Staff of child support and public assistance agencies receive training on their own agencies’ procedures but may be unfamiliar with how other agencies work. This lack of understanding may limit or reduce how well staff coordinate with others to provide services to clients. Cross-training is one approach the focal states have used to increase the knowledge that public assistance and child support staff have of each other’s roles.

Cross-training staff can feature formal presentations of agency policies and procedures or information about the dynamics of domestic violence. These sessions sometimes offer training to staff from more than one agency and sometimes feature training by the staff of one agency for the staff of another. Agencies in our focal states described both types of efforts, which include the following initiatives:

Focal states have also taken several, more informal approaches to cross-training. These efforts generally constitute a nonthreatening means of bringing staff from different agencies and organizations together in ways that help to nurture mutual appreciation and understanding of the environments in which their partners work. Strategies include the following:

The benefits of cross-training are clear to respondents in the four states. While the distrust between organizations can pose a challenge to bringing staff together, cross-training itself is seen as a powerful vehicle for alleviating it. Training that is nonconfrontational and respectful of agency differences can help to break down some stereotypes staff have of one another. Cross-training is a way for staff to learn firsthand about the policies and procedures of other agencies and service providers, to understand the rationale behind approaches to case handling, and to build partnerships that can provide comprehensive services and support for clients. Staff education that extends beyond what an agency does to a full discussion of why this is done can help in reducing the tensions between organizations and in improving their response to clients’ needs.

Cross-training also presents some implementation issues. Training efforts should take into account that substantial geographic distances between some child support, public assistance, and community domestic violence service agencies can make it difficult for staff to gather in one place. Also, many staff, particularly those who work at agencies with frequent staff turnover, expressed the need for ongoing education rather than one-time events. Increasing the frequency of cross-training increases the likelihood that staff will fully absorb and implement the information conveyed.

Another approach our focal states used to increase staff knowledge of partner agencies was out-stationing staff. This arrangement, which places child support caseworkers at public assistance agencies, helps staff understand not only the procedures of each other’s agencies but also the cultures in which they work. Out-stationing also increases the accessibility of staff from other agencies; workers can communicate directly instead of through telephone calls or computer messages. In addition, child support staff, who usually do not see clients in person at their own agency, have more frequent contact with clients when stationed at a public assistance agency.

All the study states have out-stationed child support staff at public assistance agencies. The staff are out-stationed either full- or part-time, and sometimes as little as a half day each month. Given office space and a desk, colocated staff answer public assistance recipients’ questions about their child support cases. They also provide public assistance caseworkers with information on child support agency procedures and help them to address client needs, including those involving domestic violence.

This approach has several benefits, most of which are relevant for all child support cases. Staff report a much improved and more frequent communication between public assistance and child support workers, a greater appreciation of each other’s roles and responsibilities, and increased knowledge about procedural issues and client information that must be collected. Child support workers who are colocated have more access to clients. This can result in a more complete understanding of each client’s circumstances and family, which, in turn, can help staff become more interested in and dedicated to their work.

According to staff interviewed for this study, out-stationing child support workers at the public assistance agencies improves the actual child support enforcement process. Because of this on-site resource, public assistance staff are more likely to convey accurate information to clients, case information is less likely to be lost or misinterpreted, and inconsistencies in clients’ stories from caseworker to caseworker are more likely to be detected. In general, the information collected is more current and appropriately detailed, which gives child support staff a better chance of processing cases quickly and locating noncustodial parents.

Out-stationing is also more convenient for clients. With public assistance and child support workers in one place, clients can see them during a single visit and thus reduce travel time and expenses. Avoiding the need for a subsequent appointment virtually eliminates the chance that clients will fail to appear for an appointment with a child support worker.

While staff generally favor this approach and its positive effect on interagency communication, they also cited some implementation issues. Agencies need to be realistic about the costs of out-stationing, which requires office space and computer equipment, as well as clear agreement on which agency pays for these resources. In addition, agencies need to provide appropriate logistical support to out-stationed staff whose home offices are far from their "remote stations." These issues notwithstanding, increasing the frequency of out-stationing may increase the likelihood of its success. The extent to which partner agencies can institutionalize this approach will likely have an impact on its overall effectiveness.