Bilingual services. Half of the counties that participated in the focus groups made a point of hiring bilingual staff. Spanish was the second language of the bilingual staff, yet some counties reported that they have an increasing number of non-English speaking customers who speak other languages (e.g., Vietnamese). With the exception of one County, there is a general belief that there is a greater need for bilingual services in the early stages of child support enforcement such as in the intake and establishment functions. For these functions, focus group participants typically estimated that processes take 50 percent longer when bilingual staff are required. In particular, interviewing takes longer for non-English speaking customers. One focus group participant explained that the increased time not only resulted from the language barrier, but time to explain the laws and deal with cultural differences.

Interstate cases. One issue of concern was whether interstate cases require more work than in-state cases and therefore whether adjustments to the standards are needed for technicians with a high proportion of interstate cases in their caseload. We could find no evidence that interstate cases require more work. As shown in the time estimates for intake and establishment functions (Exhibit 9), interstate cases did not take longer to process than intrastate cases. With regard to enforcement, interstate case activity was considered through filing interstate actions and as part of case management (e.g., calling other responding and initiating States as needed). Our analysis does not show a relationship between the proportion of interstate cases in a caseload and the time required for case management.

Staff turnover. Supervisors at the Counties that participated in the focus groups repeatedly mentioned the problems high staff turnover create, especially in training new staff. We do not know what the staff turnover rate is, but did not hear that it is excessively high or low. Nevertheless, we recognize there will always be some staff turnover and all of the counties we visited had experienced some turnover in the last year. We attempted to deal with this issue as part of the focus group discussions by specifically asking participants to tell us how their time estimates would change for a new worker. The average time estimates we developed from those focus groups include the increased time new technicians would require to complete their work. Thus, we believe the staffing standards shown in Exhibit 11 are sufficient to accommodate a normal level of staff turnover.

Customer Service. The MIG Advisory Group suggested that the proposed staffing standard should emphasize customer service and give counties flexibility in how they provide customer service. Customer service may take several avenues ranging from fielding questions directed to a call center to providing intensive, personal services for a fatherhood program. The staffing standards would be quite different depending on the type and level of service. Of the ten fatherhood programs we are evaluating around the country , one program has as few as 30 cases per FTE (case management, peer support, job-related services), while another has several hundred (monitoring job search and job retention).

Attorneys. Attorneys are not considered in the existing staffing standard, nor are they considered in the proposed staffing standard. Most Counties contract with the County District Attorney’s Office for child support attorneys. The contracts and attorney staffing are determined by the County.

Future Changes. Changes in automation, legislation and other directives could result in changes in recommended staffing standards. This year alone, the State has made many improvements that should help technicians locate parents more quickly and streamline administrative enforcement actions. The precise impact of these changes on staffing is unknown. On the one hand, increased automation may eliminate steps in some processes (e.g., recent improvements to locate.) On the other hand, it may increase the need for customer service (e.g., automated license suspension). The proposed staffing standards were designed with a customer service emphasis and to allow Counties flexibility in how they staff this function. The standards also ensure that all Counties, no matter how small, have at least one child support FTE. As the impacts of these and other changes become better known, we believe the staffing standards may need to be adjusted.

The approach used to updating any of the proposed staffing standards should be very similar to the approach used to update the existing standards. That approach requires using the counts from the MM-410, entering those counts into a spreadsheet that has the staffing formulas, and then executing the formulas to arrive at the standards. We see no reason to deviate from this practice.

Most of the counts used in the recommended staffing standards are the same as those used in the existing standards. Exhibit 12 compares what data elements are necessary to update the existing standards and what data elements are necessary to replicate the proposed standards. Proposed Model A requires one less data element than the existing model. Proposed Models B and C both require three new data elements, but also eliminate one of the existing data elements.

There are several approaches we could have taken to developing staffing standards in this study. All of them have advantages and disadvantages. Regardless of what approach we used, however, none will produce standards that are perfect. This reflects the fact that establishing staffing standards is part science and part art, especially in the human services profession. If it were all science, it is quite likely that every state would have invested in developing staffing standards for their child support operations. Yet, our review of efforts in other states reveals that very few of them have staffing standards and a few that once had standards have since abandoned them or not updated them.

The Delphi technique we used to develop standards in this study relies on professional estimates from child support technicians about the time needed to do quality work on individual cases. Those estimates will vary for a wide range of factors—some specific to the organization, some to the nature of the work, some to the population being served, and some to differences among individual staff—not all of which can be accommodated within a single standard. The standards developed in this study attempt to incorporate adjustments for several special factors (e.g., staff turnover) we believe are important to consider. We have been guided by input from the MIG Advisory Group and others about the appropriateness of the resulting standards and by the State’s desire to make the standards flexible and easy to update. We believe the final standards achieve those objectives.