Defining Vision

		Enforcing child support requires the cooperation of hundreds of public and private entities. Pulling these efforts together demands extraordinary leadership -- to align agencies with diverse missions and to achieve broad public accord in collecting support for children. The Department of Social Services (DSS) has not supplied the vision needed to meet this challenge.
		DSS is responsible for child support enforcement in California, but the day-to-day work is the job of county district attorneys. Overcoming the cultural divide between the State's social welfare agency and local prosecutors has been a stumbling block to moving forward in a cohesive fashion.
		DSS has not recruited academia to help it diagnose child support needs and find solutions. Nor has the department established alliances with public advocacy groups. Instead ongoing contention has turned potential allies into adversaries.

Defining Vision

Finding 1: The management of state Office of Child Support has not defined a vision, provided the leadership or developed the public and private partnerships necessary for the enforcement program to reach its potential.

Leadership is an intangible quality that is hard to measure, yet is an essential ingredient to success. Virtually every accomplished organization, public or private, can attribute part of its achievement to leadership. Inversely, virtually any program that is not widely acclaimed can be criticized for lacking leadership.

But California's Child Support Enforcement Program -- because of the nature of the problem it attempts to resolve and because of the organizational characteristics involved -- demands more than the standard appropriation of political capital.

The program's leaders must overcome entrenched cultural differences among participating public agencies, transforming their institutional reluctance into enthusiastic cooperation. The top post must be filled by a proven manager and communicator, capable of developing a strategic vision and assembling a team of talent capable of implementing that vision. The program's leaders must persuade top policy makers to place child support high on the crowded public agenda. And simultaneously, they must convince every shopkeeper, every payroll clerk, every parent to do what they can to ensure children receive the financial support they deserve.

The Department's Role

From a public policy perspective, child support enforcement is a hybrid. From its roots in criminal justice, the program has grown vigorously as part of the modern welfare system. While technically support orders are a product of the courts, increasingly the people who pay support orders and those who receive payments never appear in court. While child support enforcement is federally mandated, the program is intensely personal, requiring significant public contact. It must be administered where everyday citizens live, in words theyunderstand, with rules aligned with their reality.

The organizational structure for delivering this service matches the complexity of the policy and goes far beyond the functional capability of any one agency.

At the state level, welfare officials operate the program with the formal assistance of the independently elected Attorney General. At the county level, locally elected district attorneys administer the program with the required cooperation of county welfare officials.

The courts -- which play a critical role in establishing paternity and support orders, setting and modifying award levels -- are independent of both state and local executive-branch agencies. Critical players in child support go beyond this core to include a variety of executive agencies that perform specific functions, elected officials who create laws and allocate funds, and increasingly, private businesses and the public at large.

The state Office of Child Support has developed a graphic that displays the numerous entities involved, and the unusual organizational relationship between public agencies that are central to the enforcement of child support and those who play a peripheral role.

The graphic shows the inherent need for significant political and program-level leadership.

Political leaders are needed to shape the public's perception of the problem and to enlist the support of businesses, community decision makers and the citizenry. Administration officials have the additional responsibility of ensuring a high-level of commitment to the program on the part of assisting state agencies -- who may be recruited legislatively to help enforce child support but are reluctant to divert energy from their historic mission or assign their best talent to help another agency do its job.

Program leaders have the day-to-day responsibility of coordinating, directing and inspiring the efforts of the public and private entities whose help is needed to routinely deliver what could potentially be millions of child support checks a month. The State Office of Child Support -- more than the vast majority of other state agencies -- is in the challenging position of relying, as a condition of its success, on the efforts of thousands of people who do not directly report to it.

The most important relationship -- and as a result the central focus for leadership efforts -- is between DSS, the state oversight agency, and the county administrative units. While in California day-to-day operations are delegated to counties, the State cannot delegate its obligation to ensure that child support is effectively enforced statewide. To fulfill its obligation, the department performs certain tasks that can be -- and are intended to be -- management tools: program evaluation, technical assistance, receiving and disbursing federal funds.⁽⁵⁹⁾ The state department describes its relationship to the counties as supervisorial.⁽⁶⁰⁾

But of equal importance to its management role is its leadership role: setting policy, developing strategies for reaching policy goals and uniting the efforts of diverse interests toward a common cause. Consider the focus that the Massachusetts Department of Revenue provided for all agencies involved in that state's support effort:

Our objective was to ensure that child support payments are made on time and in full and that both parents receive firm, fair and courteous treatment. And we have been guided by an abiding conviction that child support is not an installment debt to be paid when convenient but the most fundamental obligation that a person has in this society.⁽⁶¹⁾

When California's Office of Child Support called together district attorneys, public advocates and others to create its Vision for Excellence, it concluded that overall state leadership was lacking and pledged to fortify that part of the program: "The State's role will be one of providing leadership to ensure that maximum program outcomes are achieved."⁽⁶²⁾

At the time, state officials decided that part of the problem was structural -- that outreach efforts were hindered because the program was buried in the Welfare Programs Division of the Department of Social Services, one of 13 organizations within the Health and Human Services Agency. The vision document concluded that child support enforcement should become its own division, and eventually the program was given its own office within the department.

Where Leadership is Needed

No matter where the Child Support Enforcement Program is placed within DSS, it will still need to reach beyond its P Street headquarters in Sacramento to enforce child support. Legislation and regulation can provide DSS with the authority to reach beyond its own agency, but laws cannot dictate initiative. Leadership is needed to pave the vertical bridges between the state and the counties, and the horizontal bridges between DSS and other state agencies. Leadership also is required to garner support from others whose expertise or role in the economy brings them in close contact with parents. Just as it is hard to define leadership quantitatively, it is difficult to measure its deficiencies. But examples illustrate the potential for better leadership to further "maximize program outcomes."

Leadership: Vertical Bridges

The relationship between the state Office of Child Support and the county Family Support Divisions is burdened by the cultural differences between social service agencies and law enforcement officials. It also is made more difficult by the wide diversity among the counties.

In personal interviews a number of family support directors -- housed in enforcement-minded district attorney offices -- conceded they were unsympathetic with the Department of Social Services' institutional approach to helping the needy and are more aligned with the prosecutorial approach to enforcing child support. Similarly, many reported poor relationships with county-level welfare officials. In processing welfare applications, the help of social workers is critical in encouraging parents to identify and locate absent parents -- a crucial first step in securing child support orders.

As part of its vision document in 1992, the State acknowledged this problem and its responsiblity to bridge the gap. Under the category of actions it should take immediately, the State said: "Increasing leadership efforts by the Department of Social Services to encourage greater coordination between county welfare departments and family support divisions."⁽⁶³⁾ More specifically, the State pledged to convene a task force involving the California Family Support Council and the County Welfare Directors Association "to identify ways to increase coordination and enhance the interface between the two programs."⁽⁶⁴⁾

But county officials said they could not remember a task force, and they still have significant problems getting county welfare officials to press mothers for information and deliver that information to county district attorneys in a timely way. For example, in a February 1997 visit to the Los Angeles County Family Support Bureau, Little Hoover Commissioners were shown welfare applications dated April 1996 that had just arrived from a county welfare office.

These vertical relationships are difficult for the State to develop and maintain because each of the district attorneys and their family support directors are different individuals, with different political perspectives and institutional needs. Los Angeles County, with one out of four child support cases in California, is responsible for more children than all but seven states. Rural and geographically isolated counties, meanwhile, count their cases by the dozens and still rely on gumshoe detective work and sympathetic landlords to find missing parents.

Family support directors said one shortcoming of the State was training -- particularly for new program directors and those in top management positions. While DSS does some training, much of that responsibility has been left to the Family Support Council, which organizes an annual conference. Some county officials -- usually those in small, underperforming counties -- do not have the resources to attend. But of equal importance, by not capitalizing on the opportunity to train top county officials, the State misses the chance to build a solid relationship with county leaders, which could improve cooperation and communication.

Leadership: Horizontal Bridges

One of the frustrations of child support enforcement officials in the past has been that delinquent parents could avoid their financial obligations to their families while otherwise fully participating in the economy and society. As a result, recent enforcement reforms have sought to use the government's array of authorities to segregate delinquent parents from public rights and privileges, divert their assets to satisfy obligations, and thus encourage them to regularly pay child support.

One of the best examples is the professional licensing match program. More than 50 departments and boards are obligated to match lists of child support debtors against applications for new or renewed licenses -- from contractors to cosmetologists. Delinquent parents are sent temporary licenses that expire in 150 days if the debt is not paid or arrangements have not been made with authorities to pay off the debt over time.

Tax refunds, lottery winnings, even worker's compensation can all be diverted to satisfy child support obligations. Criminal records, tax records, employment records and driving records can be scoured for clues about the location of missing parents or their assets. But legislating this multi-agency dragnet and actually conducting it are different things. At some point initiative and innovation is needed to make sure that little glitches do not become insurmountable hurdles, particularly when more than one organization is involved.

Three examples of where leadership could solve problems are the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) drivers' license revocation program, the Employment Development Department (EDD) New Hire Registry, and the Attorney General Parent Locator Service:

• DMV license match. State officials believe that nearly all non-custodial parents in California drive vehicles, given that licenses or identification cards have been issued to two out of three Californians. But so far DMV has only been able to take action against one-third of the debtors that DSS refers to DMV. The problem appears to be procedural. DSS provides DMV with a social security number and the name of delinquent parent (DSS says they provide the full name; DMV says they receive a first name and the first three letters of the last name). The problem is that many of the social security numbers turn out to be erroneous, and the limited name information can match numerous Californians. DMV officials say they are willing to improve the program. If they had a full name, date of birth and drivers license number, they could reach more parents. DSS officials say the program is already matching as many names as DMV and the counties can handle, and that when SACSS is completed DMV will receive the date of birth along with names and Social Security numbers. But whatever the hurdle, there is no specific plan to make sure the program lives up to its full potential.

• EDD new-hire registry. In 1993, the Legislature created the new hire registry, requiring employers to report newly hired employees so that child support enforcement officials could quickly find missing parents and assign their wages. The reform, however, has only been partially implemented. The Legislature gave DSS and EDD the task of crafting implementation regulations, and in doing so the agencies only required 17 industries to participate in the registry. Those industries only employ one in eight California workers.⁽⁶⁵⁾




EDD also collects wage data, which also is used to find parents (since most new workers are not captured by the new hire registry) and to assign wages. But that data can be as much as five months old by the time it reaches the counties -- which can mean a parent avoided an obligation for that long or has moved onto another job. The data is old because employers are required only to report wage information within 30 days of the end of the quarter. It can take another 30 days for EDD to enter that information into computers, match the child support lists and forward the information on to counties.



The federal welfare law will now require California to do what it could have done from the beginning -- include all employers in the new-hire registry and require the information to be reported quickly enough to be of more use to prosecutors. The expansion will cost an undetermined investment of funds and will require more business participation. But the experience in other states has proven that a properly implemented registry can collect more in delinquent support than it will cost to operate.

• Attorney General Parent Locator Service. One of Social Services' oldest partners in the Child Support Enforcement Program is the Attorney General. Among other duties, the Attorney General operates the Parent Locator Service, which culls records to find missing parents, matches social security numbers to names, and provides a contact for other states looking for parents in California. For years, DSS has not fully funded the Parent Locator Service. DSS in its Vision document conceded that the additional funds would provide a net increase to the General Fund, and district attorneys consider full funding an important reform. Still the AG Parent Locator Service goes lacking.

Leadership: Missed Opportunities

California's child support effort could also benefit from more outreach in three directions -- to academic researchers, whose diagnostic skills are sorely needed; to public advocates, who should be program allies; and to everyday citizens whose collective opinion can increase cooperation and voluntary compliance, and who, if aware of the consequences, may be less likely themselves to produce single-parent families or to evade child support.

• The value of education. With all of California's academic infrastructure, little of the research being done nationally into child support issues is being conducted on California campuses. Not surprisingly, in those states where universities are assertively analyzing programs and proposing reforms, more innovation is taking place. One of the most innovative child support systems in the nation is in Wisconsin, which also happens to be one of the most studied child support systems in the nation.⁽⁶⁶⁾
  
  

  Rigorous, ongoing, statistically validated evaluation gives authority to those who are truly interested in reform. It gives confidence to budget makers and ammunition to policy makers. Wisconsin, for example, pioneered automatic wage withholding -- which was started with delinquent cases but was expanded to include all cases after university researchers documented its effectiveness. Automatic wage withholding is now required by federal law.⁽⁶⁷⁾

• Advocates and allies. It is unusual for a public program to have few or no allies among public advocacy groups who represent the government's "customers." That, however, is the case with the Child Support Enforcement Program -- as evidenced by the annual bloodletting over program performance, in which the advocates criticize the government and public officials chastise the critics. Some advocates are adversarial by nature and will never support government efforts. But conversely, without some common ground, it is hard to envision significant improvement in a government program as reliant on public cooperation as child support.

• The court of public opinion. The Ventura County family support director said what was missing was public agreement that child support was a moral obligation, not just a financial one. It would take that kind of support for employers, relatives and others to actively assist in helping to locate missing parents and their assets. The Monterey County family support director said what California needed was a little Madison Avenue, a campaign like the one waged by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, "so that when a guy is sitting in a bar bragging that he doesn't have to pay child support, his buddies will beat him up."⁽⁶⁸⁾ The Los Angeles County district attorney believes "the nonsupport plague will not end until society recognizes that we all suffer when parents don't support their children."⁽⁶⁹⁾

Leadership as an Option

Some advocates have considered these problems to be structural -- that effective government partnerships cannot be developed and so the solution is to create one statewide agency responsible for all central functions. Advocates for custodial parents and children -- frustrated by the dysfunction between the state and the counties and the lack of coordination between counties -- have relentlessly and loudly urged the Legislature to follow the path of smaller states that have state-run programs. The county-state bureaucracy, in turn, has spent considerable energy resisting the concept -- promising that a state-linked, but highly decentralized automation system will cure all of the ills.

In recent months, for instance, advocates have suggested that the Franchise Tax Board be charged with collecting and disbursing all child support, and that be considered a first step toward consolidating the program at the State's revenue agency. But FTB is the first to assert that it does not have the skills necessary to find parents or establish paternity or secure court orders for support. It does -- at the moment -- collect money better than nearly every county.

There is no evidence that a centralized state-run child support program would operate any more effectively than the decentralized county-run system. And no one agency has the expertise -- or could be easily adapted -- to take on all of the core child support functions. The greatest reasonable expectation would be for a state-run system to be as effective as the average county -- improving conditions in the worst of counties and suppressing the potential of innovative counties. In recent years, the trend has been the opposite -- to recruit a number of agencies to help establish parental responsibility.

Opportunities for realigning some functions are discussed in greater detail in Finding 3. But structural realignment cannot compensate for inadequate leadership, and more importantly, leadership is an essential precursor for structural changes.

In Massachusetts, where the tax collector took over the project, a major impetus for the transfer was that the welfare department did not want to operate the program as required by federal law -- virtually ensuring that the program would be poorly managed until it was relocated. As a result, the program was moved to an agency that had only one of the core competencies necessary -- but more importantly an overwhelming desire to make the program work. In Massachusetts, a variety of other agencies are still involved in helping to find missing parents and their assets. While the structure was reformed in Massachusetts, the more important reform in the long run was the leadership change that was made by switching responsibility for the enforcement program to a different agency.

No matter where it is housed, the program must be managed by someone who is a good communicator -- capable of managing the activities within the department and inspiring the cooperation of other departments. The top position must be able to develop a vision for where the program is going, assemble a team of talented managers to implement reforms, and win the support of key political and business leaders.

The Child Support Enforcement Program -- under the right circumstances -- has tremendous potential to help children and to reduce the expenditure of public money. Those goals will become increasingly important in helping California successfully implement welfare reforms. An element essential to reaching that potential is the leadership skills of the top managers.

Structural realignment, however, should always remain an option. Government functions change, public expectations change and at times different structural arrangements are likely to deliver to the public the best service for the least expense. The threshold for structural change, however, is high and the potential benefits have to be large enough to incur the political battles as well as the economic and physical costs.

While the California program may have serious deficiencies, the State does not have a lead agency that wants to give up the program, and does not have a willing new champion -- nor is there even the beginning of a consensus about a structural change or a reserve of political capital that can be drawn on to make this change. The Department of Social Services in its Vision document did commit to evaluating after the implementation of SACSS the costs and benefits of a separate state-level organization to encompass all aspect of the enforcement program including local operations. So while structural reorganization -- whether it includes local responsibilities or just consolidates state functions -- remains a long-term option, it could not be delivered nearly quickly enough to meet the immediate challenges.

The alternative is to convert the structural weaknesses into structural strengths. To do this California must clarify the roles of the key agencies involved and employ the leadership needed to show public agencies and the public that child support enforcement is critical to the State's long-term economic and social success.

Summary

Child support cannot be enforced by one government agency, and the larger problem of individual's avoiding fiscal responsibility will not be reduced without a shift in public opinion. From the practical standpoint, leadership is required to lower the institutional barriers between agencies enlisted to help find parents and their assets. Some of those barriers are between state agencies, some are between state and county agencies, and some are between public agencies and the public. In addition, only leadership can deliver the hard-to-legislate reform: a change in public opinion so that child support is viewed as an obligation from which no one is excused.

Recommendation 1: To reach its potential, the state Child Support Enforcement Program needs a proven manager capable of developing a management team of the best talent available, creating a strategic vision for increasing orders and collections and inspiring statewide backing for the program.

Political capital is what elevates public programs to public imperatives. It inspires public workers and raises public awareness. Leadership cannot be legislated. But there are some mechanisms that could be used by emerging leaders to make child support reform a priority. Measures the State should take include the following:

• The Chief of the Office of Child Support Enforcement should establish a Child Support Leadership Council composed of representatives of involved state departments, county district attorneys and welfare offices and advocacy groups. The council should meet monthly to identify collective problems and potential solutions. At least once a year, the council should be chaired by the Secretary of the Health and Welfare Agency for the purpose of setting program goals, agreeing on state and federal legislative priorities and identifying new policy issues that the council will explore in the coming year.



• The chief of the Office of Child Support should create regional panels of district attorneys, welfare officials and parent representatives who will meet quarterly to identify coordination problems and potential solutions and to review new policies and regulations.



• The chief of Office of Child Support should encourage the faculties of the California State University System and the University of California to help design, test and refine strategies for ensuring support payments for children.



• The chief of the Office of Child Support should develop a plan and seek legislation to create a training program for top county family support workers to inform them of state and federal rules and effective management practices. The State should draw on the expertise of counties, the private bar and other states to make the training practical and high-caliber.