case to court, DOR staffbelieved that DTA workers could do a better job when they interview clients. They felt that publicassistance workers should take the extra time to explore whether the information that the clientprovided contradicted information that she had previously supplied and to question them ingreater depth when the information seemed vague or incomplete. Since some clients just giveenough information to get by, the good interviewer must be an active listener and a moreaggressive questioner. According to one administrator, the failure for this to happen reflected thedifferent performance measures to which workers in the two agencies were subject.

It is all about how you go about asking the question. And there is no reason why DTA can’tdo a better job conducting this interview. It is not that they don’t know how to do it. If they hadthe desire, it would work. The problem is that for the most part, they are measured byapplication outcomes and not child support.

These complaints notwithstanding, DOR workers saw benefits to having child support liaisons atDTA offices. They credited the liaisons with getting workers to generate screen prints when theywere necessary and ensuring them a faster response to their questions. And when the child supportliaisons actively worked cases, the results were noticeable. As one worker observed:

The cases that they have touched go much better. They know what I need to get the case readyto go to court. When I can’t reach clients by phone and I need documents, they get them for me.I definitely see a difference. So I’m all for them staying.

##




Summary and Discussion

Unfortunately, given the shortage of lawyers, DOR did not see any improvement in the rate atwhich orders are being established, even when case preparation was faster and more complete.Indeed, the shortage of lawyers has introduced three to four months of delay in the normal orderestablishment process.

Summary of Key Findings

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

# There was an increase in the speed with which information about the noncustodial parent waselicited from the custodial parent following the initiation of public assistance benefits and therate at which this information was communicated to the child support agency.

In the post-liaison sample, higher proportions of cases were conveyed to DOR less than a yearafter the inception of public assistance, and nearly two-thirds of the cases with orders receivedthese orders within two years. While less than optimal, these patterns represent improvements overthose observed in the sample of cases drawn prior to the introduction of child support liaisons andsuggest greater communication between the two agencies.

# The comparison of information on the CA/CS showed no consistent evidence that clientsinterviewed at the public assistance agency when child support liaisons were based at thoseagencies provided more complete information about the other parent that would lead to hislocation by the child support agency.

The lack of improvement in noncustodial parent information may reflect the fact that liaisons didnot routinely conduct client interviews along with DTA workers. Only about half of surveyedDTA workers agreed with the statement, “The liaison and I have done some client interviewstogether.” And less than 20 percent reported using liaisons to show them how to interview clientsabout noncustodial parents. Thus, while child support liaisons were viewed as a valuable resourcefor DTA workers, they were not used as interview coaches.

##




# There was no consistent evidence that the child support agency undertook various follow-upsteps more regularly and with greater speed in the sample generated after the introduction ofchild support liaisons, although action patterns and time frames were more favorable for casesprocessed by the liaison who was skilled in establishing cases.

While some actions were faster, others were not; and those actions requiring attorney intervention,including court hearings, were decidedly slower. This pattern is believed to reflect the loss ofseveral DOR attorneys and a hiring freeze during the months after the child support liaison beganworking at DTA offices. Indeed, the lack of attorneys at the Metro office of DOR introducedserious delays in many child support activities during the post-liaison time period under study. Itshould be noted, however, that action patterns and time frames were more favorable at the officestaffed by a child support liaison who had created cases at DOR prior to becoming a liaison andwas adept at preparing cases for legal action. This suggests that child support liaisons who areskilled in case establishment have the potential to have an impact on cases processing times andaction patterns.

Another factor that affected case processing patterns following the placement of child supportliaisons at DTA offices was the August 2001 introduction of DTA’s new computerized system.Although the post-liaison sample was drawn in July 2001 to avoid the impact of the change, thedisposition of those cases was undoubtedly affected by the new computer system, which wasextremely problem-ridden for the ensuing ten months when the liaisons were housed at DTA.While these problems were ultimately resolved, they were not taken care of while the liaisons werebased at DTA offices on a full-time basis and this affected the performance of workers of bothagencies. The generation of the post liaison sample in July 2001, one month after the placementof liaisons in June 2001, may also have affected case processing patterns since the liaisonsundoubtedly became more skilled over time.

Finally, the reliability of the pre- and post-liaison analysis is limited by the small number of casesin the two samples (e.g., 272 cases in the pre-liaison sample and 137 in the post-liaison sample) andthe uneven quality of information available in DOR and DTA files about case actions and timeframes. As a result of these factors, the pre- and post-liaison analysis effort must be viewed asexploratory and suggestive rather than conclusive.

# While the impact of child support liaisons on case processing patterns and information qualityare ambiguous, the reactions of public assistance workers to liaisons are clear. Focus groupsand surveys conducted with public assistance workers in two large, Boston-area public

##




assistance offices showed strong support for the placement of full-time child support liaisonsin their offices.

With their access to computerized child support records and their ability to communicate withDOR workers by e-mail, liaisons bridged the communication gaps between the two agencies thatresulted from incompatible computer systems and security measures that prohibited electroniccommunication about cases between workers in the two different agencies. Having child supportliaisons on scene meant that public assistance workers could immediately refer clients whoappeared to be evasive or have problem cases for more intensive interview efforts. In addition tobeing better able to explain the benefits of establishing paternity and child support to clients, childsupport liaisons were perceived to elicit more honest responses among clients because DOR isperceived by some in the community to be more powerful than DTA. The presence of DORliaisons at DTA was credited with making DTA workers more attentive to child support mattersand generating a greater sense of team work and collaboration between the two agencies. Workerscredited the liaisons with saving them time because they were able to reduce time-consumingtelephone calls to DOR’s customer service bureau and to individual workers at DOR’s MetroOffice to ask and answer questions. They also credited liaisons with improving client satisfactionsince clients were able to get answers to the many questions they have about their child supportstatus and their checks when they visited the public assistance agency.

Child support liaisons concurred with these assessments. Both workers reported that they receiveda regular stream of referrals from public assistance workers. Indeed, their records of activity showthat during their ten-month tenure at public assistance agencies, they handled child support mattersfor 1,833 clients and their 2,882 cases. Although they attempted to review the information suppliedby clients about noncustodial parents and identify cases with incomplete or contradictory data,they were slowed in these efforts by the simultaneous introduction of DTA’s new computersystem. # 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, theygenerally failed to see the value of housing child support workers at public assistance agencies.

In part, their lukewarm assessments of the impact of child support liaisons reflected thesimultaneous introduction of DTA’s new computerized system. Due to system implementationproblems, some noncustodial parent information that was supposed to be automaticallytransmitted to DOR’s system did not transfer over 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 suspect that publicassistance workers fail to pursue information about noncustodial parents as thoroughly as theyshould, they viewed child support liaisons as “rewards” for DTA workers’ not stressingcooperation with child support.

Workers at both agencies experienced several other difficulties at about the same time the childsupport liaisons were introduced, and these problems may have offset any benefits provided bythe liaisons. A state hiring freeze, coupled with early retirement incentives, translated into sharpreductions in staffing. For DTA workers, this meant a dramatic rise in client caseloads, while DORexperienced a dramatic shortage of attorneys that slowed the process of filing cases in court andestablishing orders. DTA workers have also confronted serious cutbacks in benefits for clients,leaving them less equipped to prevent evictions, provide emergency assistance, and/or providefood stamps assistance. According to workers in both agencies, the net result of thesedevelopments is a serious erosion of worker morale and productivity. Needless to say, this makesit difficult to assess the impact of child support liaisons and to isolate their contributions.

Discussion

The perceived benefits of full-time child support liaisons in public assistance agencies inMassachusetts are consistent with those observed in other states (St. Peter, 2001). For example,a co-location pilot program in Florida concluded that, while cooperation is not dependent onIV-D and IV-A co-location, it made the processing of cases much faster and more efficient. Thepilot also allowed for on-the-spot verification of noncustodial parent information with IV-Dresources to which IV-A simply did not have access. Finally, networking between agencies greatlyimproved interviewing by decreasing time that IV-A spent on collecting IV-D information andreducing duplicate information collection.

Child support administrators in New Jersey also concluded that co-location helped to alleviate theproblem of lengthy periods between phone calls, messages, and mail to obtain further informationabout noncustodial parents. By placing IV-A and IV-D workers together, clients could beinterviewed sequentially by personnel in both agencies and information could be instantly verified.

Child support administrators in North Carolina feel that co-location encourages workers to takea more holistic attitude and avoid “that is not my job” outlook. Since the noncustodial parent may

##




be present at the initial public assistance interview, IV-D workers who are on-scene can get morethorough information and actually initiate the process of establishing a child support order.

Wisconsin has also found that paternity workers who co-locate in public assistance offices helppublic assistance IV-A workers to understand (and pass on to their clients) the importance of childsupport in “the ability for moms to care for their children — especially after assistance is gone.”In their view, the presence of on-site IV-D workers streamlines the communication process andsimplifies the roles of IV-A and IV-D workers.

Finally, Virginia finds that its joint interviewing and team case management approach affords therapid review of applications and immediate remedy of problems without the need to go back andforth to track missing information. Having staff from both agencies together has improvedcustomer service for clients since all their inquiries can be answered in one agency visit. For staff,proximity has meant that individuals in both agencies share information and “get to know andtrust each other.”

Co-location, however, may not be feasible in the face of staff shortages, budget shortfalls, andcutbacks that strain agency resources. Nor is co-location the only way to foster cooperationbetween public assistance and child support agencies. More to the point, the limited impact thatfull-time child support liaisons in Massachusetts had on case processing patterns underscores thefact that child support liaisons alone are not sufficient to achieve improvements in the quality ofinformation 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 neededto achieve improvements in client cooperation and interagency communication. As noted below,DOR and DTA have already begun following up on this project with initiatives that includeincreased on-line access to data, cross-training, continued use of liaisons statewide, and improvedcase processing. The needed steps include the following:

# Resolve interface problems between the public assistance and child support agencies that delaythe initiation of child support action. Some of these issues should be addressed through newtechnology.

Until August 2001, the initiation of a child support case depended on the conveyance of theCA/CS from the public assistance to the child support agency. Not surprisingly, there were manyproblems associated with the process of generating and transmitting a paper form giving theidentity and whereabouts of the noncustodial parent from one agency to another.

##




During the summer of 2001, the Department of Transitional Assistance introduced BEACON,a new computer system, that dramatically changed the intake process and the interface with thechild support agency. DTA caseworkers are required to complete multiple screens that requestinformation about the noncustodial parent. The information that used to come to DOR on paperCA/CS is now conveyed to DOR electronically. Although there have been many problems withthe implementation of BEACON and the child support interface screen in particular, it isanticipated that the new system will go far in addressing the issue of delay in conveying cases toDOR for child support attention. Planned improvements include giving designated DOR staffin each region direct on-line access to selected screens on BEACON.

Other technological tools may also help and their use should be explored. For example, the publicassistance agency in Hennepin County, Minnesota introduced “Diamond,” a method of scanninginto the computer documents such as divorce decrees, birth certificates, and Recognition ofParentage forms. Child support workers who open new child support cases and have access toDiamond report that this has made their jobs much easier. As one Minnesota child support workerput it, “There are clues in those documents that we might never get from the custodial parent. Forexample, I have found the Social Security Number of the noncustodial parent on a divorce decreefrom another state.” The Vermont Office of Child Support has also launched a new documentimaging system that allows workers to retrieve documents electronically at their individualcomputer stations, rather than having to request a hard copy from central files (Lee, 2002). Theneed to access and manage volumes of vital records and legal documents in child support casesrequires that workers in public assistance and child support agencies have more sophisticatedmethods of electronically retrieving and sending documents.

Finally, the agencies should explore the feasibility of permitting interagency communication aboutcases using e-mail techniques. For security reasons, workers in the two agencies are prohibitedfrom sending case information to one another electronically or making corrections on oneanother’s computer systems if new information about the noncustodial parent comes to light. Allinformation exchanges of this type require a telephone conversation or a written note — methodsof communication that are not likely to inspire usage by overworked technicians with heavycaseloads. The two agencies clearly need to explore more streamlined methods of communicationwhile preserving the confidentiality of case information and the integrity of their respectivesystems.

# Conduct additional training with public assistance workers on interviewing techniques anddevelop approaches to use with evasive clients.

##




Relatively few clients appear to engage in willful noncompliance with child support agencyrequirements, although more information may be generated through better interviewinginterventions with clients who provide incomplete or inaccurate noncustodial parent information.

According to a review of DOR files, only 10 percent of custodial parents overtly failed tocooperate with child support enforcement. In these instances, custodial parents providedconfusing or contradictory noncustodial parent information, and/or failed to appear for requiredmeetings, court hearings and genetic tests. It was far more common for data collectors to note incases without orders that the noncustodial parent could not be located.

A similar finding was made in a study of Boston-area public assistance clients interviewed inconnection with the Domestic Violence and Welfare Reform Project. As part of that project, 514clients who were interviewed by independent researchers responded to questions about theircooperation with location efforts by the child support agency. Virtually all interviewed women(96%) recalled being asked questions about the identity and location of the other parent, andvirtually all (94%) reported that they had provided all the information they had to the worker.However, far fewer (67%) indicated that they knew how to locate the other parent (Pearson, et al.,2001).

These patterns suggest that while tightening the noncooperation sanctions or making the provisionof verifiable contact information a condition for eligibility for public assistance might be effectivewith the 10 percent of cases with overt noncooperation, these measures will not address theproblem in a far larger pool of cases (40%) for which there is a lack of contact information.

Similarly, interviews with public assistance applicants and clients in Minnesota found that less thanhalf (42%) said the child support worker had probed or gave them suggestions on where to findmissing information about the other parent (Griswold, 2001). About half the workers surveyed ina national study of 84 public assistance offices reported that front-line interviews are often toobrief to encourage clients to provide maximum information, with workers spending an average of15 minutes of the two-hour client information collecting information about the noncustodialparent (Office of Inspector General, March 2000a).

Of course, additional training might not be well-received by all workers or make a difference. Only41 percent of surveyed public assistance workers in the two DTA offices with child supportliaisons felt that the quality of noncustodial parent information could be improved by DTAworkers spending more time on child support issues, and only 58 percent of workers at one of

##




these DTA office saw value in participating in more training about child support. Some vendorshave developed training programs specifically designed to promote cooperation and team building,and these might be better received by workers in both agencies (St. Peter, 2001).

As a follow-up to this project, DTA and DOR are developing a cross-training program. Thecurriculum for DTA workers will include the importance of child support for public assistancerecipients, how child support can help DTA, and interviewing skills. DOR workers will receivetraining on DTA benefits and program requirements.

# Use child support personnel to conduct interviews with clients who provide incomplete orinaccurate location information.

Until August 2001, applicants and clients were asked to repeatedly complete a paper-and-pencilform dealing with the location of the noncustodial parent. Since the introduction of BEACONin August 2001, clients are asked an identical array of questions, the answers to which are enteredon a series of computer screens that transfer to the child support agency. An analysis ofinformation supplied on repeat administrations of the CA/CS showed that little new informationwas supplied. Indeed, the increase was no more than 4 percent on any item. Direct questioningby child support workers appears to be more productive.

A study of information about the noncustodial parent conducted in Hennepin County, Minnesota,showed that, as a result of direct questioning in those cases with a missing Social Security numberfor the noncustodial parent, 7 to 11 percent of the custodial parents were able to provide thenumber when asked directly or told how to find it on documents they had with them. Of theclients who had not provided address information about the noncustodial parent on the referralform, 22 to 27 percent provided information when questioned directly by the child support agencyworker (Griswold and Pearson, 2001).

Clearly, it is easier to deploy child support workers to conduct follow-up interviews with clientswhen they are co-located at the public assistance agency. In the absence of co-location, DOR willhave to develop other techniques of quickly flagging appropriate cases with missing or incompleteinformation for follow-up interviews and conducting them. If the interface between DTA andDOR works properly, it should be possible for DOR to receive noncustodial parent informationrapidly, conduct verifications, and schedule interviews with clients who provide information thatcannot be verified. Alternatively, DOR should deploy personnel to conduct interviews who are

##




adept at creating cases and preparing them for legal action in order to avoid losing momentum inthe case establishment process.

While the full-time placement of child support liaisons in Boston area DTA offices was limitedto this project, DOR has designated staff in each regional office who visit local DTA offices atleast once a week. Every DTA office in the state receives this liaison assistance.

# Do a better job of explaining the importance of child support to clients and improving theperformance of the agency in generating support.

The review of child support cases for the clients in the pre- and post-liaison samples generatedfor this study found that only 20 to 35.5 percent had a child support order. A review of files forcases with no child support order showed that in 40 percent of the cases, the noncustodial parentcould not be located. Payment was even rarer, with only about 65 percent of cases with orders (orabout 80 of the original 409 [19.5%] cases in the pre- and post-samples) showing current paymentactivity. In the other 80 percent of cases (N=329), there was no child support order or currentpayment activity. Three-quarters of the cases with orders had arrears that averaged approximately$11,000. This is consistent with the GAO’s study showing that barring dramatic improvementsin the child support program, most families leaving welfare will not have an order and not getchild support (GAO, 1998).

Low rates of order establishment and collections can lead clients and workers to dismiss theimportance of child support. As one DTA worker who was interviewed in the Domestic Violenceand Welfare Reform Project put it, “Clients don’t look at DOR as a strong resource because theydon’t see money coming. . . . At least 75 percent of clients don’t get child support, and this is oneof the biggest problems for us at DTA” (Pearson, et al., 2001).

The lack of direct communication between DOR and public assistance clients may also lead toserious confusion that affects client cooperation. Interviews with clients in the Domestic Violenceand Welfare Reform Project indicated that approximately 20 percent of Boston area recipients ofpublic assistance did not know the status of their child support case and could not answerquestions about whether DOR had established paternity or a child support order in their caseand/or whether the noncustodial parent was paying child support. Asked to rate the child supportagency on support collections, about a third declined to respond because they simply did not knowhow the agency performs. Client confusion about the child support agency and the status of theircases may make them less motivated to fully cooperate.

##




DOR has taken several steps to improve communication with public assistance workers andclients. One is to develop a video and brochures that convey the importance of child support forthe child’s emotional well-being and the long-term financial security of the custodial parent’shousehold. These are being shown in many community settings such as health centers, socialservices agencies, and community-based organizations as part of an aggressive outreach effort byDOR to heighten the image of the child support agency and communicate its message directly toapplicants and recipients.

Improving communication with clients who have a child support case might also be a powerfulmotivating tool. DOR recently implemented an online system offering customers accessibility tocase information (Murray, 2002). This should be made available in public assistance agenciesalong with personnel to help clients use the Web site and obtain required Personal IdentificationNumbers and Access Codes.

To improve case processing, DOR is now providing DTA with an affidavit of paternity that DTAworkers can complete with clients. DOR files this affidavit with a complaint to establish paternityand a child support order. Because DOR staff will not have to contact the custodial parent tocomplete the affidavit or wait for return mail, staff will be able to get cases into court faster. DORstaff can also use the affidavit as a basis for issuing administrative orders for genetic markingtesting, instead of waiting for tests to be ordered at a court hearing. The new procedures areexpected to shorten case processing time frames by two to four weeks.

# Federal leadership should promote more substantial forms of IV-A/IV-D cooperation.

More than ever, collaboration between IV-A and IV-D agencies is being emphasized by federalagencies. A report from federal Department of Health and Human Services administrators statesthat “welfare reform has increased the importance of collaboration between child supportenforcement and public assistance agencies,” and points out that, typically, the public assistanceapplicant is first introduced to child support requirements by the welfare intake worker (OIG,March 2000b). To the Office of the Inspector General, collaboration between agencies meanssuch things as interagency meetings, IV-A workers effectively collecting and transferringnoncustodial parent-related information to IV-D workers, strengthening communications betweenagency staff, and providing cross-training to workers and administrators (ibid).

The Massachusetts Domestic Violence and Welfare Reform Project and the current CooperationProject have revealed some of the opportunities for, and obstacles to, agency collaboration. Over

##




the course of the four-year project on domestic violence, IV-A and IV-D staff worked togetherto design procedures for victims of domestic violence in public assistance and child supportagencies, as well as to create a specialized group of workers in both agencies offering support forclients and staff on domestic violence. As part of the Cooperation Project, the two agencies havecollaborated to conduct joint training programs and to place child support workers in publicassistance agencies on a full-time basis and integrate them into the staff so that they make the issueof child support visible and serve as a child support resource for clients and workers.

While in both projects there is ample evidence that DTA workers appreciate new staff andadministrators believe they have improved the child support profile, built rapport, and improvedagency performance, the two agencies continue to be separated by serious differences. One istheir approach to working with parents. IV-A workers have never needed to know much aboutthe noncustodial parents and frequently believe that asking details about relationships betweencustodial parents and noncustodial parents (particularly during initial interviews) is too personaland interferes with establishing a good relationship with the custodial parent. Some view the childsupport agency as invasive (asking personal questions, such as, “Who is the father of the child?”),punitive, and problematic for service providers who are trying to build a relationship of trust withthe client (GAO, 2000).

Child support agency workers, for their part, tend to believe there is little need for the custodialparent to have a “relationship” with the agency. Access to various databases such as motor vehicleand driver’s license systems has lessened the degree to which the child support agency dependson information about the noncustodial parent from the custodial parent, but such informationclearly makes their job easier (GAO, 2000).

Difficulties with the automated computer systems maintained by DOR and DTA are anothersource of frustration for staff in both agencies. While the new IV-A agency system, BEACON,promises to ameliorate this situation, its implementation was delayed and fraught with difficulties,particularly with respect to the screens that the two agencies share. The child support agency feelsthat it was not sufficiently consulted in the design of BEACON; the problems with the screensshared by the two agencies have led to serious backlogs in the initiation of child support cases.The problem of technological incompatibility is only compounded by security policies that restrictelectronic communication between workers in the two agencies about case information and theinability of workers in both agencies to access one another’s databases.

##




Finally, the two agencies are separated by their distinct incentive systems and accountabilitystandards. The public assistance and child support agencies in Massachusetts are housed inseparate state departments, with line workers in the two agencies having no face-to-face contact.In addition to having distinct management and information systems, they have unique intakeprocedures, staff training programs, and oversight arrangements. They are also governed byseparate federal incentive systems and performance standards.

While child support workers are judged on order establishment and collections, public assistanceworkers are measured on whether they process applications for benefits within 30 days. Line staffand administrators for both agencies believe that if the federal government is genuinely interestedin fostering collaborations between agencies in order to improve rates of cooperation of welfarerecipients, it will have to subject both types of agencies to some of the same set of performanceexpectations and incentives. Just as public assistance agencies receive bonuses for increasing workparticipation, they should stand to realize some financial reward for doing a good job of generatingreliable child support information. By the same token, child support agencies might receive extraincentives for footing the cost of co-location and other expenses associated with placing childsupport workers in public assistance agencies.

# Explore the use of financial incentives at the state level to strengthen public assistance agencycommitment to child support enforcement.

While staff and administrators at both the public assistance and the child support agency firmlybelieve that changes are needed at the federal level to enable states to improve cooperation ratesof welfare recipients, it may be possible in the short-term to create helpful incentives at the statelevel. For instance, DTA could be allowed to receive all or a portion of the increase in annualTANF child support collections over a baseline amount. (In Massachusetts, child supportcollections on behalf of public assistance recipients are returned to the state’s general fund, notto the individual agency budgets of DTA or DOR.) In effect, DTA would have a financial stakein DOR’s success at collecting child support in public assistance cases. Such a measure wouldprovide bonus dollars to DTA for effectively gathering information from public assistance clientsand for working to promote clients’ cooperation with child support enforcement efforts.

##




References

Griswold, Esther Ann, “Research Findings on Customer Cooperation in Hennepin County,Minnesota,” Child Support Report, Vol. XXIII, No. 11, November 2001.

Griswold, Esther Ann and Jessica Pearson, “Hennepin County Child Support Video Interviewingand Client Referral Services: Final Report,” Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research, April 2001.

Huibregtse, Bob, “Paternity Establishment: Where Welfare Reform Starts,” NCSEA News, Vol.XXIV, No. 1, Winter 1995.

Lee, Sarah, “Vermont Office of Child Support Develops Document Imaging System,” ChildSupport Report, Vol. XXIV, No. 12, December 2002.

Marsiglio, W., P. Amato, R.D. Day, and M.E. Lamb, “Scholarship on Fatherhood in the 1990s andBeyond,” Journal of Marriage and the Family. 62: 1173-1191, 2000.

McLanahan, Sara, Renee Monson, and Patricia Brown, “Paternity Establishment for AFDCMothers: A Look at Three Wisconsin Counties,” in Garfinkel, McLanahan, and Robins (eds.),Child Support Assurance: Lessons from Wisconsin. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1992.

Murray, Tim, “Massachusetts eCSE Case Manager,” Child Support Report, Vol. XXIV, No. 12,December 2002.

Office of Inspector General, “Client Cooperation with Child Support Enforcement: Challengesand Strategies to Improvement,” Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services,OEI-06-98-00041, March 2000a.

Office of Inspector General, “Client Cooperation with Child Support Enforcement: The Role ofPublic Assistance Agencies,” Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services,OEI-06-98-00042, March 2000b.

##




Pearson, Jessica, Nancy Thoennes, Lanae Davis, and Susan Clark, “Massachusetts DomesticViolence and Welfare Reform: An Empirical Study. Final Report,” Denver, CO: Center for PolicyResearch, June 2001.

Roberts, Paula, “A Guide to Implementing the Child Support Cooperation Policies: Provisionsof the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 1996,” WashingtonDC: Center for Law & Social Policy, 1996.

Roberts, Paula, “Memo RE: Final TANF Regulations Regarding Child Support Assignment andCooperation and Distribution of Support Collections,” Washington, D.C.: Center for Law andSocial Policy (CLASP), 1999.

Roberts, Paula and Jacqueline Finkel, “Establishing Paternity for Children Receiving AFDC:What’s Wrong and What’s Right with the Current System,” Washington, D.C.: Center for Law andSocial Policy (CLASP), 1994.

Sorensen, E. and Chava Zibman, “To What Extent Do Children Benefit From Child Support?”Discussion Paper 99-11, in Assessing the New Federalism: An Urban Institute Program to Assess ChangingSocial Policies, Urban Institute, 2000.

St. Peter, Teresa, “Enhancing Interagency Collaboration and Client Cooperation: A Review ofState Practices,” Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research, January 2001.

Turetsky, Vicki, “Pointing the Finger at Moms: Child Support Cooperation Provisions in theConference Welfare Bill,” Washington, D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), 1996.

Turetsky, Vicki, “A Preliminary Look at State Child Support Cooperation Policies,” Washington,D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), 1998.

U.S. General Accounting Office, “Welfare Reform: State Sanction Policies and Number ofFamilies Affected,” Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO/HEHS-00-44,2000.

U.S. General Accounting Office, “Child Support an Uncertain Income Supplement for FamiliesLeaving Welfare,” Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO/HEHS-98-168,1998.

##




U.S. General Accounting Office, “Child Support Enforcement: Families Could Benefit fromStronger Enforcement Program,” Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office,GAO/HEHS-95-24, 1994.

Appendix

F:\PROJECTS\Masscoop\Forms\Specialists Study.doc Page 1

DOR/DTA Child Support Specialists StudyCENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH

Review Date: ______/______/______

DTA Case Type: DTA OFFICE: ___________________1 – New Application2 – Reapplication Office Visit Date: ______/_____/_____3 – Transition4 – Extension of Benefits

CUSTODIAL PARENT

CP NAME: __________________________________________________________

SSN: _______- ______- ________ DOB: ______/______/______

Education: Ethnicity: Language of Interview:1 – No school at all 1 – American Indian or Alaskan American 1 – English2 – 1-8 years 2 – Asian or Pacific Islander 2 – Spanish3 – 9-11 years (Did not complete HS) 3 – Black 3 – Portuguese4 – 12 years (High school diploma) 4 – Hispanic 4 – Russian5 – GED 5 – White, not of Hispanic origin 5 – Vietnamese6 – Some college 6 – Other 6 – Haitian Creole7 – Completed 2-year college 7 – Unknown8 – Completed 4-year college9 – Don’t know

NONCUSTODIAL PARENT (#1)

NCP Name: ____________________________________

DOR Case #:______ - ______ - _______ SSN: ______ - _____ - ________ DOB: ____/____/____

Ethnicity: Marital Status: Lived Together:1 – American Indian or Alaskan American 1 – Divorced 1 – Yes2 – Asian or Pacific Islander 2 – Never Married 2 – No3 – Black 3 – DK 3 – DK4 – Hispanic 4 – Other 4 – Other5 – White, not of Hispanic origin6 – Other9 – Race unknown

TANF MedicalMale /

Female DOBFamilyCap?

Yes/No

Opennow?

Yes/No

Date firstreceived

Date lastreceived

Opennow?

Yes/No

Date firstreceived

Date lastreceived

Child 1 M F ___/___/___ Yes No Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___ Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___Child 2 M F ___/___/___ Yes No Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___ Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___Child 3 M F ___/___/___ Yes No Ye No ___/___/___ ___/___/___ Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___Child 4 M F ___/___/___ Yes No Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___ Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___Child 5 M F ___/___/___ Yes No Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___ Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___


CA/CS Initial CA/CS Subsequent CA/CS # 1 Subsequent CA/CS # 2

Date completed at DTA ____/____/____ ____/____/____ ____/____/____

Date stamped at DOR ____/____/____ ____/____/____ ____/____/____

Check ifinformation

is from InitialCA/CS

Check ifinformationis from 2nd

CA/CS

Check ifinformationis from 3rd

CA/CS

Verification Action1 – No evidence of attempt to verify2 – Information incorrect /could not verify3 - Verified

Date of verification

Didverificationconfirm the

CA/CSinformation?

NCP name ___/___/___ Yes NoNCP address

___/___/___ Yes NoNCP phone

___/___/___ Yes No

NCP DOB___/___/___ Yes No

NCP SSN___/___/___ Yes No

NCP employer___/___/___ Yes No

NCP physical info___/___/___ Yes No

NCP parent info___/___/___ Yes No

NCP other info___/___/___ Yes No

DOR ACTIONS DATE DATE

DOR Case Created ___/___/___ Judgment of Paternity ___/___/___

Contact CP for NCP Info ___/___/___ SOP Sent ___/___/___

Referred to CPLU for Locate ___/___/___ SOP Returned - Positive ___/___/___

DOR Birth Certificate ___/___/___ SOP Returned - Negative ___/___/___

Referred to Attorney for Review ___/___/___ Most Recent Court Hearing Scheduled ___/___/___

Referred to IV-D Agency in Other State ___/___/___ Most Recent Court Hearing Held ___/___/___

CP-Letter from Attorney ___/___/___ Court Order for Child Support ___/___/___

NCP-Letter from Attorney ___/___/___ Sent Continuous Service Letter ___/___/___

DR Summons ___/___/___ Wage Withholding Order ___/___/___

Genetic Test Scheduled ___/___/___ Case Closed ___/___/___

Genetic Test Done ___/___/___


DOR PAYMENT ACTIVITY DATE AMOUNT TYPE: 1 – WA 2 - Direct 3 - Other Intercept

CS Order _____/_____/_____

Arrears Order _____/_____/_____

First Payment _____/_____/_____

Most Recent Payment _____/_____/_____

Total Arrears _____/_____/_____

OTHER CASE FACTORS (Circle all that apply)1 - NCP Excluded in Genetic Tests 11 - NCP Incarcerated2 - NCP Receives Unemployment or Disability Benefits 12 - Sanctioned3 - NCP Unemployed 13 - Requested/Received Good Cause4 - NCP Doesn’t Appear at Hearing/Return Required Mail/Genetic Test 14 - NCP Deceased5 - CP Doesn’t Appear at Hearing/Return Required Mail/Genetic Test 15 - Multiple Fathers named in Case6 - CP Drops CS Matter 16 - Children Over Age 187 - CP Gives Misleading/Wrong Information 17 - Unable to Locate NCP8 - CP Receives Informal Support 18 - Unable to Verify NCP Information9 - Family Violence Indicator 19 - Other:______________________10 - CP Loses Custody

At what point did DOR action on this case break down and why?



NCP Name: ____________________________________

DOR Case #:______ . ______ . _______ SSN: ______- _____- ________ DOB: ____/____/____

Ethnicity: Marital Status: Lived Together:1 – American Indian or Alaskan American 1 - Divorced 1 - Yes2 – Asian or Pacific Islander 2 - Never Married 2 - No3 – Black 3 - DK 3 - DK4 – Hispanic 4 – Other 4 - Other5 – White, not of Hispanic origin6 – Other9 – Race unknown

TANF MedicalMale /


Yes/No

Opennow?

Yes/No

Date firstreceived

Date lastreceived

Opennow?

Yes/No

Date firstreceived

Date lastreceived

Child 1 M F ____/____/____ Yes No Yes No ___/___/___ ____/____/____ Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___Child 2 M F ____/____/____ Yes No Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___ Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___Child 3 M F ____/____/____ Yes No Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___ Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___Child 4 M F ____/____/____ Yes No Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___ Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___Child 5 M F ____/____/____ Yes No Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___ Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___




Check ifinformation is

from InitialCA/CS


CA/CS


CA/CS


Date ofverification

Did verificationconfirm the CA/CS

information?

NCP name ___/___/___ Yes NoNCP address ___/___/___ Yes NoNCP phone ___/___/___ Yes No

NCP DOB ___/___/___ Yes NoNCP SSN ___/___/___ Yes No

NCP employer ___/___/___ Yes NoNCP physical info ___/___/___ Yes No

NCP parent info ___/___/___ Yes NoNCP other info ___/___/___ Yes No














DOR PAYMENT ACTIVITY DATE AMOUNT TYPE: 1 – WA 2 - Direct 3 - Other intercept

CS Order _____/_____/_____

Arrears Order _____/_____/_____

First Payment _____/_____/_____


Total Arrears _____/_____/_____





NCP Name: ____________________________________

DOR Case #:______ . ______ . _______ SSN: ______- _____- ________ DOB: ____/____/____

Ethnicity: Marital Status: Lived Together:1 – American Indian or Alaskan American 1 - Divorced 1 - Yes2 – Asian or Pacific Islander 2 - Never Married 2 - No3 – Black 3 - DK 3 - DK4 – Hispanic 4 – Other 4 - Other5 – White, not of Hispanic origin6 – Other9 – Race unknown

TANF MedicalMale /


Yes/No

Opennow?

Yes/No

Date firstreceived

Date lastreceived

Opennow?

Yes/No

Date firstreceived

Date lastreceived

Child 1 M F ____/____/____ Yes No Yes No ___/___/___ ____/____/____ Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___Child 2 M F ____/____/____ Yes No Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___ Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___Child 3 M F ____/____/____ Yes No Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___ Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___Child 4 M F ____/____/____ Yes No Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___ Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___Child 5 M F ____/____/____ Yes No Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___ Yes No ___/___/___ ___/___/___




Check ifinformation is

from InitialCA/CS


CA/CS


CA/CS


Date ofverification

Did verificationconfirm the CA/CS

information?

NCP name ___/___/___ Yes NoNCP address ___/___/___ Yes NoNCP phone ___/___/___ Yes No

NCP DOB ___/___/___ Yes NoNCP SSN ___/___/___ Yes No

NCP employer ___/___/___ Yes NoNCP physical info ___/___/___ Yes No

NCP parent info ___/___/___ Yes NoNCP other info ___/___/___ Yes No














DOR PAYMENT ACTIVITY DATE AMOUNT TYPE: 1 – WA 2 - Direct 3 - Other intercept

CS Order _____/_____/_____

Arrears Order _____/_____/_____

First Payment _____/_____/_____


Total Arrears _____/_____/_____



Massachusetts Cooperation Project Week of ________________, 2001

Log of Activities for DOR Liaisons Name: ___________________________CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH

Attend Unitmeetings/trainings(DTA/DOR)

Formal/informaltrainingsw/DTAworkers

Meet withDTAsupervisors

Meet withDTA workersaboutcase(s)

Meet withcustodialparent

Phonecustodialparent

Meet orphonenoncustodialparent

ReviewDTA files(CA/CS)

Review/updateDORrecords

ContactDORtechs

Generaladminis-tration

Other (Describe)

Mo

nd

ay

Tu

esd

ay

Wed

nes

da

yT

hu

rsd

ay

Fri

da

y

Instructions: Under each general heading, indicate the number of hours you worked on this activity each day. Enter hours to the nearest quarter hour.For example: .25, 1.75, etc.Use the “Other” column to record activities that do not fit elsewhere. Remember to briefly describe these activities and indicate the hours spent on each “other” task.


Case Actions by DOR Liaisons: Custodial Parents Massachusetts Cooperation Project

Client name:______________________ SSN:__________________ Dates Seen by Liaison : _____/____/_____ _____/____/_____ _____/____/_____

DTA Status: � New applicant � Reapplicant � Transition � Extension � Other DTA Office: � Dorchester � Newmarket

Referral Source: � DTA worker � DOR worker � DTA supervisor � Other Client Contact: � Face-to-Face � Phone � None/N

Case Type: � TANF case � Non-TANF case � Relative Care case Language of Interview: � English � Spanish

DOR # 1-NCP __________________Case number:___________________� No order exists� Order exists-paying� Order exists-not paying� Order exists-not on Comets

Needs: � Create case � Add dep� Close case � NCP ID/locate� Establish order � Enforce order� Est. paternity � Financial issues� Nothing � Other

Action:� Review CA/CS� Review DOR screens� Update DOR screens� Contact DOR technicians� Obtain NCP information� Contact CP � Redirect child support check� Complete PAF/Long arm� Obtain needed document(s)� Do application for service� Give CP information� Give DTA worker/sup. information� No action taken� Other _______________________

Next steps:� None � DOR action� DTA action � Client action� Other _______________________

Comments/Notes:

DOR # 2-NCP____________________Case number:___________________� No order exists� Order exists-paying� Order exists-not paying� Order exists-not on Comets




DOR # 3-NCP____________________Case number:____________________� No order exists� Order exists-paying� Order exists-not paying� Order exists-not on Comets




DOR # 4-NCP____________________Case number:____________________� No order exists� Order exists-paying� Order exists-not paying� Order exists-not on Comets




Last June, DOR placed Paula/Blondelle in your office as a liaison to help with child support questions. Please help us determine the impact of having a child support liaison in your office.

Which best describes your job?1 - Screening/intake 4 - TAFDC2 - Food stamps 5 -Teen specialist3. Supervisor 6. Homeless unit

7. Other:______________

Do you handle cases where child support is an issue? 1 - Yes2 - No (Stop here)

Since June, about how many times have you worked with the child support liaison?1 - Never 4 - 6-10 times2 - 1-2 times 5 - More than 11 times3 - 3-5 times

How helpful has it been having a full-time child support specialist?1 - Very helpful 3 - Somewhat or very unhelpful2 - Somewhat helpful 4 - Neither helpful or unhelpful

Since the child support liaison started, have there been changes in.... Better Worse Same

How you explain the importance of child support to clients......... 1........... 2...........3The way you personally question clients about the NCP ............ 1........... 2...........3Getting more complete NCP information on the CA/CS.............. 1........... 2...........3Getting answers to clients’ questions on child support................ 1........... 2...........3Relations between DOR and DTA............................................... 1........... 2...........3Your understanding of child support/ how DOR works a case .... 1........... 2...........3Your feelings about dealing with clients’ child support issues..... 1........... 2...........3Feeling supported around child support issues........................... 1........... 2...........3Your work load .......................................................................... 1........... 2...........3Your opinion of DOR ................................................................... 1........... 2...........3Other___________________________________________ ..... 1......... 2........ 3

How true are the following statements? True Not True

When a case has child support issues, I usually get a liaison involved .......1 .........2the liaison came, I call DOR customer service less............................1 .........2ison and I have done some client interviews together.......................1 .........2rned from the liaison how to do a better interview about the NCP....1 .........2angeover to BEACON made it hard to focus on child support ..........1 .........2d to focus on child support with so much to cover.............................1 .........2

Have you asked the liaison to do or help with any of the following?Was this helpful?

....................................................................................... No ....... Yes Helpful Not Helpful Talk with clients directly about child support .................. 1 .......... 2 ................................ 1 ....................2 Review the CA/CS form that clients fill out..................... 1 .......... 2................................. 1 ....................2Show you how to interview clients about NCPs ............. 1 .......... 2................................. 1 ....................2Get more information from clients about the NCP ......... 1 .......... 2................................. 1 ....................2Check a client’s child support status .............................. 1 .......... 2................................. 1 ....................2Add new information to a case (new dependent)........... 1 .......... 2................................. 1 ....................2Get information on clients’ child support payments........ 1 .......... 2................................. 1 ....................2Help to establish/modify or enforce an order ................ 1 .......... 2................................. 1 ....................2Other___________________________________ ........ 1 .......... 2................................. 1 ....................2

DTA and DOR could do a better job together if…. True Not true

Computer systems at DOR and DTA could interface....................................................... 1 .................. 2DTA had more training or Q&A sessions about child support .......................................... 1 .................. 2DTA and DOR staff did team-building.............................................................................. 1 .................. 2DTA could see more clients get child support checks...................................................... 1 .................. 2DTA workers could spend more time on child support issues ......................................... 1 .................. 2DOR’s outreach services for NCPs were available at DTA.............................................. 1 .................. 2There were stricter penalties for noncooperation............................................................. 1 .................. 2Cash assistance could be delayed until DOR says an applicant has cooperated ........... 1 .................. 2The pass-through was increased so public assistance families got more child support .. 1 .................. 2Other (Describe)____________________________________....................................... 1 .................. 2

How would things be different without a child support specialist at your office? True Not TrueIt really won’t make much of a difference.........................................................................1 ..................2It will be harder to explain the importance of child support to clients ...............................1 ..................2It will be harder to get good information from clients about NCPs ...................................1 ..................2It will be harder to review CA/CS forms and catch missing items ....................................1 ..................2It will be harder to get answers to clients’ child support questions...................................1 ..................2It will be easier to focus on TAFDC issues.......................................................................1 ..................2

Anything else you would like to add about what it has been like to have a child support liaison at theOffice?

Evaluation of the Child Support LiaisonCenter for Policy Research

1570 Emerson StreetDenver, Colorado 80218

Since The liaI’ve leaThe chIt’s har

Enhancing Interagency Collaboration and Client Cooperation...Enhancing Interagency Collaboration and...

Documents

Transcript of Enhancing Interagency Collaboration and Client Cooperation...Enhancing Interagency Collaboration and...