Chapter 1. Introduction

Giving Hope and Support to America's Children

Chapter 1. Introduction

In this chapter

1.1 Purpose of the Study
1.2 Colorado’s Existing Staffing Standard
1.3 Report Organization

1.1. Purpose of the Study

In September 1999, the Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Child Support Enforcement (CSE) contracted with Policy Studies Inc. (PSI) to design an improved staffing standard model for Colorado’s child support enforcement offices. Beyond this general purpose, the study was designed to achieve the following specific goals:

Provide a critical review of Colorado’s existing staffing model and how that model compares to models being used by other states;
Validate the processes and tasks that child support technicians must complete as part of their work to locate absent parents and establish and enforce support obligations;
Measure the amount of time child support technicians need to complete selected child support functions;
Develop a new or revised staffing standards model that builds upon the work Colorado has already done and incorporates additional variables to make the model more sensitive to the needs and interests of county CSE administrators;
Identify existing and emerging trends in the child support program (e.g., CSNet, enhanced federal performance requirements) that may affect the workload of child support technicians; and
Design a training curriculum in cooperation with State staff to educate CSE administrators and others about the model and how to use it.

These project goals recognize that human resources are the greatest asset of the child support program. They are by far the largest expense item in the program’s budget and how those resources are organized and managed are critical to the program’s success. Estimating the staff size needed to achieve desired program outcomes, however, is complex and Federal and State regulations offer little guidance in what an appropriate staff size should be. Federal regulations [45 CFR 303.20] simply state that there must be an “organizational structure and sufficient resources at the State and local level to meet performance and time standards.” Colorado’s regulations, as defined in the Department of Human Services’ Child Support Enforcement Staff Manual Volume VI [9 CCR 2504-1 §6.102.3], require that “sufficient staff be assigned to the CSE unit to provide the following child support functions: intake, locate, legal determination of parentage, establishment of the legal obligation, collection, enforcement, investigation, and reporting as prescribed by these rules.” The absence of prescriptive staffing standards can be viewed as an advantage and disadvantage. On the one hand, the absence of specific standards allows CSE administrators considerable flexibility in how they use their staff resources to meet the changing demands of the child support program. On the other hand, the lack of standards creates a tremendous challenge in allocating staff resources to child support functions to achieve the performance standards against which the program’s success is judged.

1.2. Colorado’s Existing Staffing Standard

Defining appropriate staffing levels can be viewed as being part science and part art. For the past decade, the State has issued recommended caseload standards for local Child Support Enforcement units annually. The standards are derived from a scientific formula that of necessity relies on certain assumptions about the child support programs and functions. County CSE administrators are free to use or not use the standards for their planning and budgeting purposes.

1.2.1. Development of the Staffing Formula

The formula used to derive the existing staffing standards was developed in 1990 by the Standardization Subcommittee of a CSE Task Force that was formed to assist counties in organizing their staff efficiently. The subcommittee comprised staff and administrators from federal, state and county (large, medium and small counties) agencies.

Based on a model office concept, staffing standards were primarily developed through use of the Delphi method, an approach developed by the Rand Corporation in the late 1960s that uses a group of experts to reach consensus about various topics, in this case the number of staff needed to perform certain child support functions. The professional estimates developed by the subcommittee were checked against staffing measurements available from other parts of the nation through the federal OCSE staff person serving on the subcommittee. Recognizing that specialization of function can lead to efficiencies that only larger counties could realize, the subcommittee included a provision in the staffing standard for a small county add-on.

1.2.2. Staff and Functions Considered in the Formula

As displayed in Exhibit 1, the existing staffing standard formula considers the following functions:
Establishment: technicians, clerks and supervisors
Enforcement: technicians (IV-A and non-IV-A), clerks and supervisor
Intake: technicians, clerks and supervisors
Other Support Staff: clerks for reception mail; clerks for customer service; clerks for accounting; ACSES liaison; support supervisors and managers.

The existing formula does not consider attorneys.

Table 1.1. Exhibit 1: Existing Staffing Standards

Intake

1 Technician for every 100 monthly intakes

1 Clerk/Legal Technician for every 100 monthly intakes

Establishment

1 Enforcement Technician for every 581 non-ordered cases

1 Clerk/Legal Technician for every 6.7 Establishment Technicians

1 Supervisor for every 7 Establishment Technicians

Enforcement

1 Enforcement Technician for every 581 Non-IV-A enforcement cases

1 Enforcement Technician for every 378 IV-A enforcement cases

1 Clerk/Legal Technician for every 9.3 Enforcement Technicians

1 Supervisor for every 8 Enforcement Technicians

Additional Staff

Reception Mail: 1 Clerk for every 10,000 cases

Customer Service: 1 Clerk for every 1,500 orders

Accounting: 1 Clerk for every 1,500 payments processed per month

ACSES Liaison^[a] : 1 Liaison for every 50,000 cases

Supervisors: 1 Supervisor for every 6 support staff

Managers: 1 Manager for every 4 supervisors

Small County Add-On : If a county has less than 10 staff, it can receive a maximum add-on of 100% if the formula results in less than 0.01 staff and a 10% add-on if it results in 9.99 staff.

^[a]ACSES is Colorado’s automated child support system

1.2.3. Periodic Updates to the Staffing Standard

Since the original staffing standard formula was developed, the subcommittee has reviewed and updated it annually based on changes in federal requirements, automation, county staffing needs and other factors in the previous year. As shown in Exhibit 2, some of the most significant changes occurred in 1993-95 to account for efficiencies gained by implementation of the Family Support Registry (FSR) and the automation of document generation. Major changes to the small county add-on were also made during this time. Since 1996, however, no changes have been made to the staffing standard formula.

1.2.4. County Utilization and Perspectives

PSI staff conducted telephone interviews with six county administrators to discuss their opinions about the merits and limitations of the staffing standards and their ideas for revising the standards.

The counties interviewed range in staff size from two to over 50 staff and they vary significantly in how they organize their staff. The larger the county, the more specialized the staff.
Regardless of county size, the vast majority of staff are classified as "technicians."

In small and medium counties, staff typically specialize in two to three tasks (e.g., one staff person handles locate, income assignments and interstate; another staff person handles income assignments, judicial hearing preparations and administrative actions). Larger counties are more likely to organize staff around child support functions (i.e., intake, establishment, enforcement and accounting). These divisions are not uniform across counties; for example, tasks performed by the “intake unit” vary between counties.

Additional perspectives about the existing staffing standards were obtained from questions submitted to the State project director, and discussions with state administrators and the MIG advisory group. In the telephone interviews, PSI staff asked counties whether they used the recommended staffing standards, and if so how; and what were the merits and limitations of the staffing standards. A summary of their responses is displayed in Exhibit 3.

Table 1.2. Exhibit 3:PERCEIVED MERITS AND LIMITATIONS OF EXISTING STAFFING STANDARDS

	Merits	Limitations
Utility of the formula	Small, medium and large counties reported that their County Commissions use the standards to decide child support staffing and budgets	A few counties reported that the standards are interesting but their County Commissions do not consider it in their budgetary decisions, rather the County Commissions makes those decisions based on changes in caseload
The formula and its final product	Most of the counties interviewed think the formula results in a number of recommended staff that makes sense	Although the end-number makes sense, most of the counties interviewed think the assumptions underlying the formula do not make sense
Small County Add-On	This adjustment provides adequate staff for small counties	There is a cliff effect after a small county reach 9.99 staff
General Updating of the Staffing Standard Formula	Historically, the updates to the formula have made sense Specific adjustments for automated forms generation and the FSR have made sense	The formula needs to be updated to account for automation and recent changes in enforcement tools (e.g., driver’s suspension, credit bureau reporting, UIFSA)
Staffing Organization	The formula is flexible, it does not dictate how a county must organize its staff	The formula does not account for all of the tasks staff currently perform

Generally, the counties interviewed thought that the final number resulting from the staffing formula makes sense, but that the existing formula parameters are not congruent with current staffing organizational structures, tasks, functions and workload.

Many of the counties’ specific concerns are listed below.

Concerns About Existing Formula Parameters

The concerns about the existing formula parameters are listed below in the frequency with which they were mentioned.

Caseload per Enforcement Technician . All of the counties interviewed reported that technicians must do more to enforce a case now due to license suspension, credit bureau reporting and other new enforcement remedies. Workload has also increased because technicians are responsible for their own paperwork and rely less on clerks than they did before automated document generation. In short, enforcement technicians must spend a greater amount of time monitoring cases.
Clerks. None of the counties utilized clerks to the extent that the existing staffing standard suggests. In fact, several counties suggested that due to the capacity to generate forms automatically, “clerks” are obsolete. Instead, enforcement technicians handle all aspects of their caseloads.
Accounting. Due to the FSR, the need for clerks has declined. Nonetheless, some of the counties suggested that the tasks performed by accounting staff have become more difficult because they require more knowledge about automation, exception reports and other accounting functions. Several counties also suggested that this standard should not be based on payments per month, but ledgers.
IV-A and non-IV-A Division . Most of the counties interviewed reported that there is no longer a clear distinction between the amount of time necessary to enforce IV-A and non-IV-A cases. Both cases require the same amount of effort.
Interstate Cases . Several of the counties interviewed have staff that focus primarily on interstate cases. One county administrator explained that this division was necessary because interstate cases require more follow-up and sometimes get neglected if they are merged with the instate caseload.
Staff Training, Turnover and Extended Absences. Several counties are concerned that the amount of time required to train new staff and cross-train existing staff to serve as back-up is not considered in the existing formula. In today’s tight labor market, most of the counties interviewed have encountered issues relating to high staff turnover or extended absences. As tasks become more complex, it is more difficult for new or back-up staff to fill in.
Small County Add-On. Two of the counties are concerned that a cliff effect may occur once they hit 9.99 staff, the maximum threshold for the small county add-on.
Supervisors . A few of the counties thought the number of supervisors in the existing formula was too high.

Other Recommendations

Bilingual Services . Two of the counties mentioned the need for bilingual services. One county administrator estimated that one out of eight of their “customers” require communication with a bilingual technician.
Flexibility in Staffing Organization and Functions . A few of the counties emphasized that the staffing standard should be flexible to allow the county self-determination in defining its organizational structure. These county administrators were concerned that measuring staff time for each child support function can lead to staffing standards for the measured function that do not allow them the flexibility to split a child support function into two or more functions or have staff work on multiple functions.
Basing Standards on Caseload . There was no consensus on what staffing standards should be based on. Some of the suggestions were to base staffing standards on something more than caseload to capture differences in the work intensity required among different cases. Others suggested that caseload should always be the basic unit of measurement because it is the most fundamental and easily understood unit by County Commissioners.
Relate Staffing Standards to Performance. A couple counties suggested that the best way to assess staffing standards is to examine staffing in the high-performing counties.

1.3. Report Organization

The remainder of this report is organized into four chapters. Chapter II reviews what we learned about the staffing standards used in other states based on our own research and research conducted by the State of Virginia for its own staffing study. We identified only a handful of states that have developed staffing standards.

Chapter III describes the approaches we used to developing staffing standards for this study, principally the reliance on professional estimates, supplemented by information from self-administered time logs. The chapter also discusses our attempt to develop standards based on federal performance indicators (e.g., percentage of cases with orders, percentage of ordered cases that are paying) and presents the results of that effort.

Chapter IV outlines the steps we used to develop the formula for establishing standards. It documents how we used the data we collected from various sources to build a staffing model and what the outcomes of that model are.

The final chapter, Chapter V, discusses the future of the staffing model; how it could be implemented and updated. The chapter also discusses the existing and future trends that are shaping and will shape staffing standards in the future. The increasing sophistication of automation is one of those trends, along with changes in federal regulations evolving performance measures for child support agencies.

Download FREE Adobe Acrobat® Reader™ to view PDF files located on this site.