Project Plan

This grant responded to 2004 Priority Area 3: Integration of Access and Visitation and Child Support Enforcement. The Colorado Parenting Time Project was designed to assess whether identifying parents with visitation problems in the child support caseload and providing services aimed at resolving the problems improved parent-child contact and the subsequent payment of child support. Conducted in child support agencies in El Paso and Jefferson Counties, the project ultimately involved the identification of 716 cases with visitation problems during May 2005 to December 2006, and their assignment to different groups for treatments of varying intensity.

• A high-level treatment group in both counties was offered informal facilitation by the child access specialist (CAS), a specially trained worker at the child support agency;
• A low-level treatment group in Jefferson County was handed or mailed printed information about parenting time problems and various community resources to help parents with access problems, including free mediation and parent education services; and
• In El Paso County, an established unit within the child support agency (Parent Opportunity Project, or POP) offered noncustodial (NCPs) assistance with employment and parenting time using both facilitation and mediation techniques.

(NB: these are non-IV-D program activities; they are not eligible for Federal financial participation.)

The project evaluation assessed the number and types of parents who enrolled in the project, the services they received, and the outcomes they experienced.

Study Limitations

• Compared to cases in the high- and low-level treatment group, cases in POP in El Paso included a disproportionate number of mothers requesting services. El Paso County accepted interstate cases in the project, while Jefferson County restricted enrollment to cases where both parents lived within Colorado. As a result, POP cases were also disproportionately more likely to be interstate. Colorado Parenting Time/Visitation POP cases were less likely than the other groups to have a monthly support order in place at project entry.
• The low-level treatment group in Jefferson County, relative to the other groups, had a high proportion of cases referred by the court. Relative to the other groups, the high-level treatment group had fewer cases that entered the project with a court-ordered access and visitation plan in place.
• The study did not include a control site where only information was provided and no access and visitation services were offered. This limited the types of settings to which the study results can be generalized. Many child support agencies and courts provide no free, in-person services to parents with access and visitation problems. In the present study, both counties provided a significant number of services to non-project cases. In El Paso County, all cases requesting help received facilitation and/or mediation services. In Jefferson, the low-level treatment group had the opportunity to talk with the child access specialist, was given the option of free mediation, and all parents were required to attend free parent education classes before the court would hear their case.
• Detailed information was typically only available for the high-level treatment group that chose to participate in services. The low-level group and the high-level group not participating in services did not complete the full assessment.
• Parents who could be reached for a follow-up telephone interview were not a cross-section of all parties assigned to the high- and low-level treatment groups. For example, compared to all parents in the study, those with interviews included more parents who were previously married, fewer who were employed full-time, and more who lived more than 50 miles from their children.
• A number of the analyses had relatively small sample sizes available. This was true in the analysis of the interview data where only high-level treatment parents who participated in services were interviewed. It was also true in the analyses that separate the high-level treatment group into those who participated in services and those who did not.

These limitations suggest that the results of this evaluation should be viewed with some caution. On the other hand, the evaluation presents extensive information for a large number of cases in the child support system with identified parenting problems. As such, it affords unique insights on the dynamics of parenting time among parents in the child support caseload and some possible ways of addressing their concerns.

Project Findings (From the Final Report)

• Child support payments increased significantly following program enrollment for all groups; those with and without parenting plans had identical payment patterns. Six, 12, and 18 months following program enrollment, the child support payment rate was significantly higher for cases in each of the three treatments groups. Those who produced parenting plans exhibited increases in payments that were identical to those who attempted but failed to produce parenting plans. The reasons for these results are unclear: one interpretation is that payment patterns are unrelated to the provision of access services; another is that payments increased because members of every treatment group minimally had an opportunity to talk about their access problems with someone at child support.
• Contact with children and parental relationships improve over time, and are significantly better for those who reach agreements and develop parenting plans in facilitation. A comparison of parent reports of parental relationships and parent-child contact patterns in the months prior to and following enrollment in the project suggests that all groups experience improvements over time. Parents in the low-level treatment group and the POP group reported improvements in parent-child contact that were statistically significant; parents in the high- and low-level treatment group reported improvements in parental relationships that were statistically significant. The group that reported the most substantial increases in contact with children and improved relationships was parents in the high-level treatment group who were able to generate parenting plans in facilitation sessions.
• Views of the child support agency are significantly better among parents who produce parenting plans than those who fail to reach agreements. While project participation per se did not lead to improvements in the image of the child support agency with parents in the high- and low-treatment groups reporting similar views, parents (both NCPs and CPs) who were successful in producing parenting plans reported more favorable views than those who attempted but failed to reach such agreements.
• It is difficult to deliver services to NCPs who say that they have problems with visitation, the chief barrier being the refusal of many custodial parents to cooperate. In Jefferson County, only 37 percent of noncustodial parents scheduled for high-level treatment were served, while in El Paso, 30 percent of parents were served. After excluding 5 to 15 percent due to safety considerations such as domestic violence, the primary reason why the remaining cases did not receive facilitation services was because the custodial parent refused to respond or cooperate (70%) particularly when parental relationships were characterized as conflicted, and/or the other parent lived further away, did not see the children regularly, and alleged visitation denial. Another 30 percent of cases eligible to receive services did not get facilitation because the NCP failed to respond or follow through.
• Interviewed parents reported high levels of satisfaction with facilitation and mediation. Nearly three-quarters of interviewed parents who participated in facilitation reported being "very" (40%) or "somewhat" (31%) satisfied with the help they received. Those who participated in mediation were also satisfied, with 74 percent of members of the high-level treatment group and 84 percent of low-level treatment group characterizing themselves as very or somewhat satisfied.
• Substantial proportions of parents used mediation services if free and parent education services if required by the court.

Lessons Learned

• Printed information on access is perceived to be helpful to many parents in setting up contact with the other parent, making visits go better, and keeping track of visits. Two-thirds of interviewed parents in the low-level treatment group that received printed materials on access and visitation reported using the information to set up contact with the other parent, made visits go better, and kept track of visits. Only a quarter (23%) reported calling any of the referral resources that were provided. Nearly all characterized the information as useful.
• Parent-child contact and parental relationships improved over time, and those who resolved their parenting-time problems reaped the greatest gains in access and relationships. These parents also changed their views of the child support agency in significant and positive ways.
• Better methods are needed to compel custodial parents to participate in interventions to address parenting-time problems. That 70 percent of cases eligible to be served in the project failed to receive services because the custodial parents did not respond or refused to cooperate underscores the importance of developing ways to compel custodial parents to participate in efforts to examine and resolve visitation problems. Minimally, such NCPs need to gain access to the courts and assistance with filing pro se actions aimed at requiring the other parent to participate in facilitation or mediation. The threat of possible court action might convince some custodial parents to cooperate even though most cases will settle and never advance to court action.

This grant responds to Priority Area 7: Stabilizing the Paternity Establishment Participation (PEP) Rate and Improving Related Data Reliability. The Delaware Division of Child Support Enforcement's (DCSE) primary goal with this proposal is to improve the data reliability in the Delaware Automated Child Support Enforcement System (DACSES) using several approaches. First, DCSE will conduct systematic internal audits and make necessary corrections based on past Data Reliability Audit findings and research on those findings. Second, DCSE will develop mechanisms and safeguards to ensure that new paternity-related data entered into DACSES are reliable and complete. Third, DCSE will provide comprehensive training for staff on enhancements to DACSES and program changes being implemented to more accurately capture paternity-related information in DACSES.

DCSE's second goal is to significantly expand upon its community outreach efforts relative to establishing paternity of children who are born outside of marriage in order to systematically improve the rate at which paternity is established for these children. This will be done both by enhancing current outreach initiatives and by adding new initiatives to the Division's paternity establishment program.

Project Plan

This grant responded to 2004 Priority Area 4: Projects Which Demonstrate Improved Partnerships Between the Child Support Enforcement Office and Workforce Investment and Other Department of Labor and/or TANF Work Programs. The Child Support Services Division (CSSD) proposed co-locating CSSD and TANF staff within the IV-A office to facilitate joint intake interviews with TANF clients. Clients were to be randomly assigned either to the treatment group, which included a joint intake interview, or to the control group, where the TANF customer, after completing the eligibility interview, was referred to the IV-D central office for child support intake at a later date.

This grant included both process and impact evaluations, the latter to determine if co-location and a joint interview process would result in more completed child support intake interviews, court-ready cases and paternities and orders established. The evaluation also tracked collections and overall cooperation between IV-A and IV-D staff. The implementation study documented the intervention and context in which it operated.

While the report noted other jurisdictions with initiatives that support collaboration as well as co-location between TANF and child support, no comparative analyses were included in the study. The report also made reference to the following reports related to the subject matter:

• Farrell, M., A. Glosser, and K. Gardiner. Child Support and TANF Interaction: Literature Review. Prepared for the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (1998). Available at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/CS-TANF-Int03/
• Office of Child Support Enforcement. Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement 2000. (November 2000). Collaboration (Early Cooperation Requirement for TANF Eligibility) in Bay County, Florida. Available at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2000/best/florida.html
• United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General report on "Client Cooperation with Child Support Enforcement: The Role of Public Assistance Agencies," OEI-06-98-00042 (March 2000). OIG's findings are primarily based on surveys of 99 local CSE offices and 103 local public assistance offices in six focus states as well as interviews with over 180 managers and caseworkers. Available at: http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-06-98-00042.pdf
• Gardiner, K., Fishman, M. Ragan, M. and T. Gais. Local Implementation of TANF in Five Sites. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (in process).

This demonstration aimed to improve collaboration between the District of Columbia's IV-D (child support) agency and the IV-A (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or TANF) agency, referred to in the District as the Income Maintenance Administration (IMA). By co-locating child support workers in a welfare office, the demonstration sought to improve child support performance, specifically the share of cases with orders, by:

• Increasing the proportion of clients who complete an intake interview, the first step in making a case ready for court (the District uses a judicial process for establishing orders); and
• * Improving communication between IV-A and IV-D workers, thus educating IV-A staff about the importance of collecting complete and accurate information on child support forms.

To accomplish this goal, three IV-D intake workers were co-located at the IMA office in the Anacostia neighborhood of the District of Columbia. For the purposes of this project, no costs were borne by the IV-D agency for the co-location of its staff at the IV-A office.

Process

TANF applicants and recertifying customers deemed eligible for the demonstration were randomly assigned at the initial point of contact (the customer service desk). During the period of the demonstration (July 2005 through June 2006), 908 TANF customers were randomly assigned. Criteria for random assignment were any TANF customers who had never had a child support intake interview; customers who had a new NCP and; customers with whom child support had not met or talked with in the previous 18 months, and thus might have updated information relevant to their cases.

The random assignment process did not change during the course of the demonstration. As noted above, customers marked the nature of their visit on a screening form. If the customer indicated she was in the office for TANF, the receptionist handed her a pink Baseline Information Form (BIF) and immediately handed the screener to a child support worker who was seated in the reception area. The IV-D worker then looked up the customer on DCCSES to determine if she was appropriate for random assignment. The IV-D worker then used the MIS to randomly assign the appropriate customers to the treatment or control group. If the customer was in the treatment group, the IV-D worker marked the relevant reception log accordingly. Absence of a marking indicated business as usual (the control condition, described above). Out of the 908 TANF customers randomly assigned, 449 were assigned to the treatment group and 459 were assigned to the control group.

Project Findings (From the Final Report)

The key findings from the implementation study were:

Most treatment group members were interviewed at the Income Maintenance Administration (IMA) office. However, a sizable minority, 22 percent, left the IMA before meeting with CSSD staff. IV-A and IV-D staff noted that customers cited time constraints as a reason for leaving before meeting with IV-D workers. In some situations, IV-A staff neglected to inform the customer that they needed to meet with IV-D before leaving, or IV-D staff were unavailable and the customer chose not to wait.

Co-location improved communication between staff at the two agencies.Limited interagency collaboration occurred prior to the co-location demonstration. IV-A staff reported difficulty communicating with IV-D, while IV-D often received incomplete information about TANF customers. As a result of the co-location, IV-A staff used IV-D staff as a resource when they had questions; in turn, IV-A staff gained a better understanding of the importance of ensuring that the customer filled out the required child support forms and could better explain to customers why providing the information was necessary. Moreover, IV-A and IV-D staff reported a better understanding of the other program.

Customers appreciated the convenience of meeting with IV-D staff in their local IMA office. Customers reported to staff that the co-location saved them time and resources versus traveling to the downtown office for child support services. In addition, the IMA office was a known entity for customers, thus a less threatening and more comfortable atmosphere in which to have a child support interview.

The impact study found effects on both intermediate and final program outcomes:

Treatment group members were significantly more likely than control group members to complete each of these immediate outcome steps:

Initial contact with a IV-D intake worker. The intervention increased the number of child support cases initiated by 63 percentage points within six months of follow-up: 79 percent of treatment group members had contact with IV-D compared with 16 percent of those in the control group.

Universal petition. Over one-fourth (27 percent) of the treatment group had petitions initiated compared with 7 percent of control group members, a differential of 20 percentage points.

Court-ready cases. Twenty-three percent of the treatment group members had a court-ready case within six months of random assignment, compared with 6 percent of the control group.

Cases seen in court. Treatment group members were 18 percentage points more likely to have a case in court (22 percent versus 4 percent).

While the impacts were smaller, the intervention also successfully increased paternity and order establishment in the six-month period after initial contact between IV-D and the custodial parent. Impacts on collections began to emerge after 12 months for the treatment group, due to the early intervention of the interview at the IV-A office. It is reasonable to expect that effects on payments would take longer to occur because an order must first be established and then enforced.

Key longer-term impacts included:

The demonstration produced a significant increase in paternities established. Approximately 5 percent of treatment group members had established paternity for any of their children in the 6 months following the intervention. The corresponding figure for the control group was 2 percent. The impact was larger for the early cohort: after 12 months, 13 percent of treatment group members had paternity established compared with 5 percent of the control group, and impact of 8 percentage points.

Co-location significantly increased orders established. Two percent of treatment group members had a child support order established within 6 months of random assignment, compared with less than 1 percent of control group members. By the 12th month, 9 percent of treatment group members had an order established, while 2 percent of control group members did so, a differential of 7 percentage points.

Impacts on child support payments began to emerge after 12 months. The demonstration did not increase child support payments made by the noncustodial parents for the full sample during the 6-month follow-up period; however, modest impacts emerged within 12 months for the early cohort. By month 12, 10 percent of treatment group members had a child support payment, compared with 6 percent of control group members.

Lessons Learned

Co-location of IV-D staff in TANF offices is not a new model; it has been adopted by many states and local TANF offices across the nation. The co-location of CSSD staff at the Anacostia IMA center had many positive effects on intermediate and longer-term child support outcomes. It is difficult to pinpoint which factor, among many, contributed most to the impacts. Discussions with IV-D and IV-A staff suggest five lessons that other child support agencies might consider if adopting a similar model.

Senior leadership from both agencies must support co-location. IV-D staff encountered several hurdles that had to be addressed along the way, including finding space for staff, convincing IV-A staff of the importance of the intervention, and requiring IV-A cooperation. The support of IV-A and IV-D senior leadership was crucial to successful implementation of this model.

The order of interviews is important. The initial model in which customers first met with IV-A was not successful; many customers left before meeting with IV-D. The proportion of interviews completed increased when the process was revised so that the child support interview preceded the TANF interview.

Coordinating IV-A and IV-D staff schedules will help ensure clients attend both interviews. Some customers were not seen because IV-D staff were not able to work at all times customers were meeting with IV-A. Agencies that are considering implementing this approach should consider options that would broaden IV-D and IV-A staff coverage, such as staggered staff starting and ending times so that IV-D and IV-A staff are on site at the same time.

It is important to track outcomes over time. It takes time to establish orders and for orders to be enforced. Six and 12 months of followup are not adequate to track these key outcomes fully. Some important outcomes can be tracked during a short time frame, however, including whether staff are meeting with customers on the day of the IV-A interview and whether cases are moving to the next stage of the order establishment process (e.g., petition initiation, petition review, filing in court). Results in other areas will take longer to appear.

Co-location will increase child support outcomes, but more needs to be done, especially in areas that serve a very disadvantaged population. While this intervention proved successful at increasing child support outcomes over time, the vast majority of TANF customers served by the Anacostia IMA center had not established paternity or a child support order. This reflects the demographics and financial circumstances of the population living in this area. While a co-location model will improve outcomes, especially in regards to initial contact with TANF clients and the degree and accuracy of information collected in this meeting, it appears impacts on order establishment and payments will be modest and additional measures will need to be taken to improve performance in these areas.

Project Plan

This grant responded to 2004 Priority Area 4: Projects Which Demonstrate Improved Partnerships Between the Child Support Enforcement Office and Workforce Investment and Other Department of Labor and/or TANF Work Programs. In 2004, the Florida IV-A agency partnered with the Child Support Enforcement Program (CSE) to develop procedures to improve the information-gathering phase of the public assistance (PA) case referral process. Lack of complete and accurate case information impedes CSE's ability to provide necessary services to families who receive PA and, therefore, may delay PA benefit authorization. This project identified and piloted interventions to improve the information gathering and referral process for CSE services to PA applicants.

The project built on a 1998 OCSE Special Improvement Project grant that studied the effectiveness of procedures used to determine cooperation prior to the authorization of public assistance. These procedures, known as Upfront Cooperation, were subsequently implemented using a manual process in January of 2000. With these procedures, the State realized cost savings in two areas: the time costs associated with the non-cooperation and sanctioning procedures and savings in TANF dollars paid to individuals who never cooperate with CSE. While cost savings were realized, incomplete and inaccurate case information about the non-custodial parent gathered by the IV-A agency delayed the initial cooperation determination and subsequent processing of referrals for CSE services.

An overarching goal of this 1115 project was to identify methods for improving the information collected by the IV-A agency at the point of application for PA benefits and subsequent referral to CSE. The project also aimed to improve the quality of case information from the IV-A agency, streamline the initial cooperation determination process, improve performance, improve customer service, increase customer knowledge and education, and reduce costs.

To improve the information referred to CSE, the Department of Children and Families and CSE combined their efforts. An interagency team was formed to design, implement and evaluate a new process. When required NCP information was provided to the IV-A agency for each eligible child, the applicant was determined to have cooperated for the purpose of PA eligibility. For applicants who did not meet the requirements for initial cooperation, video-conferencing interviews and electronic signature technology were used to gather information and collect documents. When initial cooperation requirements were met but paternity establishment was still necessary, applicants were also eligible for the video interview.

Project Findings

The project identified several outcomes. Findings for each outcome area are summarized below:

1. Improve the quality of NCP information by maximizing the completeness and accuracy of information collected at the IV-A agency and referred to the CSE program. (The required NCP data elements are first and last name, gender, gender, race, and social security number.)

   • Complete information on the NCP for the five data elements required for initial cooperation increased from 40.4% to 59.8%.
   • Complete data for the NCP's date of birth showed the most notable increase in absolute percentage terms, from 50.4% to 72.5%.
   • For all of the five data NCP elements required for initial cooperation, did not increase significantly from baseline to pilot measurements.

2. Eliminate the requirement for PA applicants to travel to the CSE office.

   • The proportion of applicants who required an initial cooperation determination interview declined from 100% to 27%.
   • Of all applicants who participated, 73% met the initial cooperation requirements, of which 30% were eligible for the video interview because paternity was an issue.

3. Reduce the time to locate NCPs, establish paternity, establish support orders, enforce child support orders and collect child support obligations.

   • The number of cases measured (ranging from 2 to 12) was too small to draw valid conclusions in reductions in cycle time for location, paternity establishment, and order establishment.
   • There were sufficient number of cases to assess the cycle time to enforce an existing support order, which decreased from 128 days to 79 days, and the cycle time to collect initial obligations, which decreased from 144 to 126 days.
   • The average support collection increased from $295.90 to $321.63.

4. Improve customer perceptions of satisfaction as well as objective aspects of customer service such as shorter waiting times and time to benefits;

   • Customer satisfaction with the IV-A agency increased from 78.1% to 95.4%.
   • Customer satisfaction with CSE increased from 92.4% to 100%.

5. Educate custodial parents regarding initial cooperation requirements and the services provided by the CSE program.

   • Overall, knowledge of what is required of applicants increased, as did knowledge of the services CSE provides to applicants.
   • Most respondents who viewed the CSE education video felt that the video was useful, informative, and easy to understand.

6. Determine cost savings when quality information is referred from the IV-A agency to the CSE program.

   • The estimated annual savings on TANF cases statewide is $16,259. When the initial cooperation information is provided to the IV-A agency and the child's paternity status is not considered as part of the intervention savings increase to $41,485.
   • There is potential for additional cost savings when all PA benefit types are considered.

Lessons Learned

• Overall, the completeness and accuracy of NCP information provided by the PA applicant improved with project interventions.
• The small decline in the accuracy of demographic information about the NCP, CP and child could have been the result of asking the applicant to provide considerably more of this type of information. The data indicate that there may be diminishing returns when applicants are requested to provide substantially more information at the time of application.

• Streamlining the initial cooperation determination process was improved through two interventions:

  Process Change: The majority of applicants met initial cooperation by providing required NCP information to the IV-A agency. For these applicants, no additional CSE contact for the purpose of initial cooperation determination was necessary. The increase in the number of applicants who met initial cooperation is likely related to the project having implemented a process change to collect NCP information at the point of the IV-A intake interview.

  Technology: IV-A expedited their case processing to make the application information available to CSE through the FLORIDA system when CSE contact was necessary. The use of technology to conduct video interviews and obtain applicant signatures enabled initial cooperation to be determined the same day as the PA application. Project procedure enabled applicants who met initial cooperation requirements, but for whom paternity is an issue for at least one child, to have a same-day interview with CSE. This procedure was designed to expedite the process of receiving PA benefits and obtain signatures on critical documents for paternity case processing.

• The performance outcome data used to measure improvements are inconclusive. Multiple factors and unmeasured variables influence performance outcomes between the time the applicant completes initial cooperation and when the outcome occurs. Numerous unmeasured variables may have intervened between CSE case establishment and the performance outcome. Outcomes typically do not occur until many weeks after the case is established. The timing of outcomes such as location, support order establishment, etc., are affected by variables other than those implemented in the pilot procedures. However, when complete and accurate information are provided early in the process at the time of PA application, downstream activities can begin sooner.

  • Overall, customers' knowledge about the services provided by the CSE program and the information needed for effective case processing increased with the customer education interventions (i.e., a comprehensive CSE educational video made available at the point of PA application).
  • The time cost for initial cooperation was significantly reduced through the elimination of the face-to-face interview when complete and accurate information were obtained by the IV-A agency and referred to CSE.
  • There are costs savings that can be realized if the project interventions are implemented statewide for TANF applicants and/or expanded to include other PA benefit types (e.g., Medicaid). When paternity establishment is not considered as part of the intervention, there are additional cost savings.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are made based on the results of the project's analysis. The feasibility of implementing these recommendations statewide will require further analysis and approval from the IV-A agency and the CSE program.

• Structure the intake process so that complete NCP information is requested at the point of PA application.
• Implement immediate initial cooperation determination when required NCP data are provided to the IV-A agency as part of the PA application.
• Provide CSE education at the time of IV-A application when initial cooperation is indicated as a requirement for PA eligibility.
• Implement video interview and electronic signature technology at the time of PA application for initial cooperation determination if this is deemed feasible.

This 17-month grant responded to 2004 Priority Area 3: Integration of Access and Visitation and Child Support Enforcement). Some noncustodial parents (NCP) claimed the reason they did not comply with their child support order was due to dissatisfaction with their access and visitation (A&V) orders. The Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida (Miami-Dade County) Administrative Office of the Courts sought to address this issue. Local Court and enforcement authorities felt that requiring non-paying NCPs to seek judicial review of their A&V concerns in a court division that was administratively and physically separate from the child support enforcement (CSE) division might not have adequately served the families’ interests.

The project was designed to test the effectiveness of a court-based innovation where the CSE division referred cases to a mediator to speed the process of obtaining consensual court-approved A&V agreements. It sought to determine the near-term effects of mediation on subsequent compliance by both parties with their A&V schedules; it also sought to determine the effects of NCP compliance with child support orders. Project cases were limited to those that were not confounded by other issues such as divorce, domestic violence, dependency, or interstate matters. In addition, the primary study cases had to involve enforcement of or modifications to existing support orders and the NCP had to express without prompting that A&V issues were a reason for payment non-compliance. A sub-study of establishment cases (without A&V dissatisfaction as an expressed reason for non-compliance but otherwise following the outlined protocol) was added to explore the possibility that immediately mediated A&V agreements might prevent subsequent payment non-compliance.

The quasi-experimental project design assigned all eligible cases on alternating days to either the experimental or the control group. Both parents had to sign informed consents for intake and, for experimental cases, follow-up interviews. The major objective of the project was to foster parental-agreed NCP involvement in their children’s lives and thereby to maximize the prospects for NCP compliance with child support orders.

The primary outcomes compared (pre- and post-intervention and between experimental and control groups) were:

• signed A&V orders;
• actual visits post-intervention as reported by both parents;
• their satisfaction with the visits; and
• child support payment data (six-months pre- and post-intervention).

Implementation and process analyses also were conducted and anonymous feedback was obtained post-project from CSE magistrates and the mediator.

The sample included a total of 640 cases were referred from the CSE Division to mediation or the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Self-Help program. Of the total, 370 were enforcement cases and 270 were establishment cases.

Project Findings (from the Final Report)

• 65 percent achieved court-approved consensual A&V agreements of 65 enforcement cases referred to mediation vs. 2 percent that subsequently sought and obtained A&V family court hearings of 51 enforcement cases assigned to the usual condition.
• 63 percent of 30 enforcement CPs with mediated agreements said, in 90 days post-intervention interviews, that the visits actually occurred in the prior month; the corresponding figure for 24 NCPs reached in follow-up interviews was 71 percent.
• 94 percent of enforcement NCPs with mediated A&V agreements and who said the visits were actually taking place at 90-days follow-up gave ‘positive’ ratings to the visits and reported being ‘satisfied’; the corresponding figures for CPs were 78 percent ‘positive’ ratings and 53 percent ‘satisfied’.
• Follow-up interviews with establishment case parents with mediated A&V agreements yielded similar NCP/CP response patterns on actual visits and satisfaction/positive ratings, but with consistently higher percentages than enforcement cases.
• Among a small sub-sample of enforcement and establishment parents with mediated A&V agreements that were also interviewed at 6 months post intervention, all NCP and 78 percent of CPs ‘would recommend mediation to other parents’ in their situation; 77 percent of the combined respondents said ‘it was easy to reach an agreement on a visitation schedule’; and 64 percent said the mediation ‘was convenient’ for them.
• Child support payment data obtained from Florida’s Central Depository database for six-month periods post-intervention for all study cases and for six-month pre-intervention for enforcement cases revealed:
  • No basis for concluding overall experimental vs. control effects on payment compliance [lack of difference between groups may be attributable to the effective use in Florida of Income Deduction Orders (used in 86 percent to 92 percent among subcategory cases in this study), i.e., most NCPs, who were by definition non-complying before, were compliant post-CSE hearing].
  • Observed differences in payment compliance favoring NCPs who reported actual visits were tentative (small sample size precluded multivariate analyses and follow-up interviews were not conducted for usual cases).
  • Larger samples, longer post-intervention observation periods, and follow-up with both the innovation and usual groups are required to confirm the durability of visits, visitation satisfaction and payment compliance, per se and relative to A&V, for both the enforcement and establishment cases.

Lessons Learned

• Stringent eligibility criteria drastically reduced (by 2/3) the number of study-eligible enforcement cases.
• The use of outreach, rather than requiring unprompted NCP assertion of A&V issues (to improve sincerity), would have increased the number of eligible target cases.
• More convenient co-location of the mediation services and the CSE courtroom (prevented by unavoidable circumstances) would likely have improved the favorable mediation referral acceptance and agreement completion rates in this study.
• CSE magistrates and the mediator interviewed post-project were highly supportive of implementing this or a similar innovation as a permanent program.
• More research is needed to specify how best to provide continuing family assistance, to measure needs and impact on the family/members, and longer term outcomes.

This grant responded to the 2004 Priority Area 8: Projects Furthering the Child Support Mission to Ensure that All Children Receive Financial and Medical Support from Their Parents. The Georgia Department of Human Services, Office of Child Support Services (OCSS) sought to develop and implement a model to expand private health insurance coverage to children in the IV-D caseload through the use of volume purchasing arrangements with private health plans. They contracted with a vendor that collected, studied and analyzed data for the purposes of obtaining income, employment and health insurance information from both parents to determine the feasibility of creating a healthcare purchasing pool. The State’s statutes, rules and regulations were reviewed to ascertain what, if any, legal obstacles may exist to pursue the purchasing pool option. And OCSS met with key stakeholders to assess the extent of interest in pursuing the purchasing pool option.

Project Findings

The data analysis suggests that a large number of children in the child support caseload (i.e. 35,000 - 68,000 children) are uninsured and would possibly represent the "critical mass" required to consider the formation of a purchasing pool. However, the analysis also indicates that a purchasing pool may not be the panacea for all of the uninsured children in the caseload for several reasons. Some of the CPs and children live outside the State, so a Georgia health plan could be considered "out of service area." If they adopted the model they studied (based on work done in Sacramento, CA), they estimate that only 7,500 cases would be eligible for the pool and concluded that it is not a feasible option at this time. Furthermore, no current mechanism exists for OCSS to create and implement a purchasing pool for the purposes of offering private insurance for IV-D children. So, new legislation is necessary to create such a pool.

The final report also provided information on earlier efforts to create healthcare purchasing pools. During the early and mid-90s, many states examined the role of health insurance purchasing pools for small groups and individuals and their dependents in an effort to improve access and affordability to health insurance. Purchasing pools have typically been nonprofit or governmental entities that allow small employers to offer individual choice to their employees without running up prohibitively high administrative costs. The pools have not been able to accomplish many of the objectives that were initially established, such as reducing the number of uninsured employees or lowering prices. The challenges to purchasing pools have included low enrollment, lack of participation by health plans and agents, and controlling adverse selection. In studying the three largest small-group health insurance purchasing alliances begun in the mid-90s, it was found that they did not reduce small-group market health insurance premiums, nor did they raise small-business health insurance offer rates. Also, in 1997, one out of three small employers reported participation in some type of voluntary pool, such as an association, business coalition, or other multiple employer arrangement. However, their costs and coverage rates were no different than comparable employers who purchased coverage directly. Based on the studies, it was concluded that the goals of a purchasing pool can only be reached if it represents a large natural group that health plans can effectively reach only through the pool, making it similar to a very large employer.

UPDATE (April 2007)

Georgia has an agreement with the Georgia Department of Community Health (DCH) to increase medical insurance for children with Medicaid and SCHIP (Peachcare). They have a contract with a vendor to enforce medical insurance and DCH pays the State share for this work.

This project responded to 2004 Priority Area 3: Integration of Access and Visitation and Child Support Enforcement. The Georgia Department of Human Resources, Office of Child Support Enforcement, proposed to enhance and integrate further an existing Access and Visitation (AV) project with the goal of increasing child support collections and medical support from noncustodial parents (NCPs).

The Integrated Access and Visitation Program (AVP) focused on NCPs who refused to pay child support due to a lack of access to their children. Participants included 135 NCPs who were randomly assigned into control (71 participants) and experimental (64 participants) groups. Both groups received AVP program services. No significant differences were found between demographics of the two groups. The experimental group received more hours of various services and more types of service than the control group. Outcomes were measured with respect to changes in child support payments and visitation. Focus groups were held to collect qualitative information on AV and collection of child support.

AV services included: Group parenting education; Individual education/counseling; Parenting plans; Mediation; Monitored Visitations; Neutral Exchanges; Supervised Visitations. (NB: these are non-IV-D program activities; they are not eligible for Federal financial participation

Data were tracked from the control group and experimental group for 6 months prior to intervention through 6 months post-intervention. Each NCP received 5 months of AV program services based on their group assignment.

Findings

Child Support Payments

The experimental group paid more per month in child support payments on average than the control group both during the pre-intervention and post-intervention periods though differences were not statistically significant.

Due to limitations regarding data collection and records, payment history was not available for all 135 participants for the 6-month pre-intervention and post-intervention periods. Complete information was available for 67 noncustodial participants; 30 in the experimental and 37 in the control group. Results demonstrated that prior to any intervention, NCPs in the experimental group on average paid 73.1% of their child support payments and after receiving services, paid on average 95.9%. Prior to intervention, control group NCPs paid on average 63.3% of child support payments, and after intervention paid 77.2%. Similarly, a percent increase in child support payments over time appeared to be demonstrated across both control and experimental groups. Again, the experimental group paid a greater amount and percentage of child support payments. When these participants were isolated, there appeared to be little difference in terms of the rate of change or percent difference between the experimental and control groups.

Access and Visitation

Due to data restrictions, variables could not be compared pre- and post-intervention. Thus, the differences in AV between control and experimental groups pre- and post-intervention were both qualitatively assessed as well as described in terms of number of total visitations across time. Results demonstrated that in general the experimental group completed more visitations with their children than the control group.

To further understand the relationship between AVP services, access and visitation, and child support payments, a number of correlation analyses were conducted which explored payment and visitation variables as well as tracked participant attendance at AVP services. An overall relationship between total visitation and payment was not supported either pre- or post-intervention. However, the total number of visitations was significantly related to the total number of face-to-face service contacts with non-custodial parents. Thus, more individual education sessions in the experimental group showed an increase in visits.

Several themes emerged from the focus groups with NCPs in terms of perceived barriers to access and visitation:

• Mothers as gatekeepers: Based on the nature of the relationship between the parents, mothers mediate access and visitation between fathers and their children.
• The law is on her side: The idea that the law resides on the side of mothers, and does not support fathers’ rights or that fathers essentially have no rights.
• Parental communication breakdown: How mothers and fathers talk to and understand one another.
• Parental negotiations: Difficulties associated with negotiating rules, values, beliefs, and decisions regarding raising children between the mothers and fathers.
• Too late to be a father: Child is beyond the age to influence values, behavior
• Another father figure: Another father figure’s presence may complicate the father’s role in the child’s life.
• Disintegration of family and society: Fathers concerned about the impact that limited two-parent influence could have upon their children and society.
• Lack of male identity: Fathers concerned about what their absence might mean for their sons, in particular.
• Transition periods: The initial transition period when the father is introduced to his child, new visitation schedule is put into place, etc.
• Financial hardship: For some fathers, custody is the only way they may consistently see their children, however the legal battle is an emotional and financial hardship.

Programmatic Strengths/ Weaknesses

Overwhelmingly, fathers across groups felt positively about the program, that Mediation, Structured Visitation, and Legal Knowledge were most helpful in addressing the barriers to access and visitation. Several fathers felt that the program offered a social and educational support system where they could openly discuss their situation with others who would understand. Given the perceived success of the mediation, some members suggested this be mandatory or an earlier part of the program.

Some members felt that the program’s voluntary nature of counseling/activities was a weakness; as one father said, we can’t make the mother come.

Although differences between control and experimental groups were not statistically significant:

• The experimental group paid a higher amount and percentage of their court-ordered amount and the control group showed a greater percentage of change in payment of their court-ordered amount over time. This result may be linked to the notion that the NCPs who received expanded services felt as if they had a greater level of control in the direction of their involvement in AVP. This greater level of control may be important as feelings of powerlessness pervaded NCPs’ discussion in the focus group, so expanded resources may have translated to feelings of expanded self-efficacy.
• Total visitation was significantly correlated to total number of AVP face-to-face service contacts with NCPs. This suggests that case managers are providing NCPs with: the tools to negotiate interactions; information which allows NCPs to seek visitation such as legal information; and help in recognizing the importance of visitation and addressing barriers to visitations.
• The AVP program did not result in a significant increase in the total number of visitations and child support payments. This is inconsistent with previous research and did not seem supported by focus group themes, which suggested that fathers felt a strong desire to be involved in their children’s lives beyond their paychecks.
• The relationship between income and payment as well as education and payment suggests that the issue of non-payment may be less associated with desire to pay than ability to pay.
• Face-to-face services need continued support as these types of programs are resulting in greater visitation.

Project Plan

This grant responded to 2004 Priority Area 5: Increasing Payments and Avoiding Noncustodial Parents' (NCPs') Debts through Stratifying NCPs by Likelihood of Paying, Taking Steps Appropriate to Their Classification, and Taking Prompt Action. The purpose of the project was to utilize early interventions to engage alleged fathers (AFs) and noncustodial parents (NCPs) in and inform them about the child support process and thereby increase the financial and emotional support of their children. Making Connections, Improving Collections (MCIC) builds upon lessons learned from not only other child support programs, but also on the expertise developed in the private collection industry. According to a survey of members of the Commercial Collection Agency Association, collection probability drops to 73% after three months and 57% after six months. After one year of nonpayment, there is only 29% probability of payment.

The fundamental goals of the project were to:

• Shape a trusting relationship with AFs and NCPs.
• Encourage them to engage in the support establishment process and in problem solving if they encounter difficulty in making their support payments.
• Enhance the child support worker's ability to initiate personal contacts in a manner that succeeds in gaining the AF/NCP's involvement in support establishment and encouraging their compliance with support orders by providing advanced statewide training of staff.

The major objectives were to:

• Increase the percentage of current support paid in the month it is due,
• Reduce the number of paternity and support orders obtained by default,
• Obtain orders commensurate with the obligor's capacity to pay,
• Encourage timely payment of the ordered amount,
• Quickly remedy any payment problems that occur in order to prevent the accumulation of child support arrearages, and
• Demonstrate that MCIC is an effective way of doing business with AFs and NCPs who are our customers.

Phase I training was provided on five modules:

Phase I Training Modules

Module 1: Introduction	Module 2: Time Management	Module 3: Workflow Management	Module 4: Building Rapport with the NCP	Module 5: Connecting with the NCP
MCIC Project Goals Training Overview Expectation NCP Facts Early Intervention Process	Self-Analysis Keys to Managing your Time Top 15 Time Wasters Tips for Reducing on-the-Job Stress	Tips and Techniques for Organizing your Time, your Desk and yourself	Creating "Gold Star" Customer Service experiences: Human Business Model Words to Use and Words to Avoid Active Listening Coaching Problem Solving	Preparing Managing Questions and Answers Securing a Positive Outcome Gaining Commitment and Trust Obtaining Information for Establishment and Enforcement

Phase II curriculum consisted of:

Phase II Curriculum

Module 1: MCIC: What Is It and Why Do It?	Module 2: Early Intervention Process	Module 3: Building Rapport with the NCP	Module 4: Connecting With the NCP	Module 5: Caseload Management
MCIC Project Goals NCP Facts Training Overview Expectation	Targeted Cases Early Intervention Contact Points Skills for Early Intervention Contact Points	Private Collection Agency Steps for Managing a Call Identifying the Source of "Difficult" Behaviors Respecting Human Concern Effective Listening Words to Watch-Words to Use	Preparing for the Call Managing the Call: Providing and Obtaining Information & Gaining Commitment	Managing Your Time - Self Analysis Caseload Management

Targeted Cases / Control Cases

The targeted cases for the project consisted of those assigned to an MCIC trained worker in the following categories:

• Establishment - any case in the Administrative Establishment of Support (ADMIN) or Administrative Paternity Establishment (ADPAT) process assigned to an MCIC trained worker where the AF/NCP was served with first notice after the MCIC trained worker's implementation date,
• Enforcement on Cases with Newly Established Orders--any case where the order was established by an MCIC trained worker in the ADMIN or ADPAT process when the AF/NCP was served after that MCIC trained worker's implementation date,
• Existing Enforcement Cases-- cases with an order for at least the previous thirteen months where the obligor made regular current support payments in twelve consecutive months but missed a payment in the thirteenth month AND the worker on the case is an MCIC trained worker. The Iowa Collection and Reporting system (ICAR) identified these cases and issued a report to the appropriate MCIC trained worker.

Project Findings

1. Increase the percent of current support paid in the month it is due.
   The percentage of cases with some current support paid on time was 64.0% in the control group and 66.9% in the treatment group.
2. Reduce the number of paternity and support orders obtained by default.
   The paternity default rate for paternity cases in the treatment group was 26.5% while the control group had 29.40%
3. Obtain orders commensurate with the obligor's capacity to pay.
   • 26 MCIC treatment cases had a support order established via a hearing while none went to hearing in the control group. This may be indicative of verbally providing the AF/NCP with information of their rights and responsibilities and the right to request a hearing.
   • The average amount of current support owed per court ordered case in the treatment group was $251.19 while it was $241.30 in the control group.
4. Encourage timely payment of the ordered amount.
   The length of time from support established to first regular payment was 39.6 days for the treatment group and 55.1 days for the control cases.
5. Quickly remedy any payment problems that occur in order to prevent the accumulation of child support arrearages.
   The arrearage balance grew faster in the treatment case than the control cases even though the treatment cases had the higher child support payment percentages. This may be because the treatment cases tended to have a higher order amount.
6. Demonstrate that MCIC is an effective way of doing business with alleged fathers and NCPs who are our customers.
   In an effort to measure the customer service value of MCIC attempts were made to contact 101 NCPs and AFs which resulted in 17 responses. While this sample size is not enough to draw statistical inferences, some patterns did appear.
   • Responses indicated that the CSRU staff are competent, polite and friendly and are consistently providing NCPs and AFs the information they need.
   • Responses also suggested that CSRU staff were not consistent in reminding NCPs and AFs of appointments. This reminder contact was optional in the MCIC pilot, but has been made a required contact as the pilot is implemented statewide.
7. Other information obtained that did not directly relate to CSRU's major objectives.
   
   • The average number of days from service to support establishment was reduced by over two weeks for consent orders from 99 days to 83 days, while most other types of orders were not affected significantly.
   • The percent of treatment AFs requesting a genetic test was almost double the percent of the control group. However, the exclusion rates were about the same.

Lessons Learned

• More Preparation Time - The original MCIC project plan timeline indicated that defining tracking elements and finalizing the evaluation plan would be completed the first month of the project. It was necessary to revise the project plan to extend this timeframe into the fourth month to allow additional time to identify data needs and to write and complete the service request to update the state system so that data needs could be extracted for accurate performance monitoring.
• Better Communication Plan With Staff - Staff was initially confused about the goals and directions of the project. It was necessary to adjust the project plan so that agency leadership could take a step back and clarify the purpose and scope of the project with all staff. To compensate for the additional month necessary to develop and carry out the communication plan, it was necessary to shorten the time between conducting the Phase I and Phase II training sessions.
• Scheduling of Training - As a result of needing additional time to identify and clarify training needs as well as initiate a communication plan, the scheduling of training for both phases was moved from the first month to the second month and further project phases were moved one month into the future.
• Identification of Existing Enforcement Cases from The Computer System for Inclusion in Project- To achieve the objective to quickly remedy any payment problems that occur, a number of ideas were tried to identify cases with an order where the obligor made regular current support payments in twelve consecutive months but missed a payment in the thirteenth month. Because of the timing of income withholding payments, it was oftentimes found that the payment was not actually missed but in process. In retrospect, the case selection criteria may have been too narrow and the grantee found that the income withholding issue skewed the number of cases fitting the criteria.
• Locating Phone Numbers for AF/NCP - The most common difficulty cited by staff making MCIC contacts as well as conducting the customer surveys was the availability of working telephone numbers for the AFs and NCPs.

Summary

Based on the findings of the MCIC project, the decision has been made to adopt aspects of MCIC as a way of doing business within Iowa’s CSRU. Not only will staff contact the AF/NCP on all establishment cases after successful service of process and to schedule a conference or genetic testing, if applicable, but also to reschedule a genetic testing appointment if missed as well as contact the NCP (no matter what their situation) to discuss guidelines, gather information, and answer any questions in order to provide the NCP one last chance to provide actual income amounts before establishing the order.

The MCIC project has further enhanced the skills and abilities of Iowa’s workers in providing quality and positive customer service to the customers served.

While enforcement of cases with existing orders was a part of the MCIC project, it has been decided not to continue this part of the project. Nonpaying cases will be reviewed by workers on a regular basis using existing case review tools and techniques.

Additional Comments

• An overview of the MCIC project was presented on May 17, 2006 at OCSE Peer-to-Peer Conference in LaJolla, California.
• An overview was presented at the National Council of Child Support Directors Annual Conference and Business Meeting on June 13, 2006, in Lincoln, Nebraska.

This grant responded to 2004 Priority Area 4: Projects Which Demonstrate Improved Partnerships between the Child Support Enforcement Office and Workforce Investment and Other Department of Labor and/or TANF Work Programs. The Child Support Enforcement Division of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue proposed a collaborative effort with the local TANF agency, Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA). A key goal of the project was to increase the amount and quality of usable information from recipients of public assistance about noncustodial parents. The project varied the interview format with the client in order to determine which interview method elicited the best quantity and quality of information. The desired outcome of the project was to increase the rate for establishing orders and obtaining child support payments for TANF clients as a result of obtaining better information from the client at the outset of the application process.

The project was conducted in three phases from June 2005 through June 2006. First, the project tested the effectiveness of having CSE and TANF workers perform joint interviews with the custodial parent about the noncustodial parent. Secondly, CSE and TANF workers performed separate and sequential interviews with the custodial parents about the noncustodial parent. Lastly, CSE workers interviewed custodial parents referred by TANF workers who felt that the custodial parent was purposely providing incomplete or inconsistent information about the noncustodial parent. TANF workers also sent clients to CSE workers because they had child support questions that they felt would be best addressed by a CSE worker.

The project addressed the quantitative child support outcomes for those clients exposed to different interview formats. As mentioned above, a key goal was to determine whether varying the interview format produced better child support outcomes. In addition to the quantitative analysis, focus groups were conducted with both IV-A and IV-D workers and exit interviews were conducted with clients.

Project Findings (From the Final Report)

The key findings from the implementation study were:
CSE and TANF workers obtained similar information about noncustodial parents when they interviewed custodial parents.

There was no consistent evidence that having child support workers conduct interviews with custodial parents improved the amount of information obtained about noncustodial parents. There was also no evidence that CSE interviewers did a better job than their TANF counterparts of explaining child support to custodial parents. Exit surveys conducted with applicants and recipients by independent researchers revealed that regardless of whether they were interviewed by TANF or CSE workers, roughly identical proportions of clients recalled being told basic facts about child support, its benefits, and the consequences of noncooperation.

Interviews with custodial parents conducted by both TANF and CSE workers during the project were significantly more likely to yield information about the noncustodial parent than interviews conducted in 2004.

While the agency affiliation of the interviewer was not associated with increased information, custodial parents interviewed during the project by TANF workers alone or in combination with CSE workers provided more information about the noncustodial parents than comparable custodial parents who were interviewed in 2004. During their visit to the TANF office, they were significantly more likely to provide information on the noncustodial parent’s address, Social Security number, and date of birth. This suggests that the project may have raised awareness about the importance of collecting information about noncustodial parents among workers from both agencies and improved their interviewing skills.

The project produced no improvements in the rate of establishing child support orders or increasing child support payments.

A comparison of order establishments and payments for 2004 cases identified prior to the start of the project and the 2005-2006 cases encountered during the three phases of the project yielded statistically identical results. For both of these groups, orders were obtained in about one-third of new cases in both groups that required orders, in the one to two year period following the custodial parent’s visit to the TANF office. Among 2004 cases with orders, noncustodial parents paid 45 percent of what they owed, as compared to 37 percent for noncustodial parents in experimental cases, which was statistically significant at 540 days following the applicant’s or recipient’s visit to DTA. The percentage of cases where the noncustodial parent paid nothing during the 6 to 18 months following the custodial parent’s visit to the TANF office ranged from 29 to 43 percent for 2004 comparison cases, as compared with 42 to 49 percent for cases in the grant project.

Most applicants and recipients wanted the noncustodial parent to help support the child and did not appear to withhold information.

Approximately two-thirds of clients in each interview group were judged by TANF and CSE interviewers to have provided all the information they knew. This was corroborated in exit interviews conducted with a sample of applicants and recipients, about a third of whom reported that they did not know basic information, such as the noncustodial parent’s address, his employer, his parent’s name, and his parent’s address. Up to two-thirds of clients told independent researchers that they did not know the noncustodial parent’s Social Security number. More than half said that they would not know how to reach him if there was an emergency related to the children. Finally, the project showed that nearly all custodial parents interviewed by workers from CSE (90%) and TANF (75%) were judged to be “veryâ€� or “somewhatâ€� interested in receiving help supporting the child from one (or more) noncustodial parents.

A limited number of custodial parents appeared to give incomplete information or less information than they possessed.

During Phase III, TANF workers were invited to refer custodial parents to an on-site CSE worker for an immediate second interview when they believed the custodial parent withheld information about the noncustodial parent, provided incomplete or inconsistent information about the noncustodial parent, or had child support questions that would be best addressed by CSE. Only 18 percent of custodial parents were referred to the CSE worker for this interview. In addition, nearly half (46%) of these custodial parents were subsequently judged by CSE workers to have been forthcoming and to have provided all the information that they could. This suggests that only about 10 percent of custodial parents in the experimental group were perceived to be deliberately withholding information about the noncustodial parent.

Conclusions

It was anticipated that a change in the interview format, specifically having a IV-D worker conduct the interview, would result in better quality information from the client. The prevailing notion was that a IV-D worker knew how and what type of questions to ask a client in order to obtain the information desired. As the project demonstrated, the format of the interview did not affect the amount or quality of information provided. While there was not a significant gain in terms of child support outcomes produced by this project, there was significant progress made with regard to the relationship of the IV-A and IV-D workers and the role each plays in moving families towards economic self-sufficiency. In fact, if co-location of staff were feasible, then physical proximity would enhance the development of relationships as well as increase the understanding of each of the respective agencies’ missions and goals.

Another important finding was the critical nature of establishing orders and consistent payments on public assistance cases. There is a perception among both clients and TANF staff that the probability of getting an order established and collecting on it is quite low. This perception needs to be altered by increasing the rate of order establishment and payment. While good information is needed to accomplish this task, there are a number of public assistance cases which have all of the necessary information and should be fast-tracked for an order. This will lead to increased confidence amongst the public assistance staff as well as the clientele.

In addition to improving collaboration between the two agencies and improving the outcomes for public assistance cases, a key area that needs to be addressed is the noncustodial parent side of the equation. The noncustodial parents associated with the public assistance clients mirror the custodial parents in terms of economic outlook and education. This is not a fact that is lost upon the custodial parents, and their interest in court ordered child support is directly related to their perception of what the noncustodial parent can pay. Thus, the child support agency should consider partnering with workforce development agencies to improve the earning capability of fathers whose children are being supported by the state.

Lastly, most of the workers feel that more stringent economic sanctions would elicit better information from the custodial parent about the noncustodial parent. Given the perception of some custodial parents that the noncustodial parent cannot make the child support payments, some may make the decision that it is not “worth the troubleâ€� to provide information regarding the noncustodial parent’s identity and whereabouts for little to no money. Our exit studies with the clients indicated that most were interested in receiving “giftsâ€� from the noncustodial parent but not necessarily formal child support.

Project Plan

This grant responded to 2004 Priority Area 8: Projects Furthering the Child Support Mission to Ensure that All Children Receive Financial and Medical Support from Their Parents. The project analyzed the barriers that impede obtaining voluntary acknowledgements from unwed parents in a large urban jurisdiction and then developed and implemented a coordinated community-based, culturally-sensitive comprehensive approach to overcoming those barriers. The goal of the project was to increase the voluntary paternity acknowledgement rate, and thereby increase the financial and emotional support of children. The project also examined types of institutional and cultural barriers to promoting marriage of unwed couples at the time of birth of a child and what strategies might be successful in overcoming such barriers.

The site of the project was Ramsey County, Minnesota. The overall goal of the project was to increase the financial, emotional, and medical support to children. The major objectives of the project were to:

• Increase the completion of voluntary acknowledgments of paternity. [In Minnesota, parents acknowledge paternity by completing a Recognition of Parentage (ROP) form];
• Increase child support payments;
• Develop better understanding, increased communications, and new collaborations between the child support agency, birthing hospitals, pre-natal clinics, other government agencies and service providers, and community- and faith-based organizations; and
• Develop a better understanding of how the voluntary acknowledgment program can promote marriage of unwed parents where appropriate.

The major components of the project consisted of the following:

• A systematic analysis of the current barriers to the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity in Ramsey County and the development of strategies and processes to overcome those barriers. This included implementing a cross-cultural approach to increase the voluntary establishment of paternity.
• Employment of a "Paternity Specialist" who maintained a daily presence in Regions Hospital and worked with staff and patients to increase the number of signed ROP forms.
• Outreach and education on the Voluntary Paternity Acknowledgement Program directed at improving the understanding of the program among unwed parents and professionals that work with pregnant women or families.

Although genetic testing was not a major component of this project, Ramsey County allowed for the parents to participate in genetic testing when there was a question of parentage. The project’s proposed marriage promotion component was modified by linking this project to another existing 1115 project, the Minnesota Family Formation Project, which also aims to promote marriage.

Project Findings

Despite a number of challenges in implementing the project, the strategies used for this project were successful in significantly increasing the voluntary paternity acknowledgement rate at a large urban hospital serving a high population of low-income patients.

• The percentage of ROP forms filed for unmarried mothers increased from 50 percent to 65 percent at the hospital during a 12-month period of time that the Paternity Specialist was employed.
• The percentage of ROPs increased for every month (except two) compared to the previous 12-month period.
• Ramsey County increased its Paternity Establishment Percentage (PEP) from 83.3 percent in 2005 to 84.6 percent in 2006 (the year following the project start-up).

Lessons Learned

• The project faced a number of implementation challenges, including an interpretation of the Health Insurance and Portability Accountability Act (HIPAA) that limited access to patients at the Hospital, and difficulty getting The Power of 2 video shown regularly due to turnover among volunteer staff. The project was able to develop a release of information form to overcome the HIPAA challenges, and is working on incorporating The Power of 2 video into the hospital’s newly developed video viewing system.
• The strong support of the hospital in implementing the project was a key to its success.
• The project successfully implemented outreach and educational activities for the Voluntary Paternity Acknowledgement Program directed at improving the understanding of the program on the part of unwed parents and professionals who work with pregnant women or families.
• The project successfully allowed for genetic testing when parents had questions about paternity. The process, administered by the Paternity Specialist, was free to the individuals and assured the ROP was signed by the correct biological father.

Continued Status of the Program

While budget constraints will not enable Ramsey County to retain the services of the Paternity Specialist, both the County project staff and the Regions Hospital staff developed a series of recommendations about how to best continue the progress they had made in increasing the percentage of unwed births with completed ROPs at Regions Hospital. These recommendations include continued monitoring of PE rates, continued training of hospital volunteers and staff about the Voluntary Paternity Acknowledgement Program, continued outreach and education efforts, and facilitating staff support for PE.

This 17-month grant responded to 2004 Priority Area 5: Increasing Payments and Avoiding Noncustodial Parents' (NCP) Debts through Stratifying NCPs by Likelihood of Paying, Taking Steps Appropriate to Their Classification, and Taking Prompt Action. In this project, the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Child Support Enforcement, planned to utilize principles of the Australian Child Support Model to identify new NCPs. stratify their likelihood to pay child support, and interact with them early in the child support experience in order to build more positive long-term relationships, increase collections and prevent arrears.

Building on the demonstrated success of the Nebraska Child Support Customer Service Call Center, the grantee proposed to use the Call Center to initiate and maintain contact with customers (custodial and NCPs) in order to improve customer satisfaction, increase collections, identify problems and resolve questions/issues before they become problematic. The grantee's goal was not solely to increase child support payments, but also to change the NCP's view of child support from "it's just another expense" to "it's really important for my children."

Background: NCP Demographics

• Gender- One in five NCPs were female.
• Urban\Rural - for the grant, NCPs were purposely sampled so that 60 percent would be urban and 40 percent would be rural. With deleted cases, urban NCPs were 42.3 percent of the participants and rural comprised 57.7 percent.
• Public Assistance - 11 percent of all cases involved a public assistance payment.
• Number of dependents - average 1.59.

Data were not available on marital status, educational attainment or income.

Project Findings

1. Personal contact (early intervention) with NCPs significantly improved compliance with child support obligations. The project used experienced customer service workers to make outreach calls to new NCPs within 90 days of the judgment date. The calls were made systematically during regular business hours as well as evenings and weekends. They provided information about rights and responsibilities, and provided assistance concerning hearings and missed payments.
2. Over the period of the grant, the increase in child support payment by the phone/mail treatment group represented a gain of 34 percent compared to the control group. If applied to the 4391 cases in this project, it would represent an increase of $1,067,051 paid for child support during the grant period.
3. Delayed intervention, targeting NCPs who become delinquent for more than 90 days, with mail and telephone contact did not result in significantly improved compliance.
4. In developing a matrix to predict compliance with child support obligations, this study identified the following predictor variables:
   • the ratio of income to the monthly support obligation;
   • demographic variables, age, race/ethnicity, public assistance status, and gender; and
   • the number of days between judgment date and pay start date.
5. The prediction used a risk score to divide NCPs into: 1) those who should be contacted for early intervention and 2) those who should not. For the test group in this grant, predictions for NCPs were correct 69.1 percent of the cases and incorrect for 30.9 percent of the cases.
6. Understanding Process (focus groups) An examination of specific topics showed a broad misunderstanding of child support and its processes on the part of NCPs. Misunderstandings include: age of emancipation; when payment is due; when interest accrues and why; how payments are calculated; and how or when changes can be made to an order. They did not know automatic withdrawal was an option for them. Automatic withdrawal increased from 6.85 percent pretest to 23.26 percent posttest.
7. Posttest scores were higher for NCPs for the two treatment groups receiving proactive communications than those in the control group. The proactive communications included materials mailed that were specifically designed by the customer service call center to provide information about enforcement, guidelines, payment interest and other information about child support services.

Lessons Learned

• Early Intervention depends on being able to contact the NCP. Combining both mail and telephone contact is significantly more effective than just mail. However, phone numbers become dated quickly and should be updated at every opportunity. The average number of attempts made before reaching an NCP by telephone was 6.44. The first 25 percent were reached in an average of 2 calls and the first 50 percent within 4 attempts. Also being able to make the contact in the shortest amount of time from the judgment date increases success.
• Targeted Early Intervention. The findings in this report suggest promise for an approach that systematically targets higher risk NCPs for the motivation/support provided by early intervention. Such an approach could be implemented when data on key variables are collected and incorporated in reports. The ability to predict the likelihood of payment compliance complements a program of early intervention by allowing workers to target their efforts. A limitation of this process was the completeness and accuracy of this data. Data for key predictors which were believed to be valuable were either missing (marital status or educational attainment) or incomplete (income).
• NCP Focus Groups- NCPs need additional information about their responsibilities and the child support process. NCPs:
  • find document language complicated;
  • don't know where to seek information (other than attorneys);
  • lack understanding of the review and modification process;
  • are more responsive when personal contact is early;
  • are more likely to increased collections when possible enforcement actions are explained and relationships nurtured;
  • collections increase; and
  • welcome the personal contact.

Additional Comments

Prior to the completion of the grant, the Nebraska Child Support Agency decided to continue the practice of early intervention with non custodial parents. Even in preliminary reports, indications of promising results were compelling and the results of the final report reinforce that decision.

Project Plan

This 17-month grant responded to 2004 Priority Area : Motivating Non-Custodial Parents to Comply with Orders by Involving Them More at the Earliest Stages of Support. The focus of this project was to design and track a procedure for early intervention from the intake to the establishment and enforcement phases of new case referrals.

The Fairfield County CSEA randomly assigned new child support cases into either a demonstration group (exposed to Navigation services) or a control group. The demonstration group consisted of a sample size of 171 cases and the control group consisted of 170 cases. The demonstration group received proactive and face-to-face contact with an assigned caseworker referred to as a "navigator" during the establishment phase and into the enforcement phase where applicable. The control group was exposed to the standard operating procedure regarding the establishment and enforcement phases of their case from the local child support agency.

The 171 cases of the demonstration group were split among two navigators, and each caseworker provided intensive customer service to his respective caseload. Navigator services included personal phone contact notifying both parents of the pending child support action and setting up of pre-conference hearings to go over specifics. Navigator services also included group orientation classes for both parents during the initial stage of the establishment phase and follow-up telephone calls to non-custodial parents once the case was assigned a court order obligation. In addition, during their initial contact with non-custodial parents, the Navigators were able to make job placement/training related referrals where indicated.

The project set out to compare the treatment and control groups for two outcome measures:

Outcome 1. Exposure to the Navigator services will facilitate communication along the following dimensions-

1. increase the understanding of the importance of child support;
2. increase the understanding of the child support program and how it operates;
3. increase the understanding of the available community parenting resources;

Outcome 2. Exposure to the Navigator services will result in a higher rate of support order compliance and/or a higher percentage of the child support obligation being paid.

Project Findings

Outcome 1. Exposure to the Navigator services will increase communication factors related to child support enforcement.

Anecdotal observations support the contention that the cases exposed to the Navigation services had a much greater opportunity to understand the child support program (its purpose and how to follow through on requested actions, etc.) and the available support services offered through the child support agency. These observations include:

1. the 171 cases receiving Navigator services were collectively influenced by hundreds of additional face-to-face and telephone contacts, and some parents in the demonstration group attended the orientation class during the initial period of the establishment phase.
2. many parents in the demonstration group reported positive feedback about the intensive customer service provided and the support and coaching received during the establishment phase.
3. the demonstration group experienced a higher level of cases with voluntary support payments (NCP payments received prior to the "official" establishment of a support order).

Due to the project time constraints and a lack of comparison data, there was insufficient information to conduct a statistical analysis.

Outcome 2. Exposure to the Navigator services will result in a higher rate of support order compliance and/or a higher percentage of the child support obligation being paid

Finding: There was a statistically significant difference in the compliance rate between the two groups. At the end of the project implementation phase, 71 of the 171 cases had received some payment, while 50 of the 170 control cases received some payment. This translates to a comparison compliance rate between the demonstration and control groups of 41.5% and 29.4%, respectively.

Also it was found that among the payers, the demonstration group had a somewhat higher overall percentage of current support paid than the control group (73.6% verses 61.9%). However, this was not shown to have statistical significance.

Lessons Learned and Limitations of the Demonstration Study:

1. Parents' initial response to the proposal to offer intensive customer service was one of "surprise," but the overwhelming anecdotal response/observation was one of appreciation and benefit for the personal involvement from the two case Navigators.
2. The CSEA staff at the conclusion of the study noted that for purposes of distributing written material on the child support program and maximizing "class" attendance, it would probably be best to schedule orientation classes after an order has been established rather than up front in the establishment phase (as was the case in the project).
3. In order to maximize cost effectiveness of the use of case "Navigators," it would be best to assign the Navigator to the more difficult cases.
4. The Navigator style program is replicable in all jurisdiction- large/small, urban/rural/suburban.
5. The single greatest limitation in the study was the one-year time frame of the demonstration project. A longer period of time was needed in order for all cases in either group to first, result in a disposition, and then secondly to have sufficient continuous time to track the cases for optimal analysis and discussion of findings.

Update- June 2007

The Navigator Program in its pure form with designated navigator staff is not in operation in any county including Fairfield. However, the concept of applying early intervention and front end focus has been incorporated into many of the counties as a result of the project.

Project Plan

This grant responded to 2004 Priority Area 5: Increasing Payments and Avoiding Non-Custodial Parents' (NCPs') Debts through Stratifying NCPs by Likelihood of Paying, Taking Steps Appropriate to Their Classification, and Taking Prompt Action. The Tennessee Department of Human Services, Division of Child Support Services, proposed to develop an innovative project, modeled after case assessment and early intervention techniques successfully used in Australia. Tennessee's case stratification was based upon an assessment completed at the time that the child support order was established and identified the financial and other parental characteristics that may be predictive of the likelihood of compliance (see Case Assessment and Stratification pages 14 to 19 in Report). The case stratification was also used to identify what interventions may be appropriate for the case, such as more frequent personal contact with NCPs, prompt modification of orders if necessary, and additional reminders to NCPs (including monthly reminders by mail or telephone).

The case stratification allowed the child support agency to better match enforcement techniques to individual case circumstances, allowing the County to more effectively and efficiently utilize its staff resources. In addition to appropriate enforcement techniques, the case stratification enabled the child support agency to better identify NCPs who were in need of services: NCPs who were unemployed or underemployed would be referred to the Child Support Employment and Parenting Partnership, an existing program designed to address barriers to child support payment.

An additional component of the project was to identify cases with unmarried parents who may benefit from marriage in order to refer them to marriage assistance programs.

Project Findings (From the Final Report)

The early intervention strategies used for the project cases were generally successful in producing positive child support enforcement outcomes as compared to a control group. Project cases were significantly more likely to be under order than control cases. After a year, 56.1 percent of project cases were under order compared to 40.8 percent of control cases.

The project treatment had the greatest impact on public assistance cases. 50.0 percent of project public assistance cases had orders established. In contrast, the percent of control public assistance cases under order was only 22.1 percent.

Project cases had better payment rates than control cases. For ordered cases that remained open after a year, the percentage of project and control cases with any payments was 78.1 and 73.0 percent, respectively.

Project cases paid more than control cases on average. Payments, which are measured as a percent of current support due, averaged 85.9 percent among all project cases and 72.8 percent among all control cases.

The difference was greatest for public assistance cases. The percent paid among project cases receiving public assistance averaged 80.7 percent compared to 44.2 percent for control cases.

Project cases made more progress toward paying arrears than control cases. Arrears were ordered to just over half of both the project and control cases at the time of order establishment. After a year, there were 10.3 percent more project cases with arrears and 29.1 percent more control cases with arrears. About 7 percent of project cases and 0.5 percent of control cases reduced their arrears debt within the first year.

In all, after a year, there were fewer arrears among project cases than control cases. The median (or middle case when data were arranged from high to low) amount of arrears was $942 among project cases and $2,442 among control cases. There was a larger gap between the mean (or average amount) of arrears: $1,365 among project cases and $4,002 among control cases.

Lessons Learned

Since the project used a variety of early intervention strategies it is not possible to determine which specific individual strategies contributed to the positive outcomes. However, information gathered from interviews as part of the process evaluation for the project was useful in identifying the following specific strategies as "promising practices."

• Additional phone contact with CPs and NCPs.
• Early (establishment) appointments with NCPs.
• More friendly and understandable introductory letter. (See Final Report, Appendix 2, page 55).
• Courtesy phone call reminders prior to appointments and court hearings.
• Expanded efforts to obtain agreed orders/stipulations. (Conduct an introductory telephone interview with NCP.)
• Reserving retroactive support. (NCPs would not owe support prior to order.)
• Minimizing initial build-up of arrears by requiring a later start date for the first payment.
• More frequent payment monitoring. (for example making a courtesy call 10 days prior to the first payment).
• More frequent payment reminders and phone calls if payment missed.
• Additional efforts to obtain current and multiple telephone numbers for NCPs (see next paragraph).
• In-person appointments with enforcement worker.
• Swift enforcement action for non-payers.

An important part of early intervention efforts is the ability to contact CPs and NCPs by phone. However, any clients, particularly NCPs, either do not have listed telephone numbers or are difficult to reach by phone even if the child support agency has a valid telephone number. Providing caseworkers with the legal authority to subpoena cell phone numbers in mass and the use of automated telephone reminder systems should be considered as a means to facilitate phone contact.

Case assessment and stratification were generally useful for caseworkers in identifying NCPs to be referred to the program (see page 14 of the final report). The early intervention strategy was also useful in targeting services and getting workers to think about what other services might be appropriate.

For enforcement, the strategy was useful in determining how to approach cases. For those NCPs who were referred to the Child Support Employment and Parenting Partnership program, participation in the Child Support Employment and Parenting Partnership program, was very low. Alternative strategies may need to be explored to work with unemployed or underemployed low-income NCPs in order to ensure that they contribute to the support of their children.

The case assessment and stratification tool used for this project (modeled after the Australia case assessment tool) was generally a valid predictor of compliance. Cases were placed in one of four quadrants which predicted compliance as intended by the model. The relationship indicators and compliance indicators used in the model were also generally valid predictors of compliance. Further refinement of the model by developing additional indicators seems warranted. If linked to more specific enforcement techniques, the model could be a valuable tool for future case management.

Project Plan and Background Information

This grant responded to 2004 Priority Area 3: Integration of Access and Visitation and Child Support Enforcement. The Ensuring Access - Encouraging Support Project was conducted by the Attorney General of Texas (OAG) in collaboration with the Harris County Domestic Relations Office (DRO). The goal of the project was to promote the payment of child support by offering noncustodial parents (NCPs) in Harris County a variety of services aimed at resolving their access and visitation (AV) problems and promoting parent-child contact. Many NCPs have problems getting to see their children, and these issues are frequently mentioned reasons for nonpayment of support. By offering parents a variety of materials and free services aimed at addressing access problems and enforcing visitation orders, the OAG hoped to eliminate these problems as causes of nonpayment and increase payments.

This project investigated the following:

• What types of parents in the child support caseload have AV problems
• At what stage of case processing do they surface and get detected?
• What types of interventions by what types of personnel work best?
• What types of AV problems do they have?
• What are the biggest barriers to resolving AV problems?
• What is the workload impact of addressing AV problems for child support agencies and the court?
• What is the impact of addressing AV problems on child support payments?
• What is the impact on parent-child contact patterns?

February 2005 to December 2006, 875 NCPs residing in Harris County with a Harris County court order that included a visitation provision were assigned on a quasi-random basis (by the last two digits of an individual’s social security number) either a high-level or low-level treatment groups. The high-level treatment group consisting of 646 NCPs received an initial telephone call to collect information about their family situation and their disputes about access and visitation. (NB: these are non-IV-D program activities; they are not eligible for Federal financial participation.) In addition the high-level treatment group was offered the opportunity for direct DRO staff contact and followup. The NCPs exposed to the low-level treatment intervention (N= 229) received this initial telephone contact for the purpose of collecting information but in lieu of the offer of direct DRO staff contact, received a resource package in the mail. This resource package contained pertinent AV program information and additional related promotional material. Fixed-choice, close-ended follow-up questionnaires were administered by professional telephone interviewers beginning six months after project intake to NCPs in both groups.

Project Findings

Key Outcome Findings

• Parents in the high-level treatment group were significantly more likely to increase their payment of child support, with the most pronounced gains registered by those who participate in attorney consultations and parent conferences. The percent of child support due that was paid rose from 73 to 86 percent among NCPs in the high-level treatment group as compared with 75 to 78 percent for members of the low-level treatment group. Those who participated in attorney consultations and parent conferences made the greatest gains and payments rose from 73 to 88 percent. None of the increases were due to enforcement actions.
• NCPs who participated in attorney consultations and parent conferences in the high-level treatment group were significantly more likely to report improvements in their visitation situation. Nearly half (45%) of interviewed NCPs who participated in DRO services reported that parent-child contact had improved, as compared with 15 percent of non-participants. Participants were also significantly more likely to report post-program visitation patterns that they characterized as "regular and scheduled" (40% versus 20%). They were much less likely to report that visitation "never" occurred (39% versus 62%).
• NCPs who participated in attorney consultations and parent conferences were significantly more likely to report improvements in their relationships with the other parent. Parents who received services at the DRO were significantly more apt to report cooperative relationships with the other parent following program participation (48% versus 29%). They were significantly more likely to report that their relationships had improved (29% versus 15%), less likely to say that they had become worse (28% versus 51%), and more likely to give the program credit for the relationship changes they had experienced (53% versus 27%).

Key Service Findings

• It was difficult to deliver remedial services to NCPs who say that they have problems with visitation. A significant proportion of NCPs failed to follow through with their request for help, and ultimately, 60 percent met with a DRO attorney while 40 percent did not. Even though all members of the high-level treatment group were scheduled for an attorney consultation, 52 percent said that they did not know about it.
• Parents who participate in consultations with DRO attorneys were very satisfied with the experience. Parents who met with attorneys recalled discussing a variety of issues, the chief ones being the problems they were having with visitation, what their visitation order said and meant, and how the visitation enforcement process works. Those who met with DRO attorneys were either very (46%) or somewhat (31%) satisfied with the experience.
• Parents who participated in parent conferences at the DRO were able to produce agreements and were very satisfied with the experience. Three-quarters of interviewed NCPs that participated in a parent conference reported reaching an agreement with the other parent. Whether or not they reached an agreement, nearly half said they were "very satisfied" and another 21 percent saying that they were "somewhat satisfied" with the experience.
• Although legal enforcement procedures were rarely used, they were important components of the service menu. Only six parents wound up filing motions in court to enforce their visitation orders. Nearly all cases were settled prior to filing in court, with some parents reporting that the mere threat of enrolling in the project had solved the problem. Still other cases were dropped from the litigation track for failure to generate the necessary documentation.
• Although many parents value printed information, they were more apt to find it helpful if they got some in-person assistance, too. While 69 percent of low-treatment group members found printed information alone at least somewhat helpful, the high-level treatment group was significantly more apt to report that it was "very helpful" (42% versus 30%).

Key Findings on Referral and Enrollment

• NCPs were skeptical of an offer of help with visitation from the child support agency. Mass mailings to NCPs with young children that included an offer for free services to address visitation problems yielded response rates of only 1 to 2 percent. It was more effective for child support workers to flag parents with problems when they called or visited the agency and most of the 875 enrollments were generated from face-to-face referrals.
• Child support workers exercised discretion in the types of NCPs they referred for visitation services and eliminated cases with new child support orders and those that involved pending legal action. On average, parents referred to the project had child support orders that were at least 40 months old, only 10 percent had newer cases with orders of six months or less, and less than 1 percent had experienced a court contempt or driver's license suspension during the 18 months prior to their enrollment in the project.

Key Findings on Participants

• A wide variety of parents disclosed visitation problems and enrolled in a project offering remedial services. Three-quarters of project participants had never been married to the other parent.
• Many parents with visitation problems who sought remedial services were involved with the criminal justice system and/or report domestic violence. Criminal justice records for Harris County revealed that 56 percent of NCPs in the high-level treatment group had been arrested in Harris County, and half of custodial parents interviewed by DRO staff disclosed being hit, slapped, or kicked by the other parent.
• NCPs reported a variety of long-standing and entrenched problems with visitation. NCPs reported having a number of problems with visitation that had been going on for an average of 24 months. They included not being allowed to see the children, disagreements about what the visitation order says and not knowing where the children live.

Lessons Learned

• The project revealed that the child support agency can collaborate with community agencies that are skilled in helping parents with visitation problems.
• The main services offered by the DRO (attorney consultations and parent conferences) were effective ways to help NCPs with their problems. Both interventions inspired high levels of user satisfaction. Those who participated in these services reported higher levels of parent-child contact and improvements in parental relationships.
• Addressing visitation problems through interventions like attorney consultations and parent conferences is associated with significant improvements in child support payment. A review of child support records for NCPs randomly assigned to lower- and higher-level treatment groups showed that members of the higher-level treatment group paid a significantly higher proportion of what they owed. The biggest gains in payment were made by those who actually received remedial services and participated in attorney consultations and parent conferences.
• Many NCPs reported that printed information on visitation was at least somewhat helpful. Nevertheless, the lack of significant improvements in child support payments, parent-child contact patterns, and parental relationships for members of the low-level treatment group suggested that simply providing a packet of information on visitation problems and community resources to NCPs is not the most effective way to address these problems. While written materials may serve a customer service function, agencies that wish to improve payments by addressing visitation problems will need to go beyond distributing printed information and actually provide services by trained personnel to achieve results.
• Identifying and serving NCPs with visitation problems, however, is no simple task. Mass mailings do not work. After decades of being told that the child support agency does not handle visitation, NCPs do not respond to letters by child support agencies or court agencies that promise help with this issue. It is far more effective for child support workers to spot parents with visitation problems in their caseload and make referrals, although workers are less apt to refer parents for help at early stages of order establishment and/or if they have pending enforcement actions. While the findings were unclear as to whether it was due to worker referral or parent response, there was a definite skew in the pattern of NCPs and cases in the project. Most of the parents who enrolled in the project were child support payers with older orders; a third only had medical support orders and had no monthly support obligations. Compared with responsible fatherhood and employment programs sponsored by child support agencies, the project attracted NCPs who reported higher levels of education and employment, lower levels of parent-child contact, and higher levels of conflict with the other parent.
• It was also difficult to deliver services to many of those who enrolled. Forty percent of targeted NCPs did not take advantage of free attorney consultations; only 24 percent took advantage of free parent conferences with a DRO facilitator. Follow-up interviews revealed that half maintained that they did not know that attorney consultations and parent conferences were available, even though they were contacted by DRO staff and scheduled for attorney consultations. Many said that they did not participate in a parent conference because the other parent refused to cooperate.
• These communication problems are hardly new to child support agencies. More or different methods of service delivery need to be explored for the delivery of visitation services. This might include more passive, one-stop approaches that capitalize on the parent’s appearance at the child support agency or the court for other matters. The availability of on-the-spot visitation services might also improve participation by custodial parents, since many appear at the child support agency and/or court for order establishment and enforcement proceedings.
• Although in its evaluation design the project did not include any systematic cost/benefit analysis, the service outcomes obtained in this demonstration project illustrate that child support agencies realize measurable payment benefits when they provide remedial services to NCPs with visitation problems. Compared with responsible fatherhood and employment programs sponsored by the child support agency, this project served parents who tended to be somewhat better educated, employed, and pay their support at better than average rates. The project services triggered even better child support payments from obligors who were already decent payers.

This grant responds to 2004 priority area 8: Projects Furthering the Child Support Mission to Ensure That All Children Receive Financial and Medical Support from Their Parents. West Virginia proposes to develop a video and brochure to provide information about child support to incarcerated parents. Prison staff will show the video to inmates shortly before their release. The anticipated benefits of the project include: petitions to the court that will lead to more realistic orders; improved collections and an improved collection/order ratio for the state; reduced contempt petitions for nonpayment; and more likely compliance with support orders upon the release of NCPs from prison.