Child Support CommuniQue - May 2020

Table of Contents
President’s Message …………………………………………………………...3
NCSEA Approves Resolution Seeking Legislation
in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic…………………………………………..4
Community Corner: The Challenges of
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion ………………………………..………………..5
Michigan Predictive Analytics Pilot Project
Delays in the Pre-Obligation Timeline…………………………………………..8
Point: The Paternity Performance Standards: Should
They Be Re-structured for Optimal Policy Outcomes?................................15
Counterpoint: The Paternity Performance Standards:
Should They Be Re-structured for Optimal Policy Outcomes?....................22
Faster Payments in the United States: What Are
Implications for the Child Support Program?...............................................26
Trauma and Self Care…………………………………………………………..30
Crisis Care………………………………………………………………………..32
Australian Child Support System Problems:
Results from a Recent Study……………………………………………….…..36
Work/Life Balance: The Never-Ending Pursuit
Part 1 – Communication…………………………………………………………42
What’s on the Horizon for 2020? An Update on the Work
of NCSEA Emerging Issues and Leading Practices Subcommittee………..44
NCSEA’s 2020 Policy Forum: Engagement:
Putting Policy into Practice……………………………………………………..47

President’s Message May 2020
by Tanguler Gray, NCSEA President
The past few months have been a challenging time for
every one of us, to say the least. We are experiencing a
change of circumstances and living a “new normal” due to
the outbreak of COVID-19. Although this pandemic has
significantly disrupted the daily operations of our services
as child support professionals, as an association, we still
hold to our vision of shaping the future of child support.
Now more than ever, NCSEA is needed as an advocate of
the child support community. State and county agencies
nationwide look for training and support. To support our
membership, NCSEA has expanded the resources we offer, adding a very
popular and interactive Engagement Lounge and recordings of plenaries from the
2020 Policy Forum to our upcoming Web-Talks, the extensive library of Web-
Talks, and other materials on our website. While we may find it necessary to
make some changes during this time, one thing that will never change is our
commitment to increasing engagement, influencing policies for the well-being of
children and families, and educating and inspiring those who work in child
support.
As you know, after much consideration, NCSEA has made the difficult decision to
cancel the 2020 Leadership Symposium, scheduled for August 9-12, 2020 in
Anaheim, California. We have taken this action due to public health and safety
concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The health and well-being of our
attendees, and the child support community as a whole, is our primary concern,
and the many unknown factors related to the pandemic were carefully considered
in the decision-making process. We appreciate your patience as we came to this
decision. However, while NCSEA will not have a face to face event this year, we
are excited to introduce some unique and relevant programs in 2020. These
events will be introduced in the second half of 2020. Stay tuned!
Tanguler Gray, is the IV-D Director for the Georgia Department of Human Services Division of
Child Support Services. During Director Gray’s 23 years in child support she has held
leadership roles in accounting, fiscal operations, customer service, organizational
effectiveness, field and state operations and executive management. She spearheaded the
Rapid Process Improvement (RPI) Initiative; leading the Georgia to capture the 2007
Governor’s Award for Customer Service and the 2008 National Child Support Enforcement
Association (NCSEA) Commissioner’s Award for High Performance. Prior to serving as

NCSEA President, Tanguler served as Secretary and President-elect of the orgranizaion, and
has been a member of the Board of Directors since 2014. She is a graduate of Valdosta State
University.
Print President’s Message here
NCSEA Approves Resolution Seeking Legislation
in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic
The National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA)
Board of Directors approved a resolution addressing many concerns impacting
the child support program in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic
disruption affecting millions of families.
The NCSEA resolution calls for program flexibility and increased funding so IV-D
programs can continue serving families. This includes flexibility in program
performance, mandates adversely impacted by office closings, and other COVID-
19-related government orders. The financial stability of child support programs
will also be compromised due to COVID-19 and is a focus of the resolution.
The resolution also requests the expansion of current employment programs for
non-custodial parents so that child support programs can provide critical
resources to get Americans back to work post-COVID-19. These employment
programs help unemployed and underemployed non-custodial parents increase
their capacity to meet their child support obligations.
The third and final provision of the resolution addresses important technology
concerns, to provide state child support programs significant options for providing
services remotely, offering flexibility in services for families resulting in improved
cost-effectiveness, and ... to bring the technology supporting the child support
program into the 21st century.
In mid-April, the NCSEA Board of Directors also approved a resolution to exclude
any future COVID-19-related relief payments from offset for past-due child
support. The resolution expressed concern that parents who owe past-due
support must have enough employment opportunities to be self-sufficient without
a relief payment and encouraged Congress to address this critical issue.
Print full article here

Community Corner
The Challenges of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
by Dr. Trish Skophammer, Office of the Ramsey County Attorney
Mention diversity training at your staff meetings and you’ll get the familiar
eye roll. Diversity training is far too often seen as a mandatory training
requirement that allows us to check a box saying we did what we were
supposed to do. A necessary evil, or if evil is too strong a word, a
necessary bore. Reactions may vary from diversity being “shoved down my
throat” to “I treat everyone with respect, so why do I need this” to “I am not
a racist!”
Organizations increasingly understand the critical need for initiatives
related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). This is especially important
work for those of us in the public sector, where our mission statements
include things like promoting justice, protecting the vulnerable, and
encouraging family self-sufficiency and child well-being. To be successful,
we need the cooperation and trust of the people we serve.
While I have always supported the work of our office’s DEI committee, it
was something I understood more from my head than from my heart.
A bit about me…I am a white woman. I come from a white family and was
raised in a white community. In my early years, the only African Americans
I knew were the daughters of doctors and professional football players. I
was clueless about matters of racial inequity, and I had not seen up close
and personal the challenges that people of the non-dominant culture often
face. In my sheltered world, I believed that being a good person and
treating everyone with respect was all I needed to do.
Then I was challenged, and I had to learn a different perspective. My
challenges came in different ways.

I was challenged by a colleague to be an ally in the fight for racial equity. I
wanted to be an ally. I wanted to be more than an ally; I wanted to be a
leader. I knew this was important work, but I was afraid. I was afraid of
using the wrong language and offending others when I spoke, and so I
chose not to speak up very often. When people came to me about their
experience and looking for help, I was afraid that I would do the wrong
thing and make it worse, so it was easier to do nothing and to discount the
experience.
I was challenged through the process of taking the Intercultural
Development Inventory (IDI). This assessment tool places individuals and
organizations on a continuum of intercultural development. I showed up in
minimization. Minimization means that we recognize the common humanity
of all people and that we see universal values and principles. This is ok,
and even good. But, to further my intercultural development, I needed to
develop a deeper recognition and understanding of differences.
I met with an IDI facilitator who
coached me through my results and
helped me identify goals. I read books
and watched movies and TED Talks. I
found trusted co-workers to help me
explore my assumptions and
reactions. I wrote and reflected.
Gradually, and through some aha
moments, the issues of racial equity
moved from my head to my heart, and I changed from doing DEI work
because it is the right thing to do, to doing it because I care. I’m learning
that being a good person and treating others with respect is not enough.
I’m learning that bold conversations need to happen, that we must commit
resources and time to DEI work, and that we must apply what we learn
along the way to our policies and service delivery.
DEI work doesn’t have to stop because we are physically distanced and
working from home. Our office recently engaged in an office-wide event.
We were all asked to watch True Justice, a film about Bryan Stevenson
and the work of the Equal Justice Initiative. Then we gathered on a Zoom
video conference, and with four colleagues serving as panelists, 275
people reflected on the film and how it applies to our lives and our work. It

was a powerful event and an excellent way to carry on DEI work during a
pandemic—a pandemic that we know has a disparate impact on African
Americans, making it even more important to continue DEI work and raise
our awareness.
There is so much DEI work to be done, and it is indeed real work. We are
all challenged to move this work from our heads to our hearts. We are
challenged to strive for racial equity and access to justice. We are
challenged to be courageous in our words and actions. We are challenged
to look for opportunities to be more than allies, to also be leaders in this
work.
______________________
Dr. Trish Skophammer is currently serving as the Director of the Child Support
Services Division in the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office located in St. Paul,
Minnesota. She has over 22 years of child support experience in all areas of child
support, from intake to arrears. She has been involved in NCSEA for many years,
serving on Leadership Symposium and Policy Forum planning committees and as cochair
for the Leadership Symposium for 2016-2018, as co-chair and member of the
Emerging Issues and Leading Practices subcommittee, and as a Director on the
NCSEA Board from 2015-2019. She is involved in associations and committees at the
local level as well. Trish has presented on numerous topics at national, regional and
local conferences as well as web talks and training workshops. In addition to her
expertise in child support policy and practice, Trish’s expertise includes leadership
topics such as performance management, process improvement, and strategic
planning. Trish has a master’s degree from Bethel University in Organizational
Leadership and a doctorate degree in Public Administration from Hamline University.
Print article here

Michigan Predictive Analytics Pilot Project
Delays in the Pre-Obligation Timeline
by Ian Broughton, Michigan Office of Child Support
Like other child support programs, Michigan's program has a lot of data
that can provide useful insight. On its surface, data tells
you the basics - trends go up and down; benchmarks are
or are not met. However, delving deeper in the data
allows you to better understand your processes and
identify the levers to improve outcomes for families.
Analyzing data and taking action on that data can result
in benefits that positively impacts customers’ lives. The
Michigan Office of Child Support (OCS) within the
Michigan Department of Health and Human Services
recently undertook a data analytics project to do just that, hoping that the
information and recommendations gleaned from this project could lead to
payments reaching the children who need them faster.
OCS is dedicated to helping families achieve well-being and selfsufficiency.
Before a family in the Michigan Child Support Program can
begin working towards those goals, the court must establish an order that
determines the support payment obligation. As many as one out of every
five cases in Michigan was delayed during this pre-obligation time period,
leaving many children waiting to receive the support they need.
The Michigan Child Support Program is strategically focused on improving
four key areas to help families reach their goals of well-being and selfsufficiency:
child support processes, customer experience, education and
outreach, and data tools and technology. During the fall of 2018, OCS
collaborated with Accenture on a 16-week project to analyze cases in the

time period between when a child support case opens and when the child
support order is established. This project had the potential to provide OCS
with insights and tools that would improve all four goal areas. The project
objectives were to reveal case and demographic attributes that lead to
delays in establishing an order and to reveal actions that would move a
case through the establishment process more efficiently. In addition, the
project team wanted to use predictive modeling to identify which cases
were most likely to have a delay and determine if child support
professionals could take any actions to mitigate the risk.
One of the most important steps in the process was assembling the project
team. It was imperative to select people with the needed technical
expertise and to make sure that the subject matter experts from the
program side were represented. The OCS Planning, Evaluation, and
Analysis Section coordinated the program side of the team with experts
from both operations and policy who had a wealth of program expertise.
The Michigan Department of Technology, Management, and Budget
(DTMB) and Accenture provided the technical experts, which included two
data scientists to develop the predictive models.
The first phase of the project was to create the environment for the
technical team to access the data. After the environment was stabilized, the
proper permissions were set up. Some members of the project team were
unfamiliar with Michigan’s child support data, so knowledge transfer was
also a key component during this phase. Once the technical team was
acclimated, the project moved into the data discovery and analysis phases.
During the data discovery phase of the project, the team met to discuss
potential predictors that could indicate a case might be delayed. This
activity enabled the team to compile a list of data elements that were
needed for analysis. The team identified attributes in five main categories
including: case details, demographics, employment, dependents, and
macro, which contained county-level data, such as crime and
unemployment rates. During this phase, the team also performed quality
checks on the data and created a data dictionary, which contained
metadata, or additional information about the data.
As the team did the initial analysis of the data, two key delay points were
identified: when the OCS Support Specialist sends the court action referral
(CAR) to the prosecuting attorney, and when the prosecuting attorney’s
office serves the non-custodial parent (NCP). The median number of days

for the Support Specialist to send the CAR was 42 days from when the
case was opened. The team decided that any case that took longer than 42
days would be considered delayed. For service of process (SOP), the team
used the established threshold of 75 days as the delay point.
It was necessary for all data elements to be compiled into a single source
for the modeling and analysis phase of the project. The Michigan Case
Analytical Record (MiCAR) framework was created as a large table
combining the full dataset. The team evaluated over 300 tables in the
Michigan child support data warehouse and gathered approximately 400
data elements from over 40 different tables to include in the MiCAR. Cases
were added if they had been opened in the past four years. Next the team
focused on those that eventually had an order established. Another
important aspect of the MiCAR was the addition of case snapshots at
various events in the pre-obligation process. For each case a snapshot was
taken with the data as it existed at the following points: case opened, NCP
located, referral sent to the prosecuting attorney, NCP served, and order
established.
The team then built two predictive models to analyze the cases in the
MiCAR; each focused on one of the pre-determined delay points. The first
model predicted the chance of delay between the date the case was
opened and the date the case worker sent the referral to the prosecuting
attorney (CAR Delay Model). The second model predicted the chance of
delay between when the referral was received by the prosecuting attorney
and when the NCP was served to appear in court (SOP Delay Model).
The CAR Delay Model identified several key variables that affect the risk of
a case delay in this portion of the pre-obligation timeline. When the NCP’s
address has been updated multiple times in the system during the past
year, the case is less at risk for delay. The subject experts agree this is

most likely because there is a general awareness of the NCP’s
whereabouts. The risk is also reduced when the NCP’s address was
provided by the custodial party (CP), and the presence of the CP email
address and phone number. These variables may have a favorable effect
on the risk level due to increased accessibility to the guardians and/or they
could be indicators of cooperation and effective communication between
the CP and the case worker(s). Two variables that were high in relative
importance, but that OCS cannot influence, are Medicaid cases and born
out-of-wedlock children. If either of those conditions exist, the case is more
likely to be delayed.
The SOP Delay Model identified different variables as delay predictors. The
variable with the highest relative importance was the location of the case.
Cases from the central region have the highest likelihood for delay. The
project team believes this is due to how the largest county in the central
region handles service of process. The variable that caught the attention of
OCS involves the likelihood of delay when the NCP is African American.
This variable was present regardless of the region in which the case is
located or the income level of the NCP. OCS is determined to understand
why race is a significant indicator of delay for service of process.
The models were trained on the four years of case data in the MiCAR.
When new cases are added to MiCAR, the models assign a risk score. The
risk score is dynamic and as the case moves through the pre-obligation
process and more information is added to the case, the score fluctuates.
The models were very accurate in predicting the delay for the top 30%-40%
of the cases with the highest risk for any given time period. The models
allow OCS to identify which pieces of information could be added to the
case to reduce the risk of being delayed. Communicating these insights
help staff by identifying which data elements are needed to reduce the
chance of a delay in the establishment process.

The project team identified five key analytic insights.
1. Process Efficiency – communicate positive and negative influencers
to child support staff through policy, training, and other
communication strategies.
2. Model Implementation – operationalize and deploy the models so that
staff can mitigate the risk.
3. NCP Address – prioritize address information from sources that
correspond to fewer delays (e.g., CP, NCP, and the Dept. of
Corrections).
4. Dashboards – develop to monitor case movement and deploy
appropriate strategies to effectively reduce delays.
5. MiCAR Asset – use for additional analytic inquiries in the preobligation
space.
Shortly after the project was completed the OCS took two actions based on
the insights. The first was to create an infographic for OCS Support
Specialists, explaining (1) the delay that was identified between case open
and the court action referral being sent, (2) why it’s important to decrease
the length of time, and (3) the specific information that can reduce the
chance of delay. The second was to add a pop-up message to the

customer self-service portal to notify custodial parties when they failed to
add their mobile phone number, letting them know that it can be added at
any time in the profile settings. This “nudge” produced a dramatic increase
in the number of mobile phone numbers submitted during registration,
which is one of the attributes that can reduce the risk of a delay.
This project demonstrated to the Michigan Child Support Program the
potential of predictive analytics. The accuracy with which the models can
predict a delay in the pre-obligation timeline is very powerful information.
Child support staff can reduce the risk of delays by proactively addressing
the influential attributes. This means fewer children will need to wait for the
support they need. In addition to the predictive models, the MiCAR asset
has allowed OCS to increase efficiency in performing new research
inquiries because of the wealth of information and case snapshots in one
location. This project also created momentum to expand the use of
analytics within the program. Since the project concluded OCS has created
a self-service reporting tool, expanded use of data visualizations, and
assembled a team dedicated to providing child support staff with the
information they need to make timely decisions. The Michigan Child
Support Program is continuing their journey towards becoming a datadriven
organization.
____________________________
Ian Broughton is the Planning, Evaluation, and Analysis Section Manager at the
Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support (OCS). He
has worked for the State of Michigan for over 17 years, with more than 11 of those
years in the Michigan Child Support Program. He has also served as policy analyst and

performance management specialist with OCS, and business process owner for
Customer Education with the Michigan Office of Retirement Services. The OCS
Planning, Evaluation, and Analysis Section is responsible for the OCSE-157 and Self-
Assessment Audit; performance management and improvement initiatives; data
analytics and visualization; strategic planning; and advancing the program’s data-driven
capabilities.
Print article here
How Has COVID-19 Impacted Your Organization?
2020 has certainly brought its challenges – forcing many organizations to not only
rethink how they do their everyday business, but also reimagine what that
business will look like in the future. We have heard many stories of child support
agencies across the country who had to made quick decisions to ensure the
health and safety of their employees and their customers, some rapidly moving
staff to a teleworking environment, others rethinking their staffing plans, or unique
ways to serve their customers, still others facing tough economic decisions.
Through it all, there are tales of triumphs, declarations of success, and a renewed
energy surrounding what we do. NCSEA’s CSQ committee wants to hear from
you!
• Has your office encountered unique challenges because of the pandemic?
• Have you come up with innovative solutions to address these challenges?
• How has your office organization changed? Will these changes become
permanent?
We want to hear from you. The July 2020 Child Support CommuniQue will focus
on responses to the pandemic. If you’d like to include your organization’s
experience, email us at customerservice@ncsea.org

The Paternity Performance Standards:
Should They Be Re-structured for Optimal Policy Outcomes?
by Bob Williams, Veritas HHS
Since the advent of federal performance measures, IV-D programs have been
bedeviled by dueling paternity requirements, alternative paternity establishment
percentage (PEP) measures, and a quixotic base year designation. Recently
there has been discussion of possible changes to federal performance
measures, with the paternity standards being a significant focus.
This leads us to address the question: what would be an ideal paternity standard
(or standards) if we had complete flexibility to redesign the existing standards to
achieve optimal policy outcomes? Right now, there is a minimum program
paternity performance requirement of 90 percent. States are penalized by a 1 – 5
percent loss of their TANF block grant if that minimum 90 percent requirement is
not attained. However, paternity is also one of the five federal performance
standards. For incentive purposes, states earn the maximum amount for the
paternity measure if paternity exceeds 80 percent. These are the dueling
paternity requirements referenced above.
To make matters more confusing, there are two versions of the PEP. A state
selects one of these versions both to meet the 90 percent minimum program
requirement and also to determine the amount of incentives earned.
In addition, rather than basing the paternity calculations on the number of
nonmarital children in the current year, they are based on the number in the IV-D
caseload or statewide at the end of the previous year. Each state then computes
its PEP by dividing all those having paternity established at the end of the current
year by the number of nonmarital children at the end of the prior year [45CFR
305.2(a)(1)].

The conflict between minimum requirements and incentives, the dual versions of
PEP, and the prior year base have caused confusion in the program for more
than 20 years. These are the reasons that there is interest in the IV-D community
either in rationalizing the paternity standards or eliminating them altogether.
In view of these issues, I address three specific questions in this article:
1. Should we eliminate the paternity standards under the justification that they
are closely linked to the cases-under-order measure and are therefore
redundant?
2. If not, should we change to one paternity measure, either the statewide or
IV-D PEP – but not both?
3. If we retain a paternity measure, should we change the base year from the
prior fiscal year to the current one?
Should the paternity standards be eliminated
because they are so closely aligned to the order
establishment metric?
From an operational point of view, there is
considerable logic to eliminating the paternity
standards. Generally, performance on the paternity
standards (at least for the IV-D version of PEP), is
From an operational
point of view, there
is considerable logic
to eliminating the
paternity standards.
closely coupled with performance on cases under order. In any paternity case,
paternity must be established for an order to be established, so an increase in
cases established leads to an increase in the proportion of paternities
established. As a result, eliminating the paternity performance standards would
have little impact on State’s performance on the IV-D PEP.
Unfortunately, this option ignores two other significant considerations. First, for
the statewide PEP, there is not such a close linkage between paternity
establishment and order establishment. For a state to achieve high performance
on the statewide PEP, it must focus close attention on its voluntary paternity
acknowledgment program as well as establishing paternities for IV-D cases. A
state can have a high level of cases under order and still fall short of the
performance expectations for paternity if its voluntary paternity acknowledgment
program is not effective.
Second, eliminating the paternity standards in favor of cases under order would
ignore the broader mission of the IV-D program to address paternity as a discrete
issue, not just as one element of child support. Specifically, the title of the Social
Security Act’s Title IV-D is “Paternity and Child Support”, not just “Child Support”.

Consistent with this title, Congress has been concerned throughout the history of
the IV-D program with the program’s role in addressing the high rate of nonmarital
births. Congress has attempted to ensure, to the maximum extent
possible, that the program establish legal links between children and their
unmarried fathers as an end in itself, not just as the first step in the child support
enforcement process.
We all know that establishing paternity has benefits for children and their parents
other than a child support obligation. These benefits include completing a child’s
identity based on legal links with both parents, facilitating the rights of the father
to child access, providing information – sometimes critical – about a father’s
health history, establishing eligibility for governmental payments such as social
security and veterans’ benefits, and other economic and non-economic factors.
The high rate of unmarried births has been a significant factor motivating
congressional action with respect to paternity and child support. The first
paternity performance standard (requiring paternity establishment for 50 percent
of IV-D cases) was enacted in the Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L 100-485). In
the 25 years prior – from 1963 to 1988 – the nonmarital birth rate had
dramatically increased from 6.3 to 25.7 percent. By 1993, the nonmarital birth
rate had increased further to 31 percent. Thus, in that year, Congress further
tightened the paternity performance standard as well as adding the requirement
that states provide a “simple civil process” for paternity acknowledgment, i.e. inhospital
and post-birth voluntary acknowledgment processes (Omnibus
Reconciliation Act of 1993 H.R. 2264 (103 rd )).
By 1996, the year that Congress enacted PRWORA (welfare reform legislation)
the nonmarital birth rate had continued to climb to 32.4 percent. With early
voluntary paternity acknowledgment programs showing promise and new data
available on statewide paternity establishment rates, Congress established a
much more stringent minimum performance standard of 90 percent. It tweaked
requirements for voluntary paternity acknowledgment programs and provided
that a state could select either the IV-D version of PEP, or a statewide standard,
which counted all paternities established in a state against all nonmarital births,
whether the children were enrolled in the IV-D program or not (Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act P.L. 104-193).
Two years later, based substantially on input from the IV-D community, Congress
enacted the Performance Standards and Incentives Act, which included paternity
establishment as one of the five performance measures, with a maximum ceiling

for incentive purposes of 80 percent (Child Support Performance and Incentives
Act of 1998 P.L. 105-200). Thus, if a state’s performance on either the statewide
or IV-D version of PEP (as selected by the state) were 80 percent or greater but
less than 90 percent, it could earn the maximum allowable incentive for that
performance measure, but could be penalized with loss of 1 – 5 percent of TANF
block grant funds for failing to meet the 90 percent minimum program
performance standard.
This anomaly continues to pose a conflict within the program today. It causes
confusion for administrators and state legislators alike. Aligning the minimum
program paternity performance standard (currently 90 percent) with the
maximum paternity incentive level (80 percent) would rationalize this anomaly
and contribute to more effective administration of the program.
Following enactment of PRWORA, the nonmarital birth rate continued to climb
until it peaked at 41.0 percent in 2009. Since that year, the rate has plateaued at
around 40 percent and its most recent level was 39.6 percent in 2018 i . This
remains a very high level and one that, in my personal experience, is surprising
to the general public. With the rate this high, it is even more critical than when
PRWORA was passed that the IV-D program continue its focus on establishing
legal links between children and their unmarried fathers. States can do so by
monitoring and supporting voluntary paternity acknowledgment programs,
including robust public outreach, to maximize paternity establishment for
unmarried parents whether or not they are participating in the IV-D program.

Because paternity remains such a major issue, it is essential that the IV-D
program retain paternity as a separate measure. This ensures that paternity
continues as a program focus and that state IV-D programs do not lose sight of
its broader significance to society. The IV-D program remains the only program
with a mandate to address the high rate of nonmarital births by establishing legal
links between children and their unmarried fathers. If not us, then who will do it?
From my experience testifying about this and other child support issues, and
observing the historical development of child support legislation, any proposed
legislation to eliminate the paternity measure would be dead-on-arrival. Congress
is certainly aware of, and remains deeply concerned about, the high rate of
nonmarital births. It would not want to take any action that would reduce the
priority placed on addressing this issue.
Should the IV-D program change to one version of PEP? Currently there are
two versions of the paternity establishment percentage. The IV-D version is the
most intuitive to those operating the program. It is based on the proportion of
nonmarital child in the IV-D program that have paternity established (using the
prior year as the base). The statewide version, on the other hand, is based on
the proportion of all nonmarital children in the state who have paternity
established (using the prior year as the base). In federal fiscal year 2018, exactly
half the states used the IV-D version and half used the statewide version. States
using the IV-D PEP have average rates of 102 percent, nine points higher than
the average 93 percent rate of states using the statewide PEP. It is unclear,
however, whether this difference results from an upward bias of the IV-D PEP
rate, or whether the states using the IV-D PEP happen to be better performers.
Having two PEP versions enables states to switch if they think they can improve
their PEP by moving to a different version (usually from statewide to IV-D).
Changing versions is an arduous process, however, entailing case-by-case
review of paternity status and a three-year look-back at data reliability.
The problem with having two measures, of course, is that it precludes any
apples-to-apples comparison of state performance. In comparing two states, if
they are on different versions of PEP, it is not possible to determine whether any
differences result from variances in performance or variances due to the different
PEP measures. This undercuts one of the primary reasons to have a uniform set
of national performance measures: so that there can be accurate comparisons of
performance between states and an accurate assessment of program-wide
performance on these measures. As a result, it would be better to move to a

single version of PEP, although this would have to be done over a reasonable
period of time to accommodate the substantial effort that would be required.
Although there would be a lively debate over which version should be adopted,
my preference would be to standardize on the statewide PEP. While being a bit
more difficult to administer, the statewide version more accurately measures the
broader role of the IV-D program in addressing the high rate of nonmarital births.
In addition, it is less closely coupled with the cases under order metric, so it gives
more useful information than the IV-D PEP.
By adopting the statewide version, states would need to ensure they are
adequately monitoring and supporting voluntary paternity programs. They would
also need to ensure that they are continually engaging in effective outreach to
unmarried parents and health care providers so that they maximize their
voluntary paternity rates. This broader focus will link more children to their
unmarried fathers with all the benefits those links entail, and it will also benefit IV-
D programs indirectly by reducing the number of their cases that require legal
action to establish paternity.
Should the PEP base be changed to the
current year instead of the prior year? One of
the most confusing aspects of the PEP is the
use of the prior year as the base of the
calculation. For both versions, the number of
nonmarital children with paternity established at
the end of the current federal fiscal year is
compared with the total number of nonmarital
children during the prior federal fiscal year. Apparently, the prior year was chosen
as the base of the calculation so that states would know with certainty what their
denominator would be in planning their efforts for the current year.
In practice, the use of the prior year as the base has resulted in non-intuitive
outcomes which have complicated program administration. It makes no sense
that a state could establish paternity for more than 100 percent of its caseload,
yet the average performance level for states reporting the IV-D PEP is 102
percent, and in FFY 2018, 15 of the states using this version reported results
exceeding 100 percent.
Switching to a current year calculation base will give more intuitive results that
would never exceed 100 percent and would give a truer picture of a state’s
paternity level. This would help administrators plan better and help legislators

gauge actual performance more accurately. It would also be more meaningful to
staff.
Unfortunately, changing the base year will lower the PEP for many states. At
minimum, states that have been reporting results exceeding 100 percent will see
their results fall lower. It will be important for the federal Office of Child Support
Enforcement or the Health and Human Services (HHS) Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation to model the impact of a base year change so that its
effects could be clearly understood before any definitive action is taken.
Changing the base year without lowering the minimum program requirement may
take some states perilously close to, or even below, the 90 level and even bring
about TANF block grant sanctions. This underscores the need to resolve the
current conflict between the 90 percent minimum performance standard and the
80 percent ceiling on incentives. Ninety percent is too high of a bar to trigger
imposition of penalties. It would make more sense to lower the minimum
performance standard for penalty purposes to 80 percent. It should be no higher,
and could be lower, than the maximum level for incentives. Reducing the
minimum performance standard to 80 percent should reduce or eliminate any
adverse impacts of changing the base year.
*****
As implied in the title of its authorizing legislation, the IV-D program is intended to
address paternity specifically, as well as child support generally. Retaining a
discrete performance standard for paternity establishment reflects this focus.
However, this performance standard can be improved by settling on a single
version that will show consistent results across all states. In addition, by using
the current year as the calculation base, the results from a single PEP measure
will be more intuitive, easier for program administrators and legislators to
understand, and will facilitate effective program planning. Lowering the minimum
performance standard to 80 percent will be a more realistic threshold for penalty
purposes and should offset any adverse impact of changing the base year.
Finally, use of the statewide version as the single PEP measure will keep state
IV-D programs focused on a broader paternity mission, one that is intended to
cast a wider net of paternity establishment than a measure based on program
participants alone.
_________________________
Bob Williams has worked in child support at the national level for 36 years. He is President
and Founder of Veritas HHS, which provides child support consulting services and also
operates IV-D agencies in four states. Bob was formerly founder and CEO of Policy Studies

Inc. where he developed the income shares model for child support guidelines and managed
child support research, consulting, and operations projects. He is a member of NCSEA’s
Emerging Issues and Leading Practices Subcommittee. Bob earned his B.A. from University of
Illinois at Chicago, and his M.P.A. and Ph.D. degrees from Princeton University.
i
Historical data on nonmarital birth rates through 2013 are drawn from Carmen Solomon-Fears,
Nonmarital Births: An Overview, Congressional Research Service, July 30, 2014. More recent data on
nonmarital birth rates are drawn from Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Vital
Statistics Reports, Births: Final Data for 2018, Volume 68, Number 13, November 27, 2019.
Print article here
The Paternity Performance Standards:
Should They Be Re-structured for Optimal Policy Outcomes?
by Jim Fleming, North Dakota Child Support Division
I am about to disagree with Bob Williams (see companion Bob Williams article)
on a child support issue! Next, maybe I’ll argue with my pastor about the authors
of the four Gospels, insist with my optometrist that the fly-speck at the bottom of
the chart is a B instead of an E, and debate with my doctor over the nutritional
value of hops and barley. Bob is an amazing resource to the child support field,
and I have enjoyed having several conversations with him over the years about
the paternity performance measure. When the Editorial Board of the CSQ
decided to run a series on performance measures, it was a great chance to put
our “pros and cons” in writing.
The groups that have met over the years since the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) to review the performance
measurement system have consistently noted that performance measures are
best when they assess outcomes rather than the means of achieving those

outcomes. Bob makes an articulate and compelling argument for the importance
of paternity establishment as an outcome of the child support program. I agree
100% – but I also think the Paternity Establishment Percentage (PEP) measure
is both the most outdated and the most expendable of the five measures.
To maintain public support for the IV-D program, we will always find value in
compiling data on the number of legal parent-child relationships established as a
result of the program, and we should continue to tabulate results in this area. But
as part of the performance measurement and incentive distribution system, the
measure has considerable overlap with the support establishment measure. So,
if the smart people in child support came up with another measure and we were
limited by Congress to having only five measures, I’d offer up PEP in a hurry as
the first to go. i I might quibble with Bob a little: removing PEP from the
measurements doesn’t necessarily mean we are ignoring parentage as an
important outcome in a child support case, just that the measurement of
parentage establishment is adequately covered by the support order
establishment measure.
Assuming we keep the PEP measure for now, it is in dire need of an overhaul.
Let’s start with the gender-specific word “paternity” and look at the changes in
family composition since the measure was created. Parentage, whether in or out
of wedlock, takes a lot more forms these days than just one male and one female
parent for each child. It is not always clear whether paternity is an issue in a
case, and it can be challenging for a state to know how to report some cases to
OCSE.
I suggest it is time to replace the word “paternity” with “parentage,” and embrace
the use of voluntary acknowledgments to establish legal parentage regardless of
gender or genetic connection between the acknowledged parent and the child.
Does this pose a risk of equating to an informal adoption of a child without the
usual independent best interest analysis? Yes, but no more so than today when
a person signs an acknowledgment of paternity or parentage and assumes legal
responsibility for the child knowing full well that the person is not the child’s
genetic parent.
I agree with Bob it is time to adopt one common PEP measure and start using
same-year numbers. As one who has tried to explain to legislators many times
how you can have a IV-D PEP of more than 100%, it is nearly impossible to
prevent legislators from discounting the other four measures. Someone once told
me that Congress decided to look at the number of out-of-wedlock children from
the previous year because it gave states two years to establish paternity.

Whether true or not, I struggle today to come up with a reason not to use sameyear
PEP as long as each state follows the same approach and the penalty and
incentive thresholds are adjusted accordingly.
Bob is right – as long as states use two PEP alternatives, we are not truly
comparing apples to apples. I prefer the IV-D PEP over statewide PEP. The
statewide PEP measure is admittedly broader because IV-D cases with paternity
established are already included in the support order establishment measure.
But, as a state using the IV-D PEP and working safely above the 90% penalty
threshold, our program is still driven to foster a strong in-hospital
acknowledgment process. The 90% a state needs to avoid a penalty is still a high
number, so even if only 50% to 75% of out-of-wedlock births lead to a IV-D case,
it is still time well spent to stay far away from the 90% level.
By contrast, statewide PEP would be a scary change because it is not a number
that can be controlled by the IV-D program. Going from a two-year to a one-year
measurement period for PEP might help reduce the impact of a rising out-ofwedlock
birthrate, which is one of the challenges in using statewide PEP, but the
IV-D program cannot require parents to apply for services. My state actively
markets IV-D services to parents in non-IV-D cases, yet still entices
disappointingly few parents to apply for services. It would seem questionable for
one of the five measurements of the IV-D program to be so significantly
influenced by facts outside the control of the IV-D agency. In the last few years, a
high-performing state endured the process of converting from statewide PEP to
IV-D PEP, and its post-conversion PEP performance is much more consistent
with the high level of performance of that state on the other four measures.
One could wonder if any state using a same-year statewide PEP could reach the
90% threshold. Same-year IV-D PEP, as Bob predicts, would bring even the
higher-performing states uncomfortably close to the 90% PEP penalty. Currently,
the dueling 80% incentive and 90% penalty thresholds equate to a redundant
carrot and stick approach that is unique to the PEP measure. Perhaps explaining
a change to same-year PEP as a way for states to accelerate their paternity
establishment efforts could give comfort to Congress in repealing the PEP
penalty and relying on the same incentive approach that is used for the other
measures.
In conclusion, to answer Bob’s three questions:
1. No, we should not eliminate the paternity standards for now, but we should
update it to be a “parentage” standard in recognition that legal parentage
can take many forms.

2. Yes, we should change to one parentage measure, and it should be the IV-
D PEP as a more accurate measure of the IV-D program’s efforts in the
cases in which it provides services.
3. Yes, we should change the base year from the prior fiscal year to the
current one because it provides a result that is easier to understand.
___________________________
James C. Fleming is the director of the Child Support Division of the North Dakota
Department of Human Services, President of the National Council of Child Support Directors
(NCCSD), and Treasurer of the National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA). Jim
is a member and former co-chair of NCSEA’s Policy and Government Relations Committee
and NCCSD’s Policy and Practice Committee, and a member of the editorial committee for the
NCSEA Child Support CommuniQue (CSQ). A second-generation attorney, Jim earned his
Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of North Dakota and his Juris Doctorate from Notre
Dame Law School.
i
Many might offer the arrears establishment first since it is not scaled to the amount of arrears
collected. Knowing that arrears are not touched until current is collected, the arrears measure
is insightful as a measure of the percentage of cases where our case management is
successful in collecting current support in full and making progress toward eliminating the full
arrears. Alas, that is topic for another CSQ article.
Print article here
__________________________________________________________________________
REGISTER N O W

Faster Payments in the United States: What Are Implications
for the Child Support Program?
by Patricia O’Donnell, Vice President of Payment Processing,
YoungWilliams
For several decades, the United States payment infrastructure (how we
make and receive payments) has worked well and seamlessly. We
(individuals, businesses, organizations) take it for granted while industry
and government have made behind the scenes improvements to
incorporate technological advancements, as well as improvements in
security and privacy of transactions. Traditionally, the American “standard”
for settlement of electronic payments has been a 2-day time period from
payment initiation (payor “sending” the money) to settlement (payee’s
financial institution verifying payment from payor). Some areas, i.e., bank
account to bank account transfer through the Automated Clearing House,
have been reduced to a 1-day time period.
In other parts of the world, countries implemented additional innovations to
improve the time of payment initiation to settlement to minutes/hours vs.
days, working toward an objective of “real-time” payment credit to the
payee. In order to remain competitive in the global economy, the United
States Federal Reserve Banks embarked on a research effort, which led to
several tangible steps taken. These steps have resulted in a collaboration
between public and private sector entities to continue to improve the
timeliness, safety, and security of payment transactions in the United
States payment system. For more information about the Federal Reserve’s
research, refer to the following:
• The Federal Reserve Banks. (2013) Payment System Improvement -
Public Consultation Paper
• The Federal Reserve Banks. (2015) Strategies for Improving the U.S.
Payments System

• The Federal Reserve Banks. (2018) U.S. Faster Payments Council
Announced
So …. while this is interesting …. what does this have to do with child
support?
Many states have been working on the modernization of their child support
case management system. Other states are in the discussion and planning
stages on modernization efforts, yet all systems continue to work on the
base premise of daily “batch” file transmissions between the payment
processor and the State case management system.
As “faster” or “real-time” payments become more prevalent in the United
States, states may wish to consider how “faster” or “real-time” payments
could be accommodated within the child support program.
What is "Faster?" The term "faster payments" is broadly used in the
payment industry to indicate simply that increased speed, convenience,
and accessibility are essential features for the future of the payment
and settlement system. In addition to the expedited movement and
availability of funds, the more efficient and transparent provision of
information about the transaction is a key component of faster
payments.
What does “Faster” mean?
An Immediate payment is one that can be sent 24/7/365 (subject to the
service offering of the financial institution). The sending bank must
receive a response within 15 seconds from the receiving bank
confirming the payment has been accepted or rejected.
“Faster” payments may also be Instant meaning an electronic retail
payment solution is available 24/7/365, resulting in the immediate or
close-to-immediate interbank clearing of the transaction and crediting of
the payee’s account with confirmation to the payor (within seconds of
payment initiation).
A Same Day payment is defined as the effective settlement date of a
payment is the same as the date on which the transaction was initiated
by the payor.
2020 is the target date that the Federal Reserve’s Faster Payments Task
Force has set for faster payments to be available to every U.S. consumer
and business. That task force – composed of more than 300 delegates

epresenting financial institutions, corporate treasurers, consumer
advocates, financial technology firms, industry associations, academics,
and many other groups – convened in 2015 to establish the criteria for a
successful faster payments system in the U.S. How different organizations
prepare for and adapt to the changes “faster payments” will introduce will
be a matter for us to consider in the child support community across the
United States. An assessment of the impact to each state’s current policies
and processes should also be conducted.
How can states plan/prepare for “Faster Payments?”
States should:
• Consider the changes within systems and processes that would need
to be undertaken to receive and credit payments 7/24/365.
• Determine if the benefits of receiving and settling incoming child
support payments faster are “worth it” in light of the significant reengineering
that would be required to modify existing policies,
systems and processes.
• Consider development of an Application Programming Interface (API)
for the state’s case management system that could be made
available for financial institution and payment processing providers to
utilize versus traditional batch file transmissions. An Application
Programming Interface is analogous to a “bridge” that is built between
disparate information technology systems so information can be
exchanged without requiring changes to the sender’s or receiver’s
systems. Once implemented future modifications can be made to the
“bridge” software only which is accomplished more quickly and at a
lower cost than direct system to system custom programming.
• Assess the benefits to the state child support program as well as the
payor and payee to incorporate faster payment options:
o Payor – can receive “immediate” credit for payments made
7/24/365,
o Payee – expedited receipt of child support funds, and/or
o State – reduce financial impact/risk associated with “nonsufficient”
funds transactions.
As assessments are made regarding what, if any, of the payment
innovations and options can/should be included in a state’s child support
program, it is important to consider how quickly the payment technologies
and policies are evolving in the United States. Accepting “faster” payments

in 2020 may not be a priority for the agency, but its importance will likely
continue to increase over the next 2-3 years as “faster” payments become
broadly accepted and the capability expected by our child support partners
(employers) and customers. Initiating discussions now with your
information technology team, financial institutions, and payment processing
service providers will enable thoughtful dialogue to occur and a subsequent
plan developed to enable the acceptance of “faster payments” in a manner
which best suits your payors and payees, as well as the other critical
stakeholders in the child support community.
__________________________________
Pat O’Donnell leads the YoungWilliams’ state disbursement unit and payment
processing businesses. Pat’s career spans multiple disciplines and includes experience
in child support, banking, technology, and business operations. Previous positions
include Senior Vice President at a large regional bank, where she led an initiative to
create industry-specific payment solutions with a focus on the public sector. She also
served as Managing Director at one of the nation’s largest financial institutions focused
on government payment programs including child support, SNAP, WIC, TANF and
unemployment insurance. She is a member of the Board of Directors and current Chair
of the Electronic Funds Transfer Association (EFTA – www.efta.org). Additionally, she
serves on the NCSEA Communications and Awards Committees.
Sources:
https://fasterpaymentsplaybook.org
https://fasterpaymentstaskforce.org/payment-landscape/payments-in-the-u-s/
https://www.theclearinghouse.org/banking-perspectives/2017/2017-q4-bankingperspectives/departments/faster-payments-the-road-to-2020
Print article here
HOW DO YOU LIKE OUR NEW CSQ FORMAT?
LET US KNOW HERE

Trauma and Self Care
by Shenandoah Chefalo, The Center for Trauma Resilient Communities
Panic is a real feeling. Anxiety about the unknown is real. For many of us,
the current pandemic has switched our brains into survival mode, also
called trauma brain. Survival mode is necessary and can be a lifesaving
response. However, it can also send us into overdrive and become an
automatic response instead of a lifesaving one.
The signs of trauma brain aren’t always the same and they can be deadly.
The broad range of symptoms includes migraines, rashes, hormonal
imbalance, tiredness, digestive problems, tension,
trouble focusing, and insomnia to even more severe
illness.
The first step in understanding the trauma brain
mode is recognizing our actual feelings. I talk often
about my survival and the lifetime I have spent trying to
rewire myself from those learned conditions. On
March 12, 2020, I was triggered just reading about
how the stock market was at levels similar to Black
Monday in 1987. In short, 1987 was a horrible year
for me—lack was everywhere and frankly I was
starving to death (quite literally). It was the year before I was ultimately
placed into
foster care, and I was doing absolutely everything I could to survive.
Feelings surrounding scarcity and lack are real, and those feelings can be
all too familiar.
The pandemic has triggered similar feelings in me, and I knew I had some
hard and difficult work ahead of me. Others may feel that way, too. Doing
the work doesn’t necessary alleviate some of the triggers Coronavirus is
having in my life.

Once I recognized my feelings, I knew I had to implement my self-care
plan. A self-care plan will help people who live with a trauma brain. I
recommend this for all the teams, individuals, and organizations with whom
I work. Part of the plan is daily self-care. These are the things that bring us
absolute joy and fill us up. We also need to address issues within our own
individual personal development that can prevent our growth. We often find
those things we work on when we look at our trigger care. You know those
things that “push our buttons” or send us into negative swirls. We often
blame the button-pushing on how others behave, but in truth, it is often
hitting at a piece of our own personal development that we need to work
on.
These areas are crucial, but right now, we need a crisis care plan. How will
you care for yourself when chaos ensues, when you encounter the
unknown? Some people in trainings don't want to think about it or have a
tendency to think they don't have to worry about it. But if nothing else, this
virus is proving that chaos can happen when we least expect it, from places
we couldn't even imagine, and we need to have a plan.
It is critical when we talk about wanting to implement trauma-informed care
within our organization to understand that the work really does start on an
individual basis. That we each need to take extraordinary care of ourselves
so that we can be overflowing enough to give to our teams. When we are
overflowing enough individually, that overflow can pour over to our teams,
allowing us to support those teams to be overflowing enough to give to
those that we serve. Here are some easy tips to help us care for ourselves:
EASY TIPS:
1. Appoint someone from your team to lead wellness.
2. Ensure every meeting, whether virtual or in person, starts with
connection first.
3. Especially during tele-meetings, make sure collaboration is still
happening. Is everyone’s voice being heard?
4. Slow Down and Let Go. Everyone is experiencing a new type of
normal, and our pace of work needs to make space for our grief. Slow
your pace!
5. Employees follow leaders. If you want staff to take care of
themselves, you need to take care of yourself. Monkey see, monkey
do!

Our goal at the Center for Trauma Resilient Communities is to keep as
many adults well-regulated and operating within their executive functioning
brains because many others in our community are going to need us, and
we must care for ourselves before we can properly care for others.
_____________________
Shenandoah Chefalo is a former foster youth, consultant and advocate. She is the
author of the memoir, Garbage Bag Suitcase; co-founder of #4600andCounting, a
grass-root movement to find missing foster youth; and a faculty member at The Center
for Trauma Resilient Communities, where she helps translate trauma information into
skills to help build resilience and heal communities, organizations and individuals. You
can learn more about her and her work at upcoming free webinars at
http://www.crossnore.org/center-for-trauma-resilient-communities/ or
www.garbagebagsuitcase.com
Print article here
Crisis Care
by Diane Potts, SLI Government Solutions-Center for the
Support of Families
The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly changed our professional and
personal lives in March 2020. Child support programs across the country
shifted operations in response to shelter in place orders and physical
distancing protocols. Leaders at the federal, state, and local levels faced
difficult decisions that had to be made quickly, balancing the safety of their
staff with the needs of parents and children in the program.
The enormity of a crisis like COVID-19 takes a traumatic toll mentally and
physically. With 24/7 access to news combined with inconsistent and at
times conflicting information, the crisis has been all around and consuming
our thoughts, conversations, and reactions. Left unchecked, stress caused

y trauma will overwhelm the ability to cope and manage emotions and
daily life.
Poet Audrey Lorde once wrote that self-care is not about self-indulgency;
instead, it’s about self-preservation. Self-care has been defined as giving
deliberate and adequate attention to one’s physical and psychological
wellness. Simple enough—yet in the depths of a crisis, physical and
psychological health often end up being compromised.
The first step of self-care is simply to realize that a traumatic event is
happening and recognize trauma’s physical and mental effects. Common
physical effects include distraction and the inability to concentrate. Some
people may experience fatigue and depression, while others experience
sleepless and anxiety. Feelings of helplessness, fear, and despair are also
common especially when the traumatic event is of uncertain magnitude and
duration, as is the case with the COVID-19 pandemic.
The second step of self-care is to take action to
combat the trauma and stress. Again, that sounds
simple, but the overwhelming nature of trauma tends
to consume and paralyze, making it difficult to take
necessary self-care actions such as building and
maintaining strong personal relationships, exercising
daily, and focusing inward, which are covered below.
Staying social and
connected is critically
important because
strong personal
relationships keep us
happier and healthier.
An important step in reducing the negative effects of
trauma is to spend more time with friends and family. While unfortunately
phrased “social” distancing, COVID-19 protocols are for physical
distancing. Technology today provides for unprecedented abilities to check
in with family and friends. In virtual spaces, grandparents can read bedtime
stories to their grandchildren, friends can get together from all across the
country for book clubs and happy hours, and families can exchange
memories and stories of past vacations, weddings, graduations, and
holiday celebrations with pictures, videos, and stories.
Staying social and connected is critically important because strong
personal relationships keep us happier and healthier. The Harvard Study of
Adult Development is one of the world’s longest longitudinal studies of
happiness and health in adult life. The study began by tracking the health
of 268 Harvard sophomores in 1938 during the Great Depression.
Scientists eventually expanded their research to include the men’s
offspring, who now number 1,300. In the 1970s, the control group

expanded to include 456 inner-city residents from Boston’s poorest
neighborhoods. More than a decade ago, Harvard researchers began
including wives in the studies.
Each participant in the study has an annual interview and medical check-up
including a brain scan. This has allowed researchers to study health
trajectories over time in the context of the participants’ broader lives
including triumphs and failures in careers and relationships.
The goal of the study was to find out what factors made the most difference
to health and happiness. The answer: close relationships, more than
income or fame, are what keep people happy. Those ties protect people
from life’s discontents, help to delay mental and physical decline, and are
better predictors of long and happy lives than social class, IQ, or even
genes. The happiest and mentally healthiest adults were those who leaned
into relationships with family, friends, and the community. In times of stress
and crisis, building and maintaining personal
relationships are even more critical to mental
health.
Regular exercise is another way to mitigate the
negative effects of chronic stress on the mind
and body. Exercise also improves mental
health. Many experts believe that routine
exercise is as powerful in treating anxiety and
mood disorders as antidepressants.
But how does exercise help? The mental benefits of exercise have a
neurochemical basis by reducing the levels of the body’s stress hormones,
such as adrenaline and cortisol. Exercise also stimulates the production of
endorphins, which are chemicals in the brain that are the body’s natural
painkillers and mood elevators.
The mental benefits of exercise also have a behavioral component such as
an increased self-image. It also results in more energy. Finally, exercise
provides the essential opportunity to get away from the news and thoughts
of the COVID-19 pandemic. Whether it’s a robust walk, online exercise
class, or bike ride—just commit to do something every day.
Finally, to resist the effects of stress caused by crisis, it is vitally important
to focus inward. This includes finding ways to relax and be kind to yourself.
Take time a few times every day to breathe deeply and focus on what

makes you happy. Read books and dig out enjoyable hobbies. Plant
flowers this spring and watch them grow.
Self-care is about permission to pause. In the wise words of Lao Tzu,
If you are depressed, you are living in the past.
If you are anxious, you are living in the future.
If you are at peace, you are living in the present.
As child support professionals, making self-care a priority now is crucial.
The families in our program are facing high levels of sudden unemployment
and loss of income and children at home in virtual classrooms. They also
are experiencing the stress from the COVID-19 pandemic and not knowing
if or when life will return to normal.
By making self-care a priority for the child support community today, we will
be better equipped mentally to provide help tomorrow to the families that
we serve. The work and challenges of child support programs across the
country in response to COVID-19 will be featured in next quarter’s CSQ
but, for right now, remember that you can’t pour from an empty cup—take
care of yourself first.
_________________
Diane Potts is the Director of Child Support at the Center for the Support of Families
(CSF), a Division of SLI Government Solutions. Diane joined CSF in 2015, after serving
for 6 years as Illinois Deputy Attorney General for Child Support. During her 20-year
career with the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, Diane argued over 100 cases on
behalf of the State in the Illinois Supreme Court, Appellate Court, and the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2015, she won the Illinois Child Support Lifetime
Achievement Award. Diane is a Past-President of NCSEA and its past Secretary, and
served on NCSEA’s Board of Directors from 2013-2019, as co-chair of the Forum in
2015, 2016, and 2019, and currently is the co-chair for the Policy and Government
Relations Committee. Last year, she was appointed to serve on the Board of Directors
of the Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association (ERICSA). In 2016, Diane
was appointed as an official observer to the Uniform Law Commission’s amendment of
the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) and currently sits on the UPA’s Enactment
Committee. Diane received her law degree from Washington University Law School and
her undergraduate degree from University of Illinois.
Print article here

Australian Child Support System Problems:
Results from a Recent Study
by Zoë Goodall, Swinburne University of Technology,
and Kay Cook, Swinburne University of Technology
The Australian child support system may seem, on the surface, to be a fair
and equitable one. All child support money is passed through to the
recipient parent. Parents are also given the option of having the
government transfer payments for them or transferring the money between
themselves, privately. Payment amounts are calculated using a formula
that takes both parents’ incomes and proportion of overnight care-time into
account. i The assessment is then adjusted if either parent has additional
children with new partners. The rhetoric around the system is genderneutral,
with a focus on individual choice. Unfortunately, however, this
rhetoric hides deep-seated problems across the system.
Unpaid child support in Australia currently stands at $1.64 billion AUD
(approximately $1.066 billion as of May 12 2020), a figure which does not
take into account the 54 percent of cases that transfer payments privately
and are assumed by the government to be 100 percent compliant. ii This
staggering—and staggeringly underestimated—debt level, of course,
means that children in separated families are missing out on this vital
source of household income.
One of the starkest features of the Australian system is that child support
payments interact with benefits support in ways that financially
disadvantage low-income mothers and their children. The situation is
completely incongruent with the system’s original purpose of keeping
children from single-parent families out of poverty. iii

Researchers from Swinburne University of Technology, in Melbourne,
Australia, in conjunction with the National Council for Single Mothers and
their Children, surveyed 469 mothers about their experiences in the
Australian child support system. The results informed the report title: Debts
and Disappointment. Researchers asked mothers about their experiences
with the assessment process, collection methods, unpaid child support
(debt) and its impacts, domestic violence, and the ways child support
interacts with the welfare benefit system. iv
Below are some of the most striking results.
The Assessment Process
Survey participants reported that the formula assessment process was
fraught due to an unequal onus of proof and deception on the part of their
ex-partners. Key to this was that parents’ income in the formula is based on
their tax returns.
When parents don’t lodge tax returns, the Department of Human Services –
Child Support (DHS-CS) uses an income estimate. v Of participants who
had a DHS-CS formula assessment, 47 percent reported that their expartner
did not file regular tax returns. Seventy-five percent of participants
whose assessment depended on an income estimate believed the estimate
was not accurate and had a negative impact on the amount of child support
due. Many participants also stated their ex-partners used incomeminimising
strategies, such as doing cash-in-hand work or placing assets
under a third party’s name. They also reported that they were constantly
required to “prove” their situation to the DHS-CS, while their ex-partner was
not subject to the same scrutiny.
Collection Types, Underpayment, and Enforcement
Despite the majority of child support caseloads being privately transferred
(called Private Collect), only 15 percent of participants reported receiving
child support through this method. A further 55 percent of participants
received payments via DHS-CS (called DHS-CS Collect).
As mentioned earlier, the government counts Private Collect payments as
100 percent compliant, which is particularly insidious as these payments
are not subject to government oversight, and the government specifically
encourages parents to use this method. vi

Forty-one percent of participants using Private Collect reported payment
problems, including partial, sporadic, rare, or non-existent payments. Fortythree
percent of participants who used DHS-CS Collect were also owed
unpaid child support from the previous month. While the government does
not oversee Private Collect transfers, DHS-CS Collect recipients have
payments reported by the department. However, of participants who used
DHS-CS Collect, and whose payments were incomplete, inconsistent, or
non-occurring, 23 percent chose not to flag underpayments to DHS-CS
because they believed there was no point. Fifteen percent also said that
they don’t report underpayment to avoid conflict with their ex-partner.
Interactions with Welfare Benefits
Child support in Australia interacts with the government cash payment,
Family Tax Benefit Part A (FTB-A). To be eligible for FTB-A payments, a
family’s adjustable income needs to be less than $104,184 AUD if they
have one child (and slightly higher income limits with each additional child
and depending on the children’s ages). vii Ninety percent of survey
participants reported receiving these benefit payments. If recipients of FTB-
A choose not to seek child support, they can only receive the base rate of
the benefit. Child support then reduces FTB-A by 50 cents for every dollar
above the Maintenance Income Free Area of $1,653.45 AUD per year. viii
Of DHS-CS Collect FTB-A recipients in the survey, 59 percent received
less child support than expected. There are two methods DHS uses to
calculate FTB-A payments in DHS-CS Collect cases. Both of them
reconcile FTB-A and child support payments annually. But the
department’s default method of calculation is the Modified Entitlement
Method, which relies on the “expected” amount of child support, thereby
reducing low-income mothers’ FTB-A throughout the year until annual FTB
reconciliation occurs. A second method, the Disbursement Method, uses
the actual amount of “received” child support in fortnightly FTB-A
calculations, but it is only used in cases where FTB-A recipients specifically
request it.
Because Private Collect payments are assumed to be fully compliant, DHS-
CS calculates the payment of FTB-A on the “expected” rather than the
“received” amount of child support. This means that recipients’ household
budgets are reduced not only by the child support that they didn’t receive,
but also by a portion of their FTB-A payment above the Maintenance
Income Free Area.

The most harmful aspect of the interaction between child support and FTB
for the majority of the Private Collect caseload, however, is the one that is
most out of recipient parents’ control. If paying parents don’t file tax returns
until years later, the adjusted taxable income will trigger a retrospective
recalculation of child support, and thus FTB-A. In many cases, this will
mean that more child support should have been paid in previous years,
which the department regards as having been fully compliant at the time it
was due. The department then retrospectively imputes that the recipient
parents should have received less FTB-A for the relevant years. A
government debt is raised against Private Collect recipients, which they
must start paying back immediately. ix
Domestic Violence
Mothers who have experienced domestic violence can be exempt from
seeking child support. x This is, of course, contingent on them knowing
about the exemption process and having the capacity to prove the violence
to DHS-CS. Twenty-four percent of survey respondents said they had
conflict with their ex-partner, and a further 19 percent reported experiencing
domestic violence or financial abuse/pressure. Of these women, 41 percent
were not aware that violence was grounds for an exemption, begging the
question of why DHS-CS staff are not informing women of the exemption
process.
However, the fact that exemptions are the only solution offered to domestic
violence victims is a problem in itself. Women with exemptions receive their
full FTB-A entitlement, but they miss out on any child support income.
Consequently, abusive fathers are financially rewarded by being excused
from paying support for their children.
Of women who did not have an exemption but had experienced domestic
violence, 59 percent said their ex-partner deliberately made partial,
sporadic, or non-payments to cause them financial uncertainty and
distress. Over 50 percent also said that their ex-partner used child support
as a bargaining chip. But when asked if they had informed DHS-CS of this
behaviour, 25 percent said they had but had received an unhelpful
response.
Financial and Emotional Impacts
The survey asked women about the financial and emotional impacts of not
receiving child support. In relation to financial impacts, 75 percent of

espondents said it caused their children to miss out on regular or planned
social activities. Sixty-four percent said they had to reduce their food
purchases, and 64 percent said it meant struggling to pay for school costs.
Forty-one percent of women said the debt had led to children missing
medical appointments or other healthcare needs, which is particularly
striking in the context of Australia’s universal healthcare.
In terms of emotional impacts, 76 percent of respondents said they could
not provide their children with what they should, and 73 percent said they
got depressed watching their children miss out. The most common
response, reported by 80 percent of respondents, was that the child
support debt produced and/or increased worry, followed by 79 percent
saying it increased financial uncertainty.
Implications
The survey results demonstrate that the child support system in Australia is
often not working for the people who need it the most—low-income single
mothers and their children. Hostile ex-partners and an overly-complicated,
largely unhelpful bureaucratic system combine to produce financial
uncertainty and emotional distress for single mothers. For children, this
results in missing out on crucial items and experiences.
While a government inquiry into child support is upcoming, xi any effective
inquiry needs to pay attention to the key problems with the systems,
namely, the ones outlined in the report. Australia has had three inquiries
into child support since 2003, but the resulting reforms have not had an
overwhelmingly positive effect on single mothers and their children and
instead have been found to have had negative financial and symbolic
consequences. If any progress is to be made—if single mother-headed
families are to receive the money they are entitled to on their children’s
behalf—the government must crack down on payers’ tax evasion, reform
the way child support interacts with welfare benefits, and stop encouraging
Private Collect. Only then will the system work as it was originally intended.
_________________________
Zoë Goodall is a Research Associate in the Department of Social Sciences at
Swinburne University of Technology. Her research interests include child support,
economic security, marriage, surnames and masculinity.
Dr Kay Cook is an Associate Professor and Australian Research Council Future Fellow
in the Department of Social Sciences at Swinburne University of Technology, and a
Founding Co-Director of the International Network of Child Support Scholars. Kay’s

Future Fellowship project examines the personal, practical and institutional barriers to
child support faced by women in Australia, the UK and USA.
i
https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/services/child-support/child-supportassessment/how-we-work-out-your-assessment/basic-formula#eightstep.
ii
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-02/child-support-payments-parents-report-revealsfailures/11750710.
iii
https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-and-children/programs-services/history-ofthe-child-support-scheme.
iv
Cook, Kay, Zoë Goodall, Juanita McLaren and Terese Edwards. 2019. Debts and
Disappointment: Mothers'
Experiences of the Child Support System. Melbourne: Swinburne University of Technology.
Available online at https://apo.org.au/node/268591.
v
https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/services/child-support/child-supportassessment/how-we-work-out-your-assessment/how-your-income-affects-your-child-support
vi
Department of Human Services. 2019. Annual Report 2018-2019. Page 111. Available online
at https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/annual-report-191019-v2.pdf.
vii
https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/family-tax-benefit/howmuch-you-can-get/income-test-ftb-part.
viii
https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/family-tax-benefit/howmuch-you-can-get/income-test-ftb-part.
ix
https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/family-tax-benefit/whatcan-affect-your-payment/child-support-and-your-family-tax-benefit-part/what-happens-if-weupdate-your-child-support-assessment#a3.
x
https://guides.dss.gov.au/family-assistance-guide/3/1/5/70.
xi
https://www.pm.gov.au/media/joint-parliamentary-inquiry-family-law-and-child-support.
Print article here

Work/Life Balance: The Never-Ending Pursuit
Part 1 – Communication
by Ellen Rutledge, YoungWilliams
Why is it so hard to communicate our wants and needs at work? This
article, the first of a three-part series on work/life balance, will explore the
role that communication plays in achieving the right balance between
professional and personal life. This article complements the NCSEA On
Location podcast, Work/Life Balance Series – Part 1, that is also being
released today. In this podcast, Jennifer Coultas, Los Angeles County Child
Support; Mike Moreno, Deloitte Consulting; and Kim Newsom Bridges,
Conduent, address how communication plays a critical role for employees
with work/life balance issues.
As with many things, the first step is admitting there is a problem.
According to Coultas, recognizing there is a work/life balance issue is
difficult, but critical. To start, you need to think through what is going on and
how you got there. This includes labeling your feelings, identifying the exact
stresses and challenges, and knowing that you need to make changes.
Once you have accepted you have an issue, reach out to your support
networks. Ideally, you have both a personal and professional support
network. Having these people is necessary to a good work/life balance.
These are the people with whom you can be transparent about your goals
and challenges. It is important to be able to speak freely with the people in
these networks. This ensures an honest dialogue and builds strong
relationships. It also means that these people can provide you with helpful
feedback.
Managers should be an important part of your professional support network
but may be the most intimidating with whom to communicate. Preparing for

this conversation is key. Once you have identified the root cause of your
work/life balance issue, think of possible solutions. Bounce ideas off your
support network. When you meet with your manager, frame the situation as
positively as possible, be open to ideas, and seek ways to collaborate.
The costs to a company whose employees suffer from a work/life
imbalance include high turnover, low performance, and low morale.
Today’s managers are monitoring for work/life balance issues. According to
Moreno, managers should
take the time to get to
know their employees so
that they recognize when
something is off. Regular
one-on-one check-ins are
a great way to stay in
touch with employees.
During these informal
check-ins, managers
should not only discuss work-related projects, but also take a personal
interest in employees by asking about family, talking about weekend plans,
or discussing shared interests such as hiking, movies, or music. It takes
time and work to develop the kind of relationship that leads to high
performance and job satisfaction. As a manager, developing these
relationships is key, so that when times are tough, it is easier for team
members to approach you with these difficult conversations, adds Bridges.
Work/life balance looks different for everyone and changes with time.
Learning to communicate our needs and challenges serves to improve our
overall health and job satisfaction.
__________________________________
Ellen Rutledge, YoungWilliams' Professional Development Coordinator, uses her
experience as a child support attorney and project manager to develop training and
professional development activities. Her efforts support project managers and attorneys
to grow and develop into leaders within the company and the child support community.
Her work/life balance issues revolve around her two children, EC and Annika.
Print article here

What’s on the Horizon for 2020?
An Update on the Work of NCSEA Emerging Issues and Leading
Practices Subcommittee
by Margot Bean and Lara Fors, Co-chairs,
Emerging Issues & Leading Practices Subcommittee
The NCSEA Policy and Government Relations Committee (PGR) is a standing
committee formed to, among other things, manage NCSEA’s policy development
efforts that include tracking and reviewing proposed legislation and regulations to
assess their impact on the child support program and to develop resolutions for
the NCSEA Board to adopt. In addition, PGR oversees four subcommittees,
including Emerging Issues and Leading Practices (EI&LP). The EI&LP
subcommittee collects and compiles information about emerging issues in the
child support program and leading practices used by local, state, tribal, and
international child support agencies. EI&LP shares the information through
informational documents on the NCSEA website and suggests topics and
speakers for the Leadership Symposium and NCSEA webinars. If appropriate,
EI&LP can seek to educate the greater IV-D community by elevating issues
through the PGR Committee to the NCSEA Board for broader education or
advocacy for the child support program.
As we move into the second half of this NCSEA year, EI&LP is hard at work,
making progress on researching hot topics and identifying leading practices to
share across the child support program. With the changes in family dynamics,
increased desire for parental engagement, and the need to strengthen the link
between child support and workforce development, EI&LP is focusing on three
emerging issues: (1) the effectiveness of foster care referrals to child support; (2)
further defining employment services in the IV-D program; and (3) the study of
gender-neutral voluntary parentage acknowledgments.
We have examined several aspects of our first issue concerning foster care
cases and their intersection with the child support program.

We have discussed everything from the inefficiencies for the courts when local
programs are in silos to the larger scale concern of considering the best interests
of the child within both federal programs. When it comes to foster care referrals,
there is still ambiguity about how the IV-D program can determine its role when
the child goes into state custody. The 2016 Final Rule updated the federal code
regarding case closure (45 C.F.R. § 303.11(b)(20)) to allow IV-D agencies to
close a case when another assistance program, including IV-E, refers a case that
is inappropriate to establish, enforce or continue to enforce for child support and
the custodial or non-custodial parent has not applied for IV-D services. However,
IV-D programs have different definitions of appropriateness and different levels of
review for IV-E referrals. We
have not found federal program
guidance to define
“appropriateness,” and we
encourage a larger discussion
on this issue between OCSE
and local, state, and tribal
agencies. Last, we reviewed
research from Wisconsin,
Minnesota, California, and
North Dakota that studied the
With the changes in family dynamics, increased desire for
parental engagement, and the need to strengthen the
link between child support and workforce development,
EI&LP is focusing on three emerging issues: (1) the
effectiveness of foster care referrals to child support; (2)
further defining employment services in the IV-D
program; and (3) the study of gender-neutral voluntary
parentage acknowledgments.
IV-E cases in the IV-D program. From those studies, EI&LP is reviewing two
substantive issues: (1) whether the establishment of child support orders against
the parent seeking reunification can be a significant obstacle to that reunification;
and (2) the cost-effectiveness of enforcement for IV-D agencies in relation to IV-
E referrals to the IV-D program.
Our second issue, employment services, is exploring the need for more clarity on
the appropriate employment services that child support agencies and their
partners could provide. Closely related is the issue of funding for these services.
Since referring parents to workforce agencies is not always successful, many
child support agencies are looking for ideas on how to partner with employment
service providers within their communities. Additionally, we are determining if
any local agencies have expanded employment services to low-income,
unemployed, or underemployed custodial parents in their caseload as part of
holistically addressing family poverty. EI&LP plans to identify and publish leading
practices around successful linkages of child support agencies and employment
programs along with how to best leverage IV-D funding and resources to link
both parents with employment.
Finally, the third emerging issue acknowledges the necessary evolution of the
child support program to meet the needs of changing family structure families of
all types—married, divorced, never-married, different-sex couples, same-sex .

Keeping child support and family law forms updated is challenging. The program
serves couples, caretaker relatives, guardians, and others. With recent changes
to federal law, paternity is one part of the broader concept of parentage, the legal
relationship that is the cornerstone of our program. Following the recent updates
to the Uniform Parentage Act, six states have adopted new or amended forms to
determine legal parentage, including the use of gender-neutral voluntary
acknowledgments of parentage. EI&LP is researching the use of these forms, as
well as recent state case law regarding paternity vs. parentage.
The co-chairs of the Emerging Issues & Leading Practices Subcommittee of PGR
are Margot Bean and Lara Webb Fors. Members are: Phyliss Nance; Paula
Phillips; Diane Potts, PGR co-chair; Patrick Quinn; Adrienne Reddick; Amy
Roehrenbeck; Lisa Kelly Skenandore, PGR co-chair; Trish Skophammer; Jeremy
Smith; Amy Turner; Carla West; Bob Williams; Ann Marie Ruskin, NCSEA
Executive Director; and Tom Joseph, NCSEA Advocate.
Please check the website in upcoming months for informational updates on these
emerging issues and a section for posting references for leading practices.
____________________________
Margot Bean is a Managing Director in Deloitte Consulting’s Public Sector Practice. Margot’s
wide variety of government experience prior to joining Deloitte provides her with deep
understanding and insight: Commissioner of the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement,
IV-D Director of the New York State Child Support program, IV-D Director of the Guam Child
Support Program, and child support attorney. A Past President and Honorary Life Member of
the National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA), Margot is a member of the
Current Board of Directors and co-chairs the Emerging Issues subcommittee and the
Corporate Relations Committee. She is a Past President and Honorary Board Member of the
Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association (ERICSA). Margot also serves as an
advisor to the Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council (WICSEC).
Lara Fors joined the Center for the Support of Families as a Senior Associate in 2019 after
serving for over twenty-five years in the IV-D programs of Missouri state and local
governments, including serving as the IV-D Director. Lara currently serves on three NCSEA
committees. She is a past president of ERICSA and of the Missouri child support professional
association, MCSEA. Lara has presented to numerous child support conferences and events.
Lara was awarded the MCSEA Honorary Life Member (2014), the Missouri Lawyer’s Weekly
Women’s Justice Award for Public Service Practitioner of the Year (2016), and the ERICSA
Honorary Life Member (2019). She received her undergraduate degree at Central Methodist
College and received her J.D. from the University of Missouri-Kansas City.
Print article here

NCSEA’s 2020 Policy Forum: Engagement: Putting Policy
into Practice
by Carla West and Lyndsy Irwin, Co-chairs 2020 Policy Forum
More than 530 child support professionals gathered at the J.W. Marriott in
Washington, D.C., on February 6-8, 2020, to attend the NCSEA Policy
Forum. This represents the largest number of attendees on record for the
Policy Forum.
Linda Boyer, deputy commissioner of the federal OCSE, and several
deputies kicked off the Policy Forum Thursday morning with a program on
each of their division’s roles in engaging with program grantees. Ryan
Martin and Kimberly Meinert, Congressional staff members, followed with
federal legislation updates and their individual perspectives on the child
support program.
The afternoon plenary highlighted the recent study on ending childhood
poverty in ten years, “A Roadmap to Reducing Child Poverty.” The
plenary, headlined by Ron Haskins from the Brooking Institution’s Center
on Children and Families, Christine James Brown from the Child Welfare
League of America, and Erin Oalican from the State of Vermont’s Reach
Up Program, kicked off three breakout workshops. The workshops focused
on the impact of child support guidelines on low-income families, engaging
customers through targeted and integrated services, and using social
determinants of health to improve outcomes for families in poverty. To end
our first day, attendees had an opportunity to network and discuss all they
had learned at the President’s Reception.
On Friday, attendees learned about recent research that will have an
impact on the future of our child support program from members of
NCSEA’s Research Subcommittee: Maria Cancian, Dean of the McCourt
School of Public Policy with Georgetown University; Letitia Passarella,

Research Director with the Family Welfare Research and Training Group at
the Ruth H. Young Center for Families and Children, University of Maryland
School of Social Work; Steven Eldred, Director of the Orange County
California Child Support Services; and Kate Cooper Richardson, Director of
the Oregon Child Support Program. The panelists looked at how research
connects to improvement in child support policies, not only improving the
program, but having a direct, positive impact on the children and families
we serve. Following the plenary, attendees broke into three sessions that
examined how the research outcomes were being implemented in local
offices. Topics included: 1) how to engage partners
when addressing reentry; 2) the impact and
effectiveness of enforcement remedies; and 3) how
states are implementing the 2016 flexibility, efficiency,
and modernization regulations.
After lunch, leaders from several federal programs
joined us to discuss engagement among federal
programs. Scott Lekan, ACF, Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary and OCSE Commissioner, led the
panel, which included representatives from the Office
of Head Start and Early Childhood Development, Center for Medicaid and
CHIP Services, Office of Family Assistance, Office of Community Services,
Office of Child Care, Food and Nutrition Services, Administration on
Children, Youth, and Families, Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, and the Department of Justice. Panel members
shared with the group how their agencies are working together to turn
policies into action and help families gain economic security.
The workshops offered Friday afternoon included discussions on
successful fatherhood programs, effective collaboration between programs
on the state and local level, and customer employment programs.
Author Shenandoah Chefalo (see Chefalo article) started the final day of
the conference with an emotional plenary on trauma-informed services.
She made us all a part of her journey as she shared her experience as a
young child in foster care and the long-lasting effects trauma has had on
her life. Dr. Katherine Crawford followed up the discussion with practical
approaches our programs can take to implement an organizational traumainformed
system when providing services to our families. To end the Policy
Forum, attendees heard from Etay Maor, Chief Security Officer for
Intsights, who described the methods cyber criminals use to attack our

systems and taught each of us the many ways we personally open
ourselves up for identity theft. OCSE’s security engineer, Derrick Cullum,
closed the conference by sharing security requirements and practical tips
for child support programs.
If you were not able to join us for the 2020 Policy Forum, or even if you
joined us and want to revisit what we learned, NCSEA is excited to
announce that the materials from the conference are available to all
NCSEA members. Not only will NCSEA members have access to the
presentations and handouts provided during our plenaries and workshops
through NCSEA’s website, but, for the first time, NCSEA is offering
recordings of select plenaries and workshops. To see the videos that have
been added, log in to the NCSEA website and look for the Web-Talk library
in the Member Central section.
The feedback received from attendees was overwhelmingly positive in
regard to speakers and content. We (Carla and Lyndsy) cannot thank the
Planning Committee members and NCSEA’s Gillyn Croog enough for their
work to ensure a top-notch, thought-provoking agenda.
________________________
The NCSEA 2020 Policy Forum was chaired by Carla West, IV-D Director of the North
Carolina Child Support Program, and Lyndsy Irwin, IV-D Director of the Mississippi
Child Support Enforcement Program. Both Carla and Lyndsy serve on the NCSEA
Board of Directors. Carla has more than 23 years of experience in child support,
working in virtually all levels of the program. She is a Past President of the Eastern
Regional Interstate Child Support Association (ERICSA,) and serves as the chair of the
NCSEA Child Support CommuniQue (CSQ) Committee. Lyndsy previously worked in
the Mississippi Division of Family and Children’s Services and has served as MDHS
program legislative liaison since 2011.
Print article here
Wa tch the recording of Ple na ry I a nd othe r Policy Forum p le na rie s