Child Support CommuniQue - October 2020

ChildSupportCommuniQue

Table of Contents
October 2020
President’s Message ………………………………………3
Community Corner: Georgia Child Support, the Courts,
and Private Income Deduction…………………………….5
Taking Stock: Collections Base and Incentives …...……9
IMM Encumbrances: The Elusive Pot of Gold…………14
MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEWING: Providing Great
Customer Service Through Plexiglass………………….20
Serving Your Team: How Managers Impact Work/Life
Balance……….……………………………………………24
NCSEA INSPIRE…………………………………………27

President’s Message October 2020
by Lisa Skenandore, SMI
Greetings! I hope this finds you all doing well. What
a tremendous honor to serve as this year’s
President. While we weren’t able to see each other
in person at the annual Leadership Symposium and
have the ceremonial passing of the gavel, I hope
that you were able to watch the video. I am very
humbled and honored to have received the gavel
from Past President Tanguler Gray. She’s an
outstanding leader, and I’m confident that she will be as instrumental in her
next path as she has been to all of us. And I know you’re all wondering…is
that gavel actually that big? Yes, it is. It also has quite a few nicks and
gouges, and I’m not entirely sure where those came from.
As the season of change is upon us for much of the country, I want to
acknowledge all of the perseverance and hard work that child support
professionals have undertaken. No one expected this year to be what it is,
but so many have faced this time with ingenuity and dedication to the
families we serve.
Along with change in leadership comes change in committee work for
NCSEA. I couldn’t thank our volunteers enough for the countless hours
they give to the child support community. A few highlights for the next year
include the Policy and Government Relations Committee led by Diane
Potts. Under the committee’s guidance, we’ll continue to monitor and
advocate for effective program policy. The year has already started out
rather busy with new legislative proposals to review and address. We
haven’t forgotten the legislative initiatives from last fall, and we will continue
to advocate for those changes.
I’m also very excited about this next year’s learning and development
opportunities with both the Policy Forum and Leadership Symposium as
well as our e-learning offerings. While it’s too early to venture a guess as to

what the state of the pandemic will be, please know that we are carefully
monitoring our in-person events; everyone’s safety and wellbeing will be at
the forefront of our decision making. That said, we have undertaken
planning of the Policy Forum with this year’s theme of “Working Toward
Equity Through Policy” with Shaneen Moore, Minnesota IV-D Director, and
Erin Frisch, Michigan IV-D Director, leading us forward. We’ll take a hard
look at program policy and the intersection of diversity, equity, and
inclusion, and we’ll have thought-provoking conversations and discussions
from leading policy experts to ensure the best outcomes for our families.
We’ve also made a concerted effort to give members an opportunity to
connect and share information utilizing NCSEA Connects. We have a very
active intergovernmental group led by Rob Velcoff. As an outcome of the
Idea Exchange topic of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, we have created a
new resource group. These groups provide a great opportunity to share
resources and information across the child support community. If you would
like to receive more information, please reach out to me or to NCSEA staff,
Ann Marie Ruskin or Gillyn Croog.
In closing, I look forward to the year ahead and thank you all for your
continued service as we shape the future of child support together.
_________________________________________
Lisa Skenandore joined Systems and Methods Inc. as the Vice President of Business
Development in January of 2016. Prior to joining SMI, Lisa led the Oneida Nation Child
Support Department as IV-D Director which became a comprehensive tribal child
support program in April of 2008. She began her career in child support when her tribe
received its start-up grant in 2005. Along with child support she has also led other
human service programming in the areas of child welfare, domestic violence, prevention
and foster care. She has served as President of the National Tribal Child Support
Association and National Association of Tribal Child Support Directors. Lisa currently
serves as NCSEA President and is on the Board of Directors of the Eastern Regional
Interstate Child support Association. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Public
Administration from the University of Wisconsin at Green Bay.
Print article here

Community Corner
Partnership: Georgia Child Support, the Courts,
and Private Income Deduction
by Elaine Johnson, Georgia Judicial Council
Administrative Office of the Courts
Merriam Webster defines a legal partnership as an association of two or
more persons or entities that conduct a business for profit as co-owners.
In our world of child support, we do not make a profit in the traditional
sense, but we all still profit through the services we offer the citizens of
our states. Services conjures up many thoughts. Let’s explore what the
GREAT state of Georgia has been doing since 2011 to benefit private or
non-IV-D parents and private attorneys utilizing the Income Deduction
Order (IDO) process to withhold and collect child support.
We must begin by going back in time. Fortunately, we won’t need a
DeLorean with a flux capacitor to go back to the year 2004 but join me as
we make that journey. The Georgia Division of Child Support Services
(DCSS) established the beginning of a long-standing relationship and
contract between the Georgia Department of Human Services (DHS),
DCSS and the Judicial Council, Administrative Office of the Courts
(JC/AOC). Do you see what happened there? The executive and judicial
branches of state government formed a partnership. Today, under the
leadership of Georgia’s DHS/DCSS Director, Tanguler Gray, that
partnership continues to thrive. Now, that’s a partnership!

Our partnership is called the Child Support Collaborative Project
(Collaborative) and our primary job is to staff the Georgia Child Support
Commission and provide Georgia an Online Child Support Calculator for
determining child support under the state’s guideline statute, O.C.G.A. §
19-6-15. In addition to my position, the staff includes Noelle Lagueux-
Alvarex, the Commission and Collaborative attorney, and Latoinna
Lawrence, Program Coordinator.
In May 2011, the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement released
Action Transmittal 11-05, requiring states to use the Income Withholding
Order for Support (IWO) form with paperwork submitted to employers. It
was a good fit to add this task to the Collaborative’s list of things to do. In
Georgia, attorneys and parents in private child support actions may petition
the court for an IDO, separate from the divorce decree or other type of child
support order. These Non-IV-D IDOs require payment of child support
through the Family Support Registry (FSR), the state’s disbursement unit,
in compliance with federal regulation 45 CFR 303.100(e)(1).
With AT 11-05 in hand, my office quickly went to work with the DCSS
Policy Unit, headed by Erica Thornton, to discover what should be done to
achieve compliance. We put together a workgroup and key decisions were
made focusing initially on:
Reviewing Georgia law on Income Deduction Orders and determining
how to incorporate the IWO into the Georgia IDO private/Non-IV-D
legal process;
Establishing a website to assist the courts, private attorneys, parents,
and employers;
Developing a referral process to the FSR to ensure correct
documents were received to set-up a Non-IV-D case on the DCSS
database for receipting and distributing payments;
Developing a process for referring Non-IV-D IDOs to employers
ensuring compliance with the federal IWO form and other forms
required under Georgia law; and
Developing a one-page IDO/IWO guide for judges, attorneys, and
parents.
Developing the IDO website was initially the most time-consuming task, but
everyone in the workgroup contributed to the content and made it a
success. Over the years, we have added, improved, and updated content

and resources. DCSS also established points of contact in its agency and
at the FSR for my office to utilize for assistance. During the first year we
addressed issues encountered with forms and processes and discovered
the need for educating our judiciary, attorneys, parents, and employers. My
office developed a one-hour training on the correct use of state forms and
the required IWO. We included information on DCSS to ensure judges and
lawyers were aware of the two types of cases, IV-D and Non-IV-D, and how
they differ. We began the actual one-hour training in 2014 as a component
of our routine child support guidelines and calculator training.
While our Non-IV-D cases in Georgia have not dominated the marketplace,
they certainly needed our attention. We have learned many lessons on how
to best navigate and resolve issues encountered in those cases. The
following graphic demonstrates a range of years and a comparison of the
number of IV-D and Non-IV-D child support cases registered annually on
the DCSS database i . The time period represented is May 2011 through
July 2020. The Non-IV-D cases represent 18% of the total cases registered
during the nine years. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the number
of IV-D cases registered during that same period.
Georgia‐Comparing IV‐D to Non‐IV‐D
Registered Cases by Year
34948
50901
36800
46911
50877 52899
49779
38979 38905
18153
349 760 960 873 949 977 871 698 648 306
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total IV‐D
Total Non IV‐D
Educating employers is always ongoing since they are a large group. We
hear from employers and help them in understanding IDO process.
Employers generally anticipate all IDO paperwork will come from the state’s
IV-D agency, so we explain the Non-IV-D IDO process and how Georgia
law differs on this point. When communicating with employers, we

ecognize the importance of acknowledging the contributions they make in
withholding child support for Georgia parents and children. My office is
always available and glad to assist employers in resolving issues and
answering questions. Not all employers have legal departments and we
have received comments that the IDO website is a helpful resource.
States have their own procedures for handling income deduction and
withholding processes for private Non-IV-D cases. While our processes are
very functional in Georgia and have worked well for us over the past nine
years, we realize our way may not fit exactly in your state. We hope this
article inspires your state to consider a collaborative partnership for families
and children in private Non-IV-D IDOs, or in some other area where
bridging gaps in government will serve families and children in your state.
Please contact me for a conversation on this topic. We welcome you to visit
the Georgia Child Support Commission and Income Deduction Order
websites: https://csc.georgiacourts.gov/, https://georgiacourts.gov/ido/.
Elaine Johnson is employed by the Judicial Council, Administrative Office of the
Courts ("AOC"), serving as the Executive Program Manager, a position created by an
interagency contract between the Division of Child Support Services ("DCSS") and the
JC/AOC. Elaine is a current member of NCSEA. Elaine came to the AOC in October
2007 and serves as staff to the Child Support Commission. She supports the online
child support calculator in its design, maintenance, and training. Additionally, she
serves as a liaison for the Courts with the Division of Child Support Services, and one
of her tasks is working with the private Non-IV-D Income Deduction Order process.
Previously, Elaine was employed for 30 years with the Division of Child Support
Services and during those years worked in management in two local offices, and finally
in the state Policy Unit.
Print article here
i
Graphic content provided by the Georgia Division of Child Support Services,
https://childsupport.georgia.gov/.

Taking Stock: Collections Base and Incentives
by Asaph Gloser, MEF Associates
David Kilgore, California DCSS
& Margot Bean, Deloitte Consulting, LLP
If you walk into almost any local child support office around the country,
staff can tell you how they are performing on the key measures used to
calculate child support incentives. Since the passage of the Child Support
Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (CSPIA) measures such as
paternity establishment percentage, order establishment percentage, and
collections on current support due have become some of the key
barometers of success for individual staff, managers, and programs as a
whole. Although these are not the only ways individual programs track their
performance, they have remained a focus of child support programs for
over two decades.
Background on the Federal Performance Measures
The emphasis on the core functions of the child support program as part of
the incentive system was not accidental. The conversations among key
child support stakeholders leading to the passage of CSPIA emphasized
the importance of developing an incentive system that rewarded
performance on measures that were most closely aligned with the core
mission of the child support program – securing support for children and
families. State performance on the federal performance measures has a
substantial effect on the amount of incentive funding states receive. The

focus on the five performance measures (FPMs) has shown significant
120
100
98
94
102
2000
88
2019
80
72
66
62
64
59
60
54
40
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Statewide
Paternity
Establishment
Percentage
IV‐D Paternity
Establishment
Percentage
Support Order
Percentage
Current Support
Percentage
Payment on
Arrears
Percentage
4
5
Cost Effectiveness
Value
20
0
Incentive Measures Performance Over Time
improvement since 2000. 1
Although the five CSPIA measures themselves are critical in calculating
how much of the total incentive pool a state can receive, they are only one
part of the calculation. States are vying for a share of a fixed incentive pool
each year. No matter how well a state performs on the measures, the
amount of incentive funds for which they are eligible is determined by the
state’s collection base compared to the size of other states’ collections
bases.
The Collections Base Calculation
A state’s collection base is the sum of all its collections in the previous
year. Significantly, collections from current assistance, former assistance,
and Medicaid cases are doubled in this calculation.
The larger a state’s collections base, the more potential incentive funds that
state is eligible for. By doubling collections from assistance and Medicaid
cases, Congress sought to add an additional incentive for states to work
1
For more details on trends in state and national performance see: Benson, Valerie H. and Riley Webster
(2018). The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act at 20: Examining Trends in State Performance.
Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. https://childsupportresearch.org/files/The-Child-Support-Performance-and-
Incentive-Act-at-20.pdf

the hardest to serve cases and to increase efforts to get child support to the
families that need it most. 2
The current calculation of states’ collection bases emphasizes the
importance of collections on current and former assistance cases and
Medicaid-only cases. This reflects both the origins of the child support
program as a cost recovery mechanism for public assistance payments and
a recognition of the added difficulty often associated with those cases. Put
differently, the calculation of the collection base and the doubling for
assistance cases is an incentive in and of itself. It is designed to incentivize
child support programs to work the most difficult cases.
Performance Observations
What is now less clear is whether the incentive system put in place over 20
years ago is still appropriately incentivizing states. Public policy changes in
the years following welfare reform has resulted in a dramatic shift in public
assistance caseloads. On average, the state TANF caseload in 1998 (the
year CSPIA passed) was roughly 3.1 percent of each state’s population.
Twenty years later, this percentage has gone down by 68 percent, with less
than 0.7 percent of state residents on TANF. Moreover, this decline has not
been uniform; across the states, the percentage of the population on TANF
in 2018 ranged from 0.15 percent to 2 percent. As such, it is increasingly
unclear whether the double counting of assistance and Medicaid case
collections is having the intended effect on how states prioritize their
caseloads.
Doubling the collections base has real implications for incentive payments.
Recalculating incentive payments using a collection base without the
doubling would dramatically alter the landscape; 18 states would see an
increase of at least 5% in their incentive payments, ranging from over
$16,000 to over $5 million. Conversely, 19 states would see a decrease of
at least 5% in their incentive payments, with dollar amounts ranging from
2
Gardiner, K. N., Fishman, M. E., Glosser, A., & Tapogna, J. (2004). Study of the implementation of the
performance-based incentive system. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Office of Child Support Enforcement.

over $70,000 to over $4 million. Removing the doubling affects both high
and low performing states. Some high performing states gain and lose just
as some lower performing states gain and loose if the doubling were
removed. It is unclear how removing the doubling might benefit a given
state based on its demographics or performance.
Policy Considerations
The current system reflects the values of the child support program –
emphasizing the establishment of orders and the collection of support. The
incentive measures themselves largely reflect the mission of the program
and its core function.
Is the doubling of TANF/Medicaid collections incentivizing referrals?
Variation in TANF policy (e.g., benefit amounts, time limits) and Medicaid
expansion has resulted in the overall referrals to the child support program
declining in different ways from state to state. Child support programs
continue to work cases referred regardless of the type of case they are
despite that decline. That being said, the doubling is more likely to
increase the collection bases of states with larger volumes of TANF and
Medicaid cases. This may pull incentive funding away from those child
support programs in states where assistance cases have declined.
Are states with higher TANF/Medicaid cases benefiting because of a
concerted focus on the part of the child support program? More than
likely not. The child support program is heavily automated. State child
support systems gather data, issue withholdings, intercept funds, and more
to varying degrees. The systems themselves are blind to the case type
treating all cases the same. Case workers intercede when customers
struggle with the process or, as system technologies and analysis improve,
when the system identifies that there are actionable tasks to take that will
generate success. Although state and local child support programs can
target current and former cases, there is rarely this explicit focus on such
cases as a group.
How would removing the doubling of TANF/Medicaid collections
benefit the program? Aside from a general shakeup of the incentives
across the states, there is little to be gained from removing this aspect of
the calculation. Cost recovery is less of a cornerstone value of the national

child support program with the continued shift towards cost avoidance and
the emphasis towards family self-sufficiency. Still, there is value in
continuing to emphasize referrals and effort on TANF/Medicaid cases.
These remain the most needy populations in our caseload and the current
calculation is a policy decision that reflects the broader values of the child
support program.
____________________________
Asaph Glosser, a Principal Associate in MEF Associates’ Seattle office, has substantial
experience conducting research and evaluation projects for city, state, and federal
agencies as well as non-profit partners. Asaph has authored numerous research reports
and policy briefs and regularly presents his work to policymakers, practitioners, and
others in the research community. When Asaph isn’t working, he spends as much time
as possible either in his garden or exploring the beaches, mountains, and forests of the
Pacific Northwest with his wife and two sons.
David Kilgore is a proud graduate of the California State University at Northridge where
he received his master’s degree in Public Administration and currently serves as
Director for the California Department of Child Support Services. David has worked in
the Child Support Program at the county level for 15 years and served as director of the
Riverside County DCSS, chief deputy director and deputy director for Los Angeles
CSSD, deputy director at the San Bernardino County DCSS and held several positions
at the Tulare County DCSS including manager and staff services analyst. David served
on the Board of Directors with the Child Support Directors Association and a member of
the National Child Support Enforcement Association Board of Directors.
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 cochairs
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).
Print article here

IIM ENCUMBRANCES:
THE ELUSIVE POT OF GOLD
by Bill Woods, Three Affiliated Tribes
Division of Child Support
I come from Irish roots, and as a descendent from the “McBride” family of
Ireland, I am most familiar with the storied rainbow myth— there's a pot
of gold at the end of every rainbow guarded by a tricky leprechaun.
This is a tale of my adventure to find a similar pot of gold at the end of a
rainbow; and yes, I was met by tricky leprechauns along the way. This tale
starts many years ago when I was attending a session focusing on child
support collection efforts in Indian Country. The presenter was asked about
trying to get monies from delinquent obligors through the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA). The response was that such efforts are not worth pursuing
and the BIA is not required to deliver over to child support offices trust
income from assets the federal government has in Individual Indian Monies
(IIM) accounts.
IIM accounts are accounts created by the Secretary of the Interior in each
person’s name. The accounts receive income from trust assets and are
held for the exclusive benefit of the individual Indian beneficiary.
I decided that I was not going to take such assertion on face value but
intended to do a little digging, and maybe I could dig up a pot of gold. When
I arrived back at my office, I started to dig using the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) as my shovel. Honestly, it didn’t take much digging to
discover the provisions of 25 CFR Part 115 - Trust Funds for Tribes and
Individual Indians, more specifically Subpart E. 25 CFR § 115.601, which
sets forth the circumstances to restrict an IIM account through an
encumbrance. The BIA may restrict an IIM account if the BIA receives an
order from a court of competent jurisdiction awarding child support from an
IIM account.

There I was, staring at the specific reference to child support that would
lead me to various pots of gold, but I had forgotten that these pots of gold
were guarded by a tricky leprechaun. In our case, we had to deal with the
BIA and its reluctance to cooperate.
Our office is located within the boundaries of the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation, and our reservation is home to the Three Affiliated Tribes –
comprised of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara people. We had numerous
tribal members who were not fulfilling their child support obligations. A
portion of these tribal members has ownership rights in tracts of land, which
are held in trust. These lands have production value for agricultural
purposes, such as crop production or cattle grazing, and from mineral
rights underneath the tracts. I needed to find out which of our obligors had
such ownership interests.
So, my thinking was I would
So, my thinking was I would write a few write a few letters to the
letters to the BIA, and it would let me BIA, and it would let me
know if any of the tribal obligors had an know if any of the tribal
active IIM account with funds being paid obligors had an active IIM
into the account, then out into the pockets
account with funds being
of the obligor.
paid into the account, then
out into the pockets of the
obligor. I initially submitted a list of over 200 obligors. I was met with a
response that all IIM account information is confidential and privileged
information, and the BIA would not comply with my request. So, I thought,
ok, you little leprechaun, I will show you, and I filed my first Subpoena
Duces Tecum to the BIA, demanding the BIA come to Tribal Court, and
bring the records to establish IIM income from Trust assets. I also threw in
a discovery request, just to add some stress and pressure to the BIA.
That action got the leprechaun’s attention, in the form of a letter from the
United States Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor, advising me
that the Department does not allow its employees to testify or to produce
Department records either upon request or by subpoena 43 C.F.R . § 2.81
(b). I was informed that the Department may consider the request for

information if the same is requested thru 43 C.F.R Part 2, Subpart H and
43 C.F.R. §§ 2.80(a)(4) and 2.83. These regulations are in accordance with
the case of United States ex rel.
Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462
(1951).
This tricky leprechaun gave me a
quest to fulfill to get the gold, as I
needed to create a written request
(Touhy Request) and submit the
same. I followed the procedure to
the letter, including setting forth
that no testimony was sought,
identifying the employee maintaining the records, describing the records
sought, showing the records are not available from any other source,
showing the records can be used in lieu of the employee’s testimony, and
explained my compliance with section 2.88. Here you go, you tricky
leprechaun, I thought, as I mailed off the Touhy Request in February, 2014
to the local Office of Special Trustee, the Regional Fiduciary Trust
Administrator, and the Attorney-Advisor with the Office of the Solicitor.
Crickets, Crickets, Crickets. I heard nothing from any person at the
Department of the Interior.
Over the next few years, I broke a lot of shovels trying to dig up these pots
of gold. I thought no way was this tricky leprechaun going to win. How can
a department clearly ignore my request, and how could anyone in the
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) or in elective office stand for
it? I picked up another shovel, and sent letters out, even going to see if the
local legal services office would litigate the matter on behalf of low-income
parents who were not receiving child support or obtain a Writ of
Mandamus. I wrote to both North Dakota senators and the Deputy Bureau
Director in D.C. I challenged them to try and find that tricky leprechaun’s
name and address. I complained to our Regional Program Manager, the
Tribal Child Support Liaison and the Commissioner from 2016 and into
2019.

They say the squeaky wheel gets the grease, backstory upon request, and
I think I finally wore down some folks in Washington D.C., because I
received calls and e-mails from the Office of the Solicitor – Division of
Indian Affairs, in August 2019. I provided all the same documents, as I had
back in 2014 and waited as (the tricky leprechaun) continued to process my
request to honor the Touhy
Request. Four months, I
waited, again Crickets,
Crickets, Crickets. I finally
requested the name of the
supervising attorney so
that I could file a complaint,
including asking what state
bar association he/she was
They say the squeaky wheel gets the
grease, backstory upon request, and I
think I finally wore down some folks in
Washington D.C., because I received
calls and e-mails from the Office of the
Solicitor – Division of Indian Affairs, in
August 2019.
admitted to, intending to file an ethics complaint. I got an e-mail back that
same day from the Assistant Solicitor, agreeing to look into the matter, and
asking again for a copy of the February 5, 2014 letter from their office
which initially instructed me to file a written Touhy Request. Guess what?
We received the requested information and were staring at a pot of Gold.
However, this fairy tale, did not end, just yet, happily ever after. Our office
began the actual encumbrance processing of cases in the Fort Berthold
Tribal Court – a Court of Competent Jurisdiction, which is a Court based
upon Blacks Law: “One having power and authority of law at the time of
acting to do the particular act.” We have subject matter jurisdiction and
personal jurisdiction over the obligor, and quasi in rem over property within
the geographical area, trust property within the reservation. We filed
Motions, supported by Affidavits, sent out proper Notices for due process
considerations, and presented the motions in court before a Tribal Judge.
We obtained certified copies of Orders and delivered the Orders to the local
BIA Superintendent. “Thank you – we will take our pot of gold in the form of
a government check, please”.
Not so fast, our tricky leprechaun had other thoughts. We received a copy
of a Memorandum Letter that was distributed to all BIA Regional Directors,

the Director, Office of Tribal Services’ and Director, Office of Trust Funds
Management from the Deputy Commissioner of Indian Affairs. The subject
line of the letter dated November 9, 2001 was “Child Support Awards and
Encumbering Individual Indian Money Accounts.” The Memorandum
informed BIA officials nationwide that the “BIA will not honor back child
support ordered claims against an IIM account.” Based upon the contents
and directions of this memorandum letter, our office was informed that the
local agency would not honor the certified copies sent to them. This
leprechaun was proving to be a very tricky leprechaun, protecting the pot of
Gold.
The next step was to grab another shovel and keep digging, as I could not
give up. Research was conducted, and I came across an Order from a
Court that I did not even know existed. The Office of Hearings and Appeals,
Interior Board of Indian Appeals, had issued a decision on October 31,
2002, (tricky leprechauns must have been out trick or treating). The case, –
Victoria J. Pretty Paint v. Rocky Mountain Regional Director, Bureau of
Indian Affairs,33 IBIA 177 (2002), involved an appeal of a denial of back
child support payments from an obligor’s IIM account. The denial cited the
November 9, 2001 memorandum letter as support for the denial. The Court
found nothing in 25 C.F.R. Part 115 that restricts the payment of back child
support awards from the IIM account. The pot of gold was now again there
for the taking.
Hold up there a bit, if you want to go searching for this pot of gold on your
own. I need to caution everyone looking into encumbering IIM accounts.
There is an administrative procedure built into 25 C.F.R. Part 115, and
each needs to be fully complied with. It starts with verifying your court is a
court of competent jurisdiction. The BIA may not recognize a state court
order to encumber. Best advice is to get the Order from the Tribal Court
where the trust assets are located. Second consideration, you will need to
school or teach your local BIA office of the procedures and the law, as the
aforementioned 2001 memorandum letter seems to re-surface from time to
time. The next constant consideration is need for patience; as your office
will need to rely on the BIA to follow the Part 115 requirements, including

notice, and ability to challenge the decision to restrict, based upon undue
hardship. All BIA hearings are conducted without notice or appearance by
child support but are recorded and obligors can have an attorney to
represent them. We have a procedure in place, and there is an approved
form for an obligor to fill out to consent to the sums to be taken from their
accounts. Obligors who have encumbrances put in place, and no funds are
payable to them for several months may choose to turn over funds to child
support, so the remainder can be released from the IIM account to them.
It has been a long journey, I learned a lot, lost some to the tricky
leprechaun, and won some in the long run. We have gotten some pots of
gold – payable in U.S. treasury checks. However, we have not received
some pots of gold that we are still waiting on. By the way, as to our last
Touhy Request…Crickets, Crickets, Crickets.
“go raibh maith agat” – (thank-you).
______________________________
William E. Woods Jr. (Bill) is an attorney presently working with the Three Affiliated
Tribes (TAT) Division of Child Support in New Town, North Dakota in the positions of
Staff Attorney. Bill has been working with TAT child support for about 12 years. Bill is
currently a member of the Board of Directors for the National Tribal Child Support
Association. Prior to current employment with TAT, Bill previously ran a satellite child
support office on the Fort Berthold Reservation working tribal child support cases for
four (4) North Dakota Regional Offices. Bill received his Bachelor of Science degree in
Criminal Justice from Minot State College in North Dakota in 1981, then a Juris
Doctorate degree from the University of North Dakota (1984). In addition to duties with
TAT child support, Bill holds positions with the Mountrail County Asst. States Attorney;
City Attorney for Parshall, North Dakota; City Attorney for New Town, North Dakota; City
Attorney for Plaza, North Dakota; Mountrail County Housing Board; and member of the
MHA Nation Supreme Court.
Print article here

MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEWING:
Providing Great Customer Service Through Plexiglass
by Jill Keister, Natrona County (WY) Child Support
Child support customers are experiencing added barriers to receiving
services right now. Some offices are closed to the public entirely, while in
some open offices, in-person interactions are done through plexiglass
dividers. Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a way to overcome these barriers
and build partnerships in a way that is compassionate, empathetic, and
accepting.
What is Motivational Interviewing?
MI is a collaborative conversation to strengthen a person’s own motivation
for commitment to change. The Wyoming Child Support Program began
using MI in its customer service communications four years ago. The
Wyoming team members knew their customer service was excellent, but
they wanted to make conversations with their customers more meaningful.
That’s when they made the decision to begin using MI.
MI is used when a customer is ambivalent about a change he or she is
trying to make. There is a spirit in motivational interviewing that is kept at
the forefront of all interactions team members have with customers. That
spirit is explained by the acronym PACE. Child support professionals
partner with the customer and come to the table as an equal; no one is an
expert over another person’s life or situation. They accept and work with
the customer right where the customer is, expecting nothing more.

Customers come in with a wide variety of emotions and child support
professionals have found that the ability to show compassion helps to build
trust. Professionals use evocation to allow customers to build a plan with
their own ideas of how they see their child support case going forward,
which helps set the case up for success. When customers are allowed to
have their own thoughts rather than a child support professional telling
them what to do, ownership begins to take place.
A MI conversation ends with the customer designing a plan of action. The
child support professionals then commit to following up with the customer
and providing any additional support.
What skills do you need?
MI has four specific skills. The acronym OARS defines those skills:
Open-ended questions are used to gather and gain information from
customers. These questions open up the conversation more than closedended
questions, which tend to elicit yes or no answers and can make
customers feel interrogated.
Affirmations point out customers’ strengths.
Reflective listening is an important part of the skill set that helps customers
know that they are heard and understood.
Summaries are used to pull main themes and thoughts together and can
help make connections with customers.
How do you implement MI?
As with any new initiative, training is the first thing on the agenda. Wyoming
contracted with a Motivational Interviewing Network Trainer (MINT) for a
two-day training program for its initial group, which included the IV-D
director, attorneys, and case specialists. Part of the initial training includes
setting up a regular practice schedule. The MINT trainer suggested that this
group practice together once a week for 6 months. After that time, the
trained team members met for one hour each month. Each office around
the state participated in these sessions over Google Hangouts. The
sessions were used to practice the spirit and skill set along with introducing

other elements, such as the four processes, resisting, and agenda
mapping.
This structure ran for two years. It was from these sessions that strong
members of the team emerged. These child support professionals then
formed a train-the-trainers group. The train-the-trainers group met with the
MINT trainer for a two-day workshop in 2018 and created a MI training
manual that can be updated when necessary.
Trainers must meet specific criteria:
● A strong passion for helping others have meaningful conversations
using MI
● Participation in the two-day basic training
● At least one year of child support experience
● Attend an advanced training session
● Achieve proficiency with the skills
Each potential trainer recorded a 20-minute tape and sent it to the MINT
trainer. The MINT trainer coded each tape looking for all elements of the
spirit, open-ended questions, affirmations, reflections, and summaries in
the conversation. This may sound like an easy task; however, some
potential trainers did not pass on the first submission. It took several tries to
gain proficiency. The goal was to have top notch trainers very skilled in
motivational interviewing so they could train and teach others in the
program.
This group currently meets once a month and creates the monthly session
for each office to use for practicing the skill set. The ultimate goal is to have
a representative from every office in the program join this group. The group
most recently added champions from offices where they do not have a
trainer. Champions are child support professionals who have a strong
passion for MI but are not yet proficient in it. After six months, a champion
who wishes to become a trainer works on submitting a tape to be coded.

The trainers’ group has been fortunate to meet with the MINT trainer
annually, which allows the group to explore any challenges in training and
to gain the newest MI information.
The trainers’ group is composed of all levels of child support professionals
from case specialists to supervisors along with members of the State
Disbursement Unit and The State Office.
How do new team members get trained in MI?
The training group puts on an annual two-day basic motivational
interviewing training. The trainees walk away with the basic understanding
and use of motivational interviewing, the spirit and the OARS.
Does the Wyoming Child Support Program track the data?
For evaluation purposes, the group decided to track:
● Each interaction
● The customer’s next action after the MI conversation
● The team member’s success
● The customer’s success
A special screen was created in the child support computer system. Team
members use this screen to report the outcome of each MI conversation.
Team members then rate both their part and the part of the customer. The
outcome of the interaction can range from making a payment, providing
necessary documentation, setting up a follow up appointment, completing a
step in a plan, or following up to give a progress update. When customers
take ownership, they are responsible to complete their own plan. A monthly
report is sent out providing this information. It is clear from the feedback
given from team members that successful results do not equate to money;
more importantly, success equates to making meaningful connections with
customers.

What is the future of MI?
MI has played a significant role in providing excellent customer service
during the pandemic. It has been extremely useful to have the spirit of
motivational interviewing available in today’s environment when
communication can be restricted. At the outset of the pandemic, the lobbies
of most offices were closed to the public. The call volume increased. MI is
equally effective over the phone and can also be done in writing.
The MI curriculum, training and monthly practice sessions are going strong.
Wyoming made a few changes in response to the pandemic. The training is
now done virtually. The MINT trainer helped create the online training in a
short window of time. In August 2020, Wyoming trained 17 new team
members using Google Hangouts and Google Classroom.
The Wyoming Child Support Program is working on the areas of domestic
violence and employment services. The MI skill set will be a helpful tool in
these areas. The continued practice of all team members throughout the
program helps MI become second nature when working with customers
who are experiencing ambivalence. The Wyoming Child Support Program
is looking forward to new uses of the skill set to make strong connections
with their customers. Using partnering, acceptance, compassion and
evocation reminds us all that, working together, people can feel heard and
know that they are part of their own success even when we are talking
through a plexiglass barrier.
_________________________________________
Jill Keister has been working for Natrona County Child Support Department for the past
30 years. She has an Associate of Arts degree in Human Communication. Jill currently
serves as the Department Head for Natrona County Child Support Department. She is a
member of the Wyoming Child Support Association and is a past president. Jill serves
on many statewide child support committees.
Print article here

Serving Your Team:
How Managers Impact Work/Life Balance
by Kimberly Newsom Bridges, Conduent
Editor’s Note: This is the final article and podcast in the NCSEA Work/Life
Balance Series. When we pitched this idea in late 2019, we had no idea
how critical work/life balance would become in 2020. As the series ends,
we hope that these articles and podcasts have given you something to
think about, helped you understand you aren’t alone, and has been a
conversation starter for you and those who support you in your professional
and personal life.
I have had the opportunity to lead teams of people throughout my career.
Recent studies clearly show that people stay or leave a company because
of its leaders. As a leader, I have learned many things through trial and
error. The things that have stuck with me are those that truly impact my
relationship with my team members and the wins we have working together
as a team. As an employer, I have learned four main things that I believe
directly impact those relationships and wins. First, you have to know your
team members. Second, you have to remember what they tell you. Third,
you have to take the time to work with them to right the ship when things go
awry. Finally, be transparent.
Knowing your team members goes beyond knowing their names. As a
leader, it is imperative that you learn about their families, what they like to
do, and what their aspirations are for their careers. This means that you
have to take the time to have real conversations with your team. At one
point early in my career, I had a team of 80+ people. I took each one to
lunch at least once a year. I truly enjoyed these “investigative” lunches.
They provided an opportunity to share information about both of us. These
lunches made me human to them and provided me an opportunity to learn
more about my team. Having these relationships helps when difficult
conversations need to take place. It also helps your team members feel
more comfortable sharing issues they are facing that may be impacting

their productivity. One word of advice: don’t wait until there is a problem to
try to develop a relationship.
When you take the time to get to know your team members, it is critically
important that you remember the conversations. Otherwise, your team will
believe your efforts were superficial. Remember something that you were
told, like their career aspirations, maybe an
issue with their children and/or the health
of a friend or parent. Follow up with them.
Challenge them to do things that will help
them achieve their career goals. Ask them
about their parent’s health. Don’t just do it
in passing. Ask the questions when you
have the time to really pay attention to their
response. Challenge them career-wise
when you have the time to mentor them.
Help with their fears and give them
constructive feedback.
Finally, always be willing to have difficult
conversations with your team members. If they aren’t meeting
expectations, make sure you are willing to coach them to success.
Sometimes, the performance issue is related to things occurring outside of
the workplace. Be prepared to listen and offer insight. As an employer,
hopefully you have an Employee Assistance Program where you can refer
team members. Sometimes, they might need someone to listen. Balancing
an understanding of their personal issues with the fact that the work still
needs to be completed is an art. If you master it, your team members will
follow your lead and you will have a high performing team.
Being transparent is all about communication. As a leader, be willing to let
others know you have a life. If you are taking the day off to watch your kids
in an activity, let people know that is why you are taking the day off. If you
are working late, share that it is because you decided to do that and ensure
that your team knows you don’t expect them to be watching for
communications from you 24/7. Your team will appreciate that you are
human and the fact that you are establishing expectations for their work
life.
As we finish this series, I have one final comment regarding work/life
balance. If we are striving for a 50/50 balance every day, we will be
disappointed. In our ever-changing lives, we have to figure out how to be
flexible enough to realize that a true daily 50/50 balance is not realistic.
While listening to a podcast recently, I remembered the following statement

around work/life balance: Work Life Balance is not about 50/50 split in time;
rather, it is about being 100% present wherever you are at the time. That is
my challenge to all of us. Be present. Don’t feel guilty about where you
aren’t. Be happy about where you are.
_________________________________________
Kim Newsom Bridges has been a child support professional for over 25 years. She
joined the Conduent Child Support Services team in 2016, where her efforts are
focused on innovation in the child support program and assisting the IV-D Community in
the identification, implementation and improvement of child support systems and
services nationally. Prior to joining Conduent, she served as the Executive Director for
the Ohio CSEA Directors’ Association (OCDA). Kim has also served NCSEA in many
capacities, including President and chair of several committees. Kim received a
Bachelor of Science in Business Information Systems and a Juris Doctor from Ohio
State University.
Print article here

NCSEA’S 2020 “INSPIRE”
by Ashley Dexter, Deloitte Consulting LLP
and Phyllis Nance, Alameda County DCSS
Co-Chairs, NCSEA INSPIRE
NCSEA’s annual Leadership Symposium has been a flagship event for
child support professionals for years. Year after year, participants could
count on a gathering of emerging and recognized leaders from around the
country, sharing their ideas and inspiration. The COVID-19 pandemic
brought things to a screeching halt in the springtime, just as preparations
were being finalized. Would there even be a Leadership
Symposium? Should there be one? How could it even be pulled off, with
quarantines and lockdowns in place everywhere and indefinitely? We at
NCSEA answered the first questions with a definite “YES”. In times of
uncertainty, where the present is constantly shifting and the future is almost
unimaginable, leadership and the ability to inspire change are critical to the
success of organizations. When we are all physically separated, the need
to connect, to learn from and help each other is harder to do and even
more important. The Leadership Symposium would be an ideal forum for
meeting this need. With the goal set, it was just a matter of figuring out how
to deliver this in our new and evolving “normal.”
On Tuesday, October 6 th , 2020, NCSEA launched INSPIRE, a virtual
engagement event, to bring child support professionals from around the
world together to network, educate, and discuss new and invigorating ideas
and approaches to leadership and daily work. The event spans four weeks
in October allowing flexibility for individuals to choose sessions that work
with their schedules. Utilizing a new platform Remo, INSPIRE offers
plenaries, workshops, learning labs, NCSEA Book Club, and a Child

Support Hackathon using various presentation styles and topics to choose
from and attend, and it’s all FREE to NCSEA members.
INSPIRE kicked off with Marny Lifshen
providing invaluable interpersonal skills
and real-world, hands-on strategies to
developing professional relationships in
light of our new “normal” virtual working
environment. In the sessions that
followed, NCSEA U facilitators Kim
Newsom-Bridges and Charles Smith
continued the conversation about
communication and the importance of
relaying information so others receive the
message correctly as well as effectively
listening to what others share. Orange County, CA Child Support Services
Director, Steven Eldred, and Ramsey County, MN District Attorney and
Director, Dr. Trish Skophammer provided thought-provoking research and
insight into the child support – child welfare connection that has perplexed
both programs for years. The Book Club closed out the first week of
INSPIRE with a discussion on “The Ideal Team Player” by Patrick Lencioni
that discusses practical leadership and management styles to help develop
employees and evaluation tools for current and potential future employees.
Upcoming weeks offer sessions focused on diversity and inclusion, data
and systems, child support programmatic content, and leadership and
professionalism. Two active Learning Labs provide real time interaction for
session participants with each other and the presenters. During the closing
plenary, a panel of national experts will look to the future for ways
government agencies can provide the most effective and beneficial
services to families in light of lessons learned from the pandemic that
defined 2020.
Finally, INSPIRE closes on Thursday, October 29 th with a Child Support
Hackathon. Submissions were received from 11 unique agencies from
across the country resulting in 16 challenges and corresponding solutions
child support agencies have faced and overcome with innovating ideas.
Four agencies were selected and will showcase their “Hacks” to compete

for the Judge’s award as well as the People’s Choice Aware voted on by
YOU, the live audience!
Although the 2020 Leadership Symposium Planning Committee wished we
could have spent this year’s event with you in Anaheim back in August, we
are thrilled that so many of you chose to join us virtually for INSPIRE.
Almost 850 of you registered resulting in over 5200 hours of professional
development! We have had great reviews about the Remo platform and the
ability for child support professionals to interact and spend time with each
other. On behalf of the INSPIRE Planning Committee, thank you for joining
us at INSPIRE. We hope you are enjoying the opportunity to network with
friends and colleagues, as well as make new connections from around the
world from wherever you may be working.
Thank you to the 2020 Leadership Symposium Planning Committee for all
their hard work planning and preparing for Anaheim as well as the 2020
INSPIRE Planning Committee that developed and crafted engaging content
for this year’s virtual event. Finally, a special thank you to Gillyn Croog and
Ann Marie Ruskin for their forward thinking and innovative ideas to bring
INSPIRE to fruition utilizing an amazing collaborative new platform
enhancing our ability to network and learn virtually.
We look forward to seeing all of you next year in Austin, TX August 1-4,
2021!
Ashley Dexter is a Specialist Senior with Deloitte Consulting LLP. Prior to joining
Deloitte, Ashley began her career over 18 years ago in the Kansas child support
program and served most recently as the Kansas Deputy IV-D Director. Ashley is a
member of NCSEA’s Board of Directors since 2018 and served as the co-chair of the
2019 and 2020 Leadership Symposium and the 2020 INSPIRE Virtual Event. She has
spoken at several Leadership Symposiums and at other national events, including
annual conferences for WICSEC and ERICSA.
Phyllis Nance is the Director for the Alameda County, CA Department of Child Support
Services. Phyllis has worked in child support for nearly 33 years. She served as the
Director for Kern County Department of Child Support from 2008-2015. In 2016 she
was appointed Director in Alameda County. Phyllis served as the co-chair of the 2020
Leadership Symposium and the 2020 INSPIRE Virtual Event. She is the immediate Past
President of the California Child Support Directors Association (CSDA) and has spoken
at several state conferences as well as national conferences including Leadership
Symposiums.
Print article here