Washington

Video Interviewing

Goals

Reduce the number of "no-shows" for paternity interviews which historically averaged 50 percent and speed cases toward collection through the use of video interviewing technology. Previously it took cases a month to reach the point of a paternity interview by prosecutor's staff.

To explore two research questions:

• Would the use of video interviews increase the number of cases with collection action within 60 days?
• Would these interviews reduce the number of TANF applicants receiving TANF benefits 90 days later (as a result of collection of support?)

Description

The Division of Child Support office in Everett, Washington (Region 3) serves the northwestern part of Washington State, a 6,350 square mile area which includes five counties and a number of islands. The distance from the eight Community Service Offices, where TANF applications are accepted, to the DCS office in Everett, ranges from 5 to almost 60 miles.

Until 1997, child support staff had to rely on paper applications alone or customers had to travel long distances in order to initiate a child support case. When paternity establishment was necessary, a paternity interview with prosecutor's staff was a prerequisite. The distances between staff and client frequently posed real barriers for cooperative clients without good transportation and sometimes provided a convenient excuse for clients who were less than enthusiastic about establishing paternity. Similarly, administrative hearings required extensive travel for Administrative Law Judges, Claims Officers, and Conference Board Chairs.

The Everett DCS began using video-conferencing technology in Spring, 1997. Four processes of Child Support are discussed with respect to this technology.

Support Enforcement Interviews: TANF applicants can complete their TANF applications and walk into another room to be interviewed over video camera by DCS staff in Everett. DCS staff and applicant see each other on television screens and speak by phone. Current locate information is provided and clarifying questions can be asked on the spot. Some documents are left with CSO (TANF) staff to be forwarded to child support staff in Everett.

Paternity Interviews: After applying for TANF at the Community Service Office and completing the initial child support interview by video with DCS staff, appropriate cases are referred for video paternity interviews. The applicant moves to equipment which has the capability of sharing documents. The prosecutor's staff conducts the paternity interview remotely. PC-based systems were installed in the Everett Community Service (TANF) Office and the Snohomish County Prosecutor's office. Paternity questionnaires are prepared and signed before the applicant ever leaves the Community Service Office.

Administrative Hearings: Washington State uses an administrative process to establish child support in most IV-D cases. When the parties cannot agree on the amount, an Administrative Law Judge hears the case. Both agency attorneys and judges travel around the region to conduct/attend hearings. The more sophisticated video conferencing equipment was installed in space at two Community Service (TANF) Offices, and in the Everett DCS office to permit these administrative hearings to be held by video. These procedures were instituted to increase the time available to hold the hearings by eliminating travel time and reduce travel costs for Claims Officers and Administrative Law Judges.

Conference Hearing Board: The costlier equipment was also installed in the Division of Child Support Headquarters to permit the Conference Board Chairperson to conduct Conference Board hearings. The other participants meet in the Everett DCS office. It was hoped that the procedure would save the travel time and cost of a 160-mile round trip for the chairperson for each hearing.

Results

Video-conferencing to conduct child support interviews was successful in 5600 cases. While the demonstration period ended November, 1999, the method was continued. The technique proved especially beneficial in cases in which there was already a support order and DCS needed to initiate an enforcement action. The video interviews facilitated DCS staff to obtain and quickly act on new employer information. Almost twice as many video interview cases as paper application cases saw enforcement action commenced within 60 days of application (31 versus 16 percent).

While there was broad agreement that video interview cases moved more quickly to service of process, the overall process took long enough that video-conferencing did not reduce TANF recipiency rates in the first 120 days for cases requiring establishment of a support obligation.

Customers like the process. 92% reported they were comfortable with the video equipment and 97% believed the DCS interviewer was helpful in answering questions.

Increased collaboration between DCS and TANF (CSO) staff also resulted. Significant CSO (TANF) staff involvement is required to explain the video interviews to applicants, show them how to use the equipment and to fax or transmit documents to DCS. Monthly meetings between DCS and CSO staff to discuss the video interview process laid the ground work for further collaboration on other issues involved in Washington's Work First (welfare reform) program.

The use of video-conferencing in Conference Board hearings has also been highly successful. The Conference Board Chair warmly embraced the reduced travel time.

Video-conferencing was introduced for administrative hearings and in paternity interviews later in the demonstration process and has not yet been used in enough cases to yield statistically significant results. Logistical and technical difficulties had to be resolved in these cases. DCS was very successful in dealing with one additional office such as a CSO or Conference Board chair. When a third office was brought into the process, it was much more difficult to coordinate. While the more sophisticated equipment is capable of doing more - e.g., transmitting documents as well as video images - it is also somewhat more complex to use. Participants were initially more concerned about using it.

Funding

Federal Region X, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services provided the video-conferencing equipment - which cost $67,046. The balance of funding was regular IV-D funding for DCS. Each agency provided it's own telephone line and staff.

Replication Advice

Kathleen Ihnken, Support Enforcement Office 4, recommends starting slow. Be sure there is a one-to one ratio of remote/TANF locations and child support interviewers available. Set up with one other office at a time as that office will require training and technical assistance to integrate the new capability with its ongoing procedures for opening TANF cases - even when motivated to do so.

It will be necessary to have someone responsible for keeping the equipment running, showing participants how to use the equipment, and handling documents. In some cases, security could be needed. Collaboration with an agency which can provide security, handle documents and/or provide expertise in equipment use can work well. Thus, DCS has sent technical staff to administrative hearings for this purpose - decreasing the savings from reduced travel. Safety concerns in this relatively unsupervised setting have also been expressed by those involved.