Direct deposit of child support payments electronically into the recipients' checking or savings accounts.

In the fall of 1997, the Virginia Department of Social Services' Division of Finance responded to the cumulative requests of 40 custodial parents to participate in a pilot of a direct deposit program in Virginia. After collaborative planning with several major banking institutions in Virginia, on October 29, 1997, letters were mailed to this group of custodial parents announcing the new direct deposit program of child support payments. Funds were first electronically deposited into the customers’ bank accounts on November 26, 1997.

Next, two district offices within Virginia (the cities of Portsmouth and Danville) were identified to serve as pilot sites whose experience with the program would be the basis of a statewide program. The new Direct Deposit Program was marketed by the mass mailing of brochures touting the slogan, "Direct Deposit: Receiving Child Support is Now Faster and Easier," to a targeted customer base with the Portsmouth and Danville districts. The selection criteria for the targeted mass mailing included the following:

The marketing brochure contained a basic description of the Direct Deposit Program, citing the advantages of using this method of payment (get payment faster, check cannot be lost/stolen, no trips to/waits at bank). Attached was a tear-off application/authorization agreement for automatic deposit of child support payments.

As of July, 2000 there were 26,990 direct deposit accounts (checking and savings) to which 59,671 payments were made via direct deposit for Division of Child Support Enforcement clients, representing 27.1% of all child support payments in Virginia. This represents a tremendous savings in staff time over any manual methodology, expedites the payments to where they are needed, eliminates the possibility of lost or stolen checks, and lowers the state's "undistributed receipts." Virginia also has direct deposit agreements with 19 other states.

The Direct Deposit Program in Virginia is highly successful, continues to grow daily in enrollment, and is now marketed by Virginia's banking institutions, who stock the enrollment forms and mail completed forms to the Division of Child Support Enforcement. Additionally, the direct deposit forms are located in all district offices around Virginia as well as on the Virginia Department of Social Services' website.

The Direct Deposit Program is funded through the operating budget of the Virginia Department of Social Services' Division of Child Support Enforcement.

It is imperative that detailed implementation and marketing planning take place between Child Support Enforcement and the banking institutions within a state considering a direct deposit program. Aside from arranging the electronic transfer of funds from DCSE's bank to the customer's bank, a separate DCSE account should be set up to accommodate rejections. When DCSE's bank sends funds to a customer's account and there is a problem (i.e., the account is closed, etc), these funds are rejected and routed into this new account. The bank faxes a list of the "rejects" to DCSE's central office daily. These payments are re-posted to the child support system, and an actual check is then written and mailed to the custodial parent.

The need for a case clean-up project was identified as a safeguard to assure that accurate information would be processed on the batch-generated Income Withholdings. A preliminary review of test Income Withholdings was conducted during the week of March 15, 1999. This allowed staff to identify situations that could result in possible over-collection and negative exposure. It also enabled staff to identify situations that could result in possible incorrect participant data being processed, as well as identifying service issues, notification issues, and other clean-up issues. The report was used to update/correct pertinent information that was related to Income Withholdings.

A comprehensive list of data elements that would have the most direct impact on Income Withholding, was identified. Among them were: case type, interstate status (Initiating or Responding), medical support, noncustodial parent employment history, correct order information, Health Insurance Order indicator, Alternative Payment indicator, pay order type, and correct extension information.

Workers were given a variety of routine and ad hoc reports to assist staff in identifying items that needed to be corrected so that the income withholding would not result in an over-collection of arrears.

The clean-up project, which began April 9, 1999 and ended May 27, included all Child Support Enforcement staff directly involved with processing Income Withholdings.

Extra precautions were taken before the automatic generation of the Income Withholding was implemented and the results have been excellent. There have been few, if any, adverse effects. As of July 1999, 8,933 Automatic Income Withholdings have been sent to employers. The Income Withholding clean-up project resulted in batch income withholdings being sent to employers with accurate information from the APECS system. Collections have also been noted on some of these cases.

This clean-up project was implemented statewide in all of the 22 Child Support Enforcement offices in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The funding source was Regular Federal Matching.

Conduct some type of clean-up effort before implementing the automatic generation of the Income Withholding form. It is better to take a proactive approach at preventing negative exposure and interruptions to customer services than to have to deal with the repercussions later.

Lisa R. Johnson, Information Systems Support Analyst, Commonwealth of Virginia (804) 692-1534

LRJ900@DCSE.DSS.STATE.VA.US

In fewer than three years, Virginia's KidsFirst Campaign has netted over $96 million from 38,624 noncustodial parents who began paying in response to the Campaign's warnings, amnesty and enforcement sanctions. The latter have included a variety of high visibility actions: round-ups of the most delinquent noncustodial parents, drivers license suspensions, hunting and fishing license revocations, and boots on delinquent obligor's cars. These actions were always preceded by written warnings and accompanied by intense media attention generated by the Campaign.

“The success of the Campaign has surpassed our expectations,” says Nick Young, Director of Virginia's Child Support Enforcement Program. “When we started out, we viewed the Campaign as just one more tool with which to arm our workers - one more way to get the attention of delinquent noncustodial parents. We certainly didn't anticipate that this lone initiative would reap such a mushrooming response.”

In June 1997, as part of Virginia's welfare reform initiative and a gubernatorial commitment to collect child support to aid in family self-sufficiency, the Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement mailed 57,000 letters to the most egregious evaders. Addressed to noncustodial parents who owed more than $500 in child support arrears or who had not made a payment in 90 days, the letters offered a limited one-time amnesty for a two-week period. If appropriate payment plans were arranged, the noncustodial parent's case would not be referred to court and the state would recommend that the parent not go to jail. During the two-week amnesty, lines of NCPs went out the doors of child support offices and staff worked overtime. 9,300 parents responded and 768 made arrangements to pay arrears totaling $5.6 million. An additional 4,039 responded with cash payments totaling $1.2 million.

In preparation for the June 20, 1997 deadline, 450 warrants and 1,200 summons were prepared. Ten days after the end of the amnesty period, local law enforcement officials rounded up delinquent noncustodial parents with outstanding warrants and issued additional warrants to others. This intensive crackdown resulted in 512 arrests and show cause notices issued. The roundup was picked up by major news sources and widely publicized through a gubernatorial press conference. The response from delinquent noncustodial parents was overwhelming. In addition to those targeted, many others paid as a result of hearing about a friend or relative who had been arrested. A second roundup in September 1997 was tied to children going back to school. That action netted $4.4 million.

A third round-up in 1997 made use of a new tool to “encourage” delinquent noncustodial parents to pay up: boots. Boots are steel mechanisms that attach to a car wheel, making it impossible to drive without damaging the car until the boot is removed by the authority that placed it there. Virginia's DCSE officials had “Property of Child Support Enforcement” printed on each boot. Designed to get attention, boots were not released until the obligor settled the child support debt or made a payment agreement. This approach was used in Fairfax County, the only jurisdiction in Virginia, at the time, with the authority to boot vehicles. In December 1999, booting went statewide. As of early April 2000, 72 bootings have resulted in cash payments of $351,000.

A fourth round-up in late May, 1998 targeted noncustodial parents who had made payment arrangements but failed to live up to them. This effort resulted in the issuance of notices to suspend 1,411 drivers' licenses statewide.

As of early April 2000, numerous periodic roundups throughout the state have kept Virginia's Child Support Enforcement Program before the public.

To April 2000, $96.1 million has been received from 38,624 obligors who began paying in response to KidsFirst enforcement activities. Says Phyllis Sisk, Principal Assistant/Deputy, of Virginia's Division of Child Support Enforcement, “Delighted as we are with the collections, the positive media attention we have received has been a real boon to our program. At a minimum, this initiative has caught the attention of delinquent parents and communicates the Commonwealth's lack of tolerance for child support evaders.” She cites as an added bonus the enhanced rapport with law enforcement colleagues and the judiciary. Local sheriffs have been both willing and eager to help with the campaign.

Statewide in Virginia. Funding: The Campaign has utilized regular IV-D funding - state funding with federal match. Staff from the State's Attorney General's Office and local law enforcement staff also have contributed to the effort.

Says Sisk, “I would encourage any state to conduct this kind of a campaign. It will immediately get attention. Get the highest level endorsement of it possible. Try for the governor. If that doesn't work, ask the Secretary or the Commissioner to hold a press conference.”

Sisk notes, “Public relations played a critical role. We constantly made ourselves available to the media, issued press releases, and generally kept reporters informed of spinoff stories. The results have been very encouraging. Virginia's program garnered more than a little positive state and national media attention. Each successive roundup generates even more attention to the problem. In Virginia, arrearages are right at $1.65 billion and growing by $200 million a year, so we look for creative ways to focus attention on child support and increase collections.”

Being able to project a sense of fairness in the campaign is important. The initial letter and amnesty offer contributed to this, according to Sisk. She recommends balancing hard hitting quotes with statements indicating appreciation for those NCPs who pay on a regular basis to support their children.

Also recommended: advance planning with local sheriffs or law enforcement and the courts; and positive attention to child support from high levels to encourage child support workers. Court and legal staff, as well as the child support workers, must often work grueling hours preparing for and responding to a special initiative. In Virginia, Nick Young, state IV-D Director, moved around the state, visiting offices and sometimes staffing the phones himself to encourage staff and keep up morale during the initial amnesty period.

Phyllis J. Sisk, Division of Child Support Enforcement, Department of Social Services, 730 East Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 692-1501,fax (804) 692-1543, (804)692-2353, e-mail: pjs900@dcse.dss.state.va.us.

In 1993 Virginia received a federal grant to test whether adequate staffing levels could make a significant difference in performance and productivity in a local child support office. By the end of 1998, the results in Fredericksburg, VA were clear. Increasing staff to the “optimal” level not only increased overall collections, but increased collections per employee as well. Employee satisfaction and customer happiness with the performance of Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE) staff also increased during the project period.

The study design called for the study of one large and one small office of DCSE, each with a comparable control site in which staffing levels would not be changed. Fredericksburg, VA was chosen as the small office; Charlottesville, VA as the comparable control site. (The large office site, Roanoke, VA, is not discussed in this description because data analysis is not yet complete as this is written.)

The study was conducted over a three-year period in three phases: 1) a base period during which baseline performance statistics were gathered and the staffing standards analysis was conducted (7/95-5/96), 2) the staffing standards period during which 14 additional staff were added in accordance with the new standards (6/96-8/97), and 3) a post-staffing standards phase in which the new staff were terminated and additional data was gathered (9/97 - 4/98).

Virginia's contractor subcontracted to conduct a staffing standards analysis of DCSE workers using an analytical tool called the Delphi technique. This technique would allow the state to determine how many DCSE workers are needed to provide effective and efficient services at an appropriate level of quality. The accuracy and reliability of the results also could be validated statistically using this approach.

A functional team, drawn from each of the six small offices in Virginia, worked with its contractor to identify tasks done by workers in each of the following functional areas:

Questionnaires were developed for each functional area. For each task, they asked, “How much time is needed to perform this task at an acceptable level of quality (i.e., in compliance with federal regulations and state policy)?” These questionnaires were given in several rounds to experienced workers (six months or more on the job) in each area in each of DCSE's small offices.

By combining the time standards for each task with the number of times the office did each task, it was possible to calculate staffing needs by specialty. Determining optimal staffing levels for the entire office requires calculation of the numbers of managers, support staff, and fiscal staff as well. From this analysis, it was determined that the Fredericksburg office was understaffed by 33 percent. An additional 14 staff members would be needed to reach optimal staffing levels.

During the second phase of the project, 14 additional staff members were hired. The Fredericksburg office decided to use the additional staff - who were expected to be temporary only - first to assist in conducting a strategic review of the entire caseload of the office. Such a thorough caseload review had not been done since 1986. The review made it possible to eliminate many duplicate cases, to close cases which should have been closed earlier, and to ensure that all cases included in the caseload were ready to be worked.

After completion of the strategic review of the caseload, the new staff members were assigned to help experienced workers in their specialty areas. They did the more routine tasks, freeing the experienced workers to focus on more complex duties.

At the conclusion of 15 months, the new staff were terminated and the Fredericksburg office returned to its previous staffing level.

Initially, as would be expected with the addition of new and inexperienced staff, collections per worker declined in the Fredericksburg office in comparison with collections per worker in Charlottesville. It took 13 months until the collections per worker in Fredericksburg began to exceed those in Charlottesville. At that point they began to exceed both prior collections per worker levels in Fredericksburg and simultaneous collections per worker in Charlottesville. Collections per worker (including the 14 new staff) increased modestly by the end of August 1997. It was expected that increase would have continued had it been possible to retain those workers.

The productivity increases were dramatic for the remaining staff after the new staff departed. These increases reflected the results of activities carried out during the optimal staffing period. Collections per remaining employee per month increased by 62 percent over the base period. Wage withholdings per remaining employee increased an average of 29 percent, locates, 72 percent, and paternity establishments, 87 percent.

Total collections increased by $1.08 million. Net dollar benefits/ dollar costs increased by $1.80 for every dollar expended.

In addition, employee satisfaction increased by 19 percent. Customer perceptions of employee performance increased as follows: perception of staff courtesy increased by 14 percent, of staff helpfulness increased by 21 percent, and of case timeliness increased by 37 percent.

The small office portion of this project was conducted in Fredericksburg, VA, a small city. The control site was in Charlottesville, VA, another small city.

$935,000 was received in demonstration project grant funds from OCSE over the three year period of the study. Those funds were used as the state match for additional IV-D funds during the project.

Assigning the additional personnel to strategically review cases and otherwise assist specialty workers - versus assigning them their own caseloads initially - had a powerful impact on increasing most measures of performance and productivity and is recommended to others. Had it been possible to retain those workers, managers believe they would have been prepared to move into responsibility for a full caseload at that point.

While the staffing standards analysis was both costly and time-consuming, the time standards developed in this study are available to other states, who may wish to make use of them in their own staffing decisions. (Virginia is a state-administered state which makes substantial use of administrative processes.) States should expect an eight- to twelve-month lag time before significant performance gains are experienced.

Todd Areson, Divison of Child Support Enforcement, Virginia Department of Social Services,

730 E. Broad St., 4th Floor, Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 692-1463, e-mail: txa900@dcse.dss.state.va.us.

04/00

In 1998, Barbara Nye, a veteran child support worker, grew increasingly concerned about the number of girls her own children knew who were showing up in her office as child support clients. With the blessings of her Director, Nancy Hill, she contacted the Assistant Superintendent of Schools responsible for programming in Fauquier County. She volunteered to talk with pregnant girls taking family life education courses about what she had seen as a child support worker and to provide them with information on child support. This was the beginning of RAP (Responsible Adolescent Program), now in its second year - just one of the volunteer youth education programs of the Manassas District Office of the Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement.

Using staff volunteers, the Manassas Office has added to its mission reducing the future need for child support services through outreach to youth. Volunteers in all the school outreach programs are expected to maintain required productivity in their usual child support caseload in addition to their volunteer work in outreach programs. As with RAP, many of the programs are the result of initiative taken by concerned child support workers.

RAP is presented each year to some 1600 students in 9th and 10th grade health classes and early childhood development/life management skills classes in Prince William and Fauquier Counties, VA. Presentations are made in a single class session. Generally, both young men and young women are in the classes. No special consent is required because parents have already consented to the classes.

A film or video captures students' interest. Through case studies, overheads, interactive activities and writing assignments, students learn about paternity establishment, child support awards and support enforcement. Nye also tells the teens about the experiences of girls who have come into her office and describes the reasons guys give for “knowing” they are not the father.

Wise Guys targets young men ages 14 through 17, starting at the middle school/junior high level. Working together in 1998, child support agency volunteers and volunteers from a community organization, Interfaith Caregivers, found an existing curriculum which covered many topics the group wanted to address with young men. The Wise Guys curriculum they selected was developed originally by the Family Life Council of Greater Greensboro in Greensboro, North Carolina and had enjoyed success there.

Wise Guys is offered as an after school program to young men, starting in 7th and 8th grades. Students must elect to participate in the program and their parents must agree. While open to all young men, guidance counselors refer some students to the program. Among the program's goals:

Topics addressed include personal and family values, communications, dealing with your masculinity, dating violence, abstinence, goal setting, sexuality. An important goal is to make young men aware of their many options. Workbooks cover the curriculum and “homework,” designed to provoke thought about these important topics, is assigned each week.

Working in teams - one male and one female on each - volunteers conduct 10 weekly sessions of about an hour each covering a different topic each week of the course. With 10 volunteer teams offering the classes, 400 to 500 young men participate in the program each year. Currently eight of the volunteers are child support workers and two are from Interfaith Caregivers. Interfaith Caregivers administers the program.

Sneakers is a comparable all-girls program which reaches 400 to 500 girls per year, 25 kids per session, with four sessions run concurrently several times each year. It, too, is based on a pre-existing curriculum developed by Florence Crittendon Services.

While a formal evaluation has not been conducted in Virginia, Wise Guys did find that teen pregnancy went down by 30 percent in Greensboro, NC where the program originated. (Other factors may have contributed to the drop.) In Fauquier and Prince William Counties, VA, community agencies talk about the impact the school programs have had; their directors mention them in community meetings. Kids have heard about the programs. Parents call to ask for them in their kids' schools. Also hoped for: a decline in the need for new child support cases.

In addition to providing information to 2,000 to 3,000 students per year using child support volunteers, the school outreach programs have brought more involvement with the community. The community knows who they are; the reputation of child support enforcement has been enhanced.

The Manassas District Office of the Virginia DCSE has built strong networks with social service agencies, through these school based programs, other youth outreach programs and participation in fatherhood initiatives. They are teaming up with both private and public agencies on projects, jointly seeking grants. They can now refer noncustodial fathers to programs which can help with parenting, job search, job training, and financial management.

Prince William County is suburban. Fauquier County is a combination of suburban and rural areas. The Wise Guys program originated in Greensboro, NC. The Sneakers program utilizes a curriculum developed by Florence Crittendon Services based in Baltimore, MD.

Manassas District DCSE has no special funding for these projects. Most of what they do is volunteer staff time - in addition to maintaining required productivity. Interfaith Caregivers received a small grant to purchase the curriculum and workbooks and to cover administrative costs.

Gaining the interest and cooperation of the schools is crucial. Contact the Superintendent or the person in charge of curriculum. Alternatively, it is possible to contact particular teachers within a school who may invite speakers to their classes. It helps to have a good curriculum.

“It is important who you put in the programs,” says Nancy Hill, District Manager. “They must have the ability to relate to and communicate with young people. They have to be people who do not go out and preach. One of our volunteers, Colby Poteat, is two years out of college. He is young enough to relate to these young boys. Barbara Nye has children in college. She relates to the kids, too. The volunteers must be outgoing, comfortable talking about the subject, comfortable around kids. You can expect kids will ask sexual questions. You should also pick people who are good workers.”

Nancy Hill, Barbara Nye (Rap), Jan Judy (Wise Guys, Sneakers), Manassas District Office, Courthouse Station, 9309 Center Street, Suite 101, Manassas, VA 20110-5599, 703-368-3010,fax: 703-335-9137 or 703-335-8015, e-mail: nvh978@dcse.dss.state.va.us (substitute bvn for Nye, jaj for Judy).