In response to domestic violence provisions in 1996 federal welfare reform legislation, an interagency working group formed to propose changes to state policy. The group included representatives from DTA, DOR, Department of Social Services, and Executive Office of Health and Human Services. Subsequently, in 1997 DTA formed a domestic violence advisory board that included government agency staff as well as members of the domestic violence advocacy community. This collaborative advisory board was supported by a second grant to DTA from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which also supported statewide domestic violence training for DTA staff.

Planning for the OCSE-sponsored demonstration project built upon earlier efforts of the Massachusetts Governor’s Commission on Domestic Violence. The commission, which examined the effect of welfare reform on battered women, released a report in early 1997 that offered policy recommendations on assisting public assistance recipients who were domestic violence victims. DOR and DTA implemented one of the key recommendations, stationing domestic violence specialists at DTA offices, as part of the demonstration project. The agencies also planned to examine methods of screening and disclosure for domestic violence victims in the project.

The demonstration project has three phases, which have successively refined methods for identifying domestic violence victims. These methods were tested in four DTA offices in Boston:  Bowdoin Park, Grove Hall, Davis Square, and Newmarket.^[2]

Phase One. In this phase, DTA caseworkers offered public assistance applicants and recipients "universal notification." Each applicant was given written materials on domestic violence issues and the availability of good cause exemptions from child support cooperation, work participation, the family cap policy, TANF time limits, and teen parent school attendance requirements. Written materials were available in 12 languages other than English. Caseworkers also explained orally what was meant by "good cause."

Phase Two. DTA caseworkers continued to offer public assistance applicants and recipients universal notification, but also began informing them of the availability of on-site domestic violence specialists. The demonstration project hired one specialist to work at each of four Boston DTA offices^[3]. The specialists’ responsibilities include assessing domestic violence victims; helping them apply for good cause exemptions and family violence option waivers, and make plans for economic self-sufficiency; making referrals to community service providers and shelters; and supporting DTA staff.

Phase Three. Building on the approaches in the first two phases, DTA introduced direct questioning of clients by public assistance caseworkers.^[4] Caseworkers asked specific questions to identify domestic violence victims and then referred them to on-site domestic violence specialists. This change shifted from a passive notification procedure, which placed full responsibility for disclosure of domestic violence with clients, to an active one that attempts to detect problems that clients might not otherwise reveal.

During this phase, the demonstration project also sponsored the efforts of a domestic violence project attorney. This attorney, based in the Boston DOR office, acts as a liaison with battered women’s programs, coordinates activities with DTA specialists, and visits DTA offices to review the specialists’ cases when they have child support issues. She also reviews child support actions in cases with domestic violence, helps ensure that proper action was taken, and works to develop practices to enhance client safety.

An advisory board plans activities for and reviews the implementation of the demonstration project. The board includes representatives from a state agency, MDHS, as well as from a variety of Hennepin County agencies: the Collection Services and Family Assistance Divisions of the DEA; the County Attorney’s office; the County Planning and Development office; and four county service providers. A special work group, consisting of Hennepin County child support and public assistance staff, coordinated the implementation of interactive video interviewing methods.

The demonstration project builds on earlier efforts to overcome perceived difficulties associated with the physical separation of the Hennepin County child support and public assistance agencies. Concerned that clients were burdened by having to go to two different locations, a previous, six-month pilot project (October 1995 to April 1996) in the county sought to improve public assistance recipients’ cooperation with child support requirements by enhancing communication between the two agencies. The pilot used desktop computers with two-way video and voice communication to allow child support staff to conduct interviews from their office with public assistance applicants after their intake interviews at the welfare office. Hennepin County’s current project expands upon this effort, testing whether child support interviews conducted by telephone or through video technology to reduce client travel affect cooperation with child support requirements.

Phase One. The first phase of the project tested three methods of conducting child support interviews after public assistance intake interviews. Applicants were randomly assigned to one of the following methods:

The purpose of this effort was to discover whether the quality of applicants’ information and instances of cooperation differed among the interviewing methods. Some child support caseworkers volunteered to conduct the telephone and video interviews, and all caseworkers conducted delayed, in-person interviews.

Phase Two. In this phase, the immediate telephone and video interviews were retained, but the delayed in-person interviews were replaced by immediate in-person interviews. Two resource workers, who were specially designated child support caseworkers, administered the immediate in-person interviews at a public assistance agency. These workers also offered referrals to community service providers.

Regardless of the interviewing method used, a second aspect of this phase included questioning clients directly on their reasons for not cooperating with child support requirements (if they were not). As part of the child support interview, staff conducted a cursory screening of issues, including domestic violence, that might make it difficult for a person to cooperate with child support enforcement. If a resource worker was conducting the screening and an applicant answered "yes" to any question, the worker then conducted an in-depth needs assessment. If a caseworker was conducting the screening over the telephone or through video and an applicant answered "yes" to any question, the caseworker asked if she would like to meet with a resource worker for a needs assessment. Toward the end of the project, the resource workers began training the child support caseworkers who conduct video and telephone interviews so they can also offer in-depth assessments.

Phase Three. In phase three, project staff chose in-person immediate interviewing as the method to be used for all initial child support interviews. This choice reflected concerns with the other two methods, particularly video interviewing. Some staff and clients found it somewhat disorienting that words spoken through the audio system did not exactly match the timing of the speaker’s mouth movements on the video screen. Video interviews also caused a logistical disruption noted by staff, since they had to leave their desks and conduct the interviews in a special booth.

In this phase, the immediate interviews are being expanded so that child support caseworkers can ask clients about information that was not captured during the public assistance interview. In addition, caseworkers are receiving additional training on interviewing techniques and staff team-building.

To plan for the demonstration, DCSE convened a Domestic Violence Grant Implementation Team. The team included representatives from state DCSE and DFS offices; Jackson County prosecuting attorney’s, DCSE, and DFS offices; and statewide and Jackson County domestic violence organizations. Members of the team developed and then evaluated the implementation of new agency procedures and client assessment tools that address domestic violence issues.

New procedures were developed to increase the safety of domestic violence victims, and caseworkers in Jackson County were trained on the procedures and began to use them. The main activities of the demonstration, implemented in a gradual process from 1997 to 2000, are:

AFS, domestic violence service providers, and other partner agencies developed Oregon’s child support and domestic violence policies. AFS sponsored an appraisal of statewide domestic violence services and convened an interagency committee to review and revise AFS policy on domestic violence. The agency also worked with domestic violence advocates, particularly the Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence (the Oregon Coalition), to implement a bill that included elements of the FVO provisions in state law.^[9]

The legislation developed by AFS, the Oregon Coalition, and other domestic violence advocates, House Bill 3112, became law in June 1997.^[10] Among other provisions, it requires AFS to identify public assistance applicants and recipients who have been, are, or who are potentially victims of domestic violence and offer them individualized case management, make referrals to community services, and offer waivers from TANF requirements, including cooperation with child support enforcement.

Subsequent to the 1997 legislation, an interagency committee on CSP confidentiality issues began to focus on domestic violence. The group reviewed the CSP’s policy on good cause exemptions and client confidentiality and developed new approaches to ensuring the safety of domestic violence victims. In addition to state-level staff from the CSP program and other AFS staff, participants in this group included representatives from Services to Children and Families, the Oregon Health Division, Legal Aid Services of Oregon, Oregon Employment Division, the Oregon Coalition, and the state Court Administrator’s office.

Oregon’s state-level CSP staff and other state-level AFS staff adopted a variety of approaches to ensure that state policies addressing the needs of domestic violence victims were implemented at local agencies across the state. In addition to developing procedures for local AFS staff to use to assess clients for domestic violence safety concerns and offering them safety options, they also sponsored staff training sessions on new policies and instituted district liaisons. CSP staff from local DCS and DA’s offices also helped plan for and participated in the training.

Developing a Model Assessment Tool. To help AFS branch offices fulfill requirements of House Bill 3112, which stipulates that AFS offices identify victims of domestic violence, state-level AFS and Oregon Coalition staff developed a model assessment tool. This assessment tool contains a series of questions that can be asked during initial TANF intake interviews or subsequent interactions with clients. AFS encourages its branch offices to refine the assessment tool to address local needs or develop their own tool in collaboration with their local domestic violence service providers.

Customizing Client Safety Options. The committee on CSP confidentiality issues developed a three-tiered approach to protect the privacy and safety of domestic violence victims in the child support system.

Sponsoring a Multi-Faceted Training Program. Through a 1997 grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AFS, the Oregon Coalition, and other domestic violence service providers offered training on domestic violence. The training, which was for local AFS, CSP, and domestic violence agency staff, included three strategies. First, an expert trainer developed an advanced curriculum on domestic violence and case management and then trained staff across the state. Second, a session was conducted to prepare local AFS staff and its partners to facilitate non-physical self-defense courses. Third, Ed-net educational broadcasts on closed circuit television, featuring such topics as child support and domestic violence, were televised at community locations statewide. Local AFS and CSP staff and other partners watched the broadcasts together at community viewing sites, phoned in questions to be answered on the air, and then participated in local discussions on the topic after the broadcast.

In addition to training sessions sponsored by the grant, state-level AFS, DCS, and DA’s offices sponsored their own training to inform staff of new or revised policies on confidentiality and safety concerns, and local AFS and CSP offices collaborated with community domestic violence service providers to design local training on the dynamics of domestic violence.

Designating Agency Liaisons. AFS and CSP local district and regional offices selected staff to be domestic violence "point people." Point people are liaisons with their agency’s central office and partner agencies, including domestic violence service providers. Point people can be either senior-level staff—office managers and supervisors—or line staff. They perform a variety of activities, including disseminating state-level policy to staff at their offices, sharing staff’s reactions with the central office, coordinating training sessions with local service providers, supporting staff whose clients are domestic violence victims, and participating in local domestic violence councils. AFS and CSP point people and representatives from partner organizations, such as domestic violence service providers, attend quarterly meetings to share information and coordinate their efforts.