OREGON

LOCATE - IMPROVE PERFORANCE

Goal: Improve Oregon's performance in "establishment" by focusing on the "locate" caseload.

Description: At the end of 2000, Oregon recognized that the state was not meeting the federal benchmarks in "establishment" primarily due to our poor performance in the "locate" function. Oregon recognized that we identified locate as an area needing attention; a workgroup was formed to create and implement a Corrective Action Plan (CAP). We knew our success in "locate" hinged on completing six basic actions within 75 calendar days.

Based on those six actions, we identified three key areas for improvement:

• Training staff on federal locate requirements;
• Identifying work that needs to be done by a locator vs. work that could be done more efficiently elsewhere; and
• Adjusting our Child Support Enforcement Automated System to streamline "locate" work.

Our first focus area was to ensure that staff knew and understood the requirements of 45 CFR 303.3(b)(1)-(3). A common misunderstanding was that the 75-day timeline started when the case was moved into the "locate" function. We advised staff that the clock starts ticking as soon as "locate" of the noncustodial parent is an action necessary to take on a case, not when the case is moved into the "locate" function.

Our emphasis was to work new "locate" cases while leads may still be fresh. Therefore, we changed the practice of exclusively working the oldest "locate" cases first. With our locators' involvement, a caseload management plan was developed and implemented which requires attention to cases initially entering the "locate" function first, yet still ensuring adequate time is available to work the older cases.

We soon realized that non-locators didn't always know what information or cases to refer to a Locator. For example, not all non-locators knew not to refer requests to locators to look for a deceased parent as a way to track down assets from an estate. We also emphasized to non-locators the importance of closing cases whenever appropriate to avoid overloading the "locate" caseload.

The "locate" function is being moved to field branches because we believe child support cases are more efficiently processed when staff working on different aspects of case management are physically located near each other. When a locator is seated near a case manager, they personally discuss case situations. A case may avoid going through a lengthy process simply by having the locator and the case manager work together to pool their knowledge.

We identified the need to designate a "Locate Lead" and an "FPLS Lead." These point-people act as conduits of information for program staff and ensure that we continue to meet performance expectations in the "locate" function.

Of the six required "locate" actions to be completed within 75 days, we identified that four actions could be performed by the case manager prior to referring the case to a locator. These actions are:

1. Contact the noncustodial parent.

2. Check motor vehicle records.

3. Check employment department records.

4. Issue a postmaster letter to the last known address.

The case manager can perform these actions to locate the noncustodial parent often without moving the case to locate. We instituted a requirement for the case managers to perform these actions within 10 days. For cases referred to "locate," the locator ensures that the case was submitted to the FPLS and that a credit bureau check has been completed.

Automation plays a crucial role in our success. We learned from the Self-Assessment Team that cases were not automatically being submitted to the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS). We thought our system was programmed to submit cases to locate between days 44 and 56. We found the cause of the problem and fixed it. There were also several outstanding system work orders intended to streamline locate work and reduce necessary intervention by staff. These were expedited and have now been successfully implemented.

Results: The "locate" CAP was implemented during the 2 ^ndquarter of 2001. Our Self-Assessment Team compared the results from the 1 ^stand the 2 ^ndquarters to track the effectiveness of the CAP. The efficiency rating showed a 31.43% increase; from 44.95% during the 1 ^stquarter of 2001, to 76.38% during the 2 ^ndquarter of 2001. The tremendous success of the CAP is clearly demonstrated through these statistics.

Location: Statewide.

Funding: Regular IV-D funds are used.

Replication Advice:

• Identify and zero-in on the root cause of the problem;
• Explain the problem to staff and involve them in the development of the solution(s);
• Ensure staff know the expectations and provide them with the tools needed to do their work; and
• Provide regular status updates to let staff know their efforts are making a positive difference.

Contact:

Brian Thompson

Region One Manager, Division of Child Support

Phone: (503) 378-3696

Email: brian.thompson@state.or.us