January 2024 NCSEA CSQ

Table of Contents
January 2024
President’s Message ..................................................................... 3
Community Corner: The Profound Impact of Enhanced Domestic
Violence Training and Practices in Arizona ................................... 5
Congress Shines a Light on Federal Tax Information and the Child
Support Program ........................................................................... 8
Behavioral Economics and Attracting Customers to the IV-D
Program ...................................................................................... 20
Texas Succeeds in Extending New Hire Reporting Requirements
to Rideshare Drivers ................................................................... 25
NCSEA 2024 Policy Forum Preview ........................................... 31
Breaking the Mold: Exploring Non-Cash Child Support Options for
Parental Empowerment ............................................................... 34

Erin Frisch,
NCSEA President
Happy New Year NCSEA Members!
I love the practice of reflection and looking ahead that comes at this time of
year. There are so many things going on as we continue exploring the
power of community.
At the last NCSEA board meeting in December, we learned about the
National Association for Welfare Research Statistics (NAWRS) and how we
might build a partnership between our two organizations. NAWRS is a
volunteer-run organization that brings together researchers from academic
institutions and research firms, as well as practitioners in the field, to
leverage research and analytics for effective human service programs. I
encourage you to check it out if research is your thing! We’ve also been in
conversation with Casey Family Programs about opportunities to build
stronger connections between child welfare and child support. I’m
encouraged by these efforts to expand our community more broadly in
service of families.
NCSEA is fortunate to have strong support from members and our
corporate partners, which affords us the opportunity to give back to the
communities we serve. The Board is working on a policy to make a
financial contribution as well as an investment of time in the locations of our
annual Leadership Symposium. This is a tangible way NCSEA as an
organization can support families and children, and I’m excited to see the
impact this will have in the future.

Also at the last Board meeting, we gave final approval for the NCSEA
Pledge to Diversity, Equity & Inclusion. This statement affirms our
commitment to educating and building a community that values the
experiences of those in our program; centers discussions of equity,
diversity, inclusion, and belonging; and addresses inequities especially
related to race. I’m proud of our organization’s efforts to keep this topic at
the forefront and to dig deep to uproot the seeds of oppression in our
systems.
I also want to share with you an opportunity you will have to provide
feedback to NCSEA. We will be issuing a member engagement survey in
January to better understand your experiences with NCSEA and what we
can do to build a stronger NCSEA community. If you get a survey link, I
encourage you to take a few minutes to respond!
Finally, a quick shout-out for the Policy Forum coming in less than a month!
The planning team has outdone itself, and while there will be the usual
thought-provoking and leading policy discussions, we will also have many
new-to-us speakers sharing their expertise and giving us an opportunity to
think about connections with child support. You don’t want to miss it!
Wishing you a year of good things in 2024,
Erin Frisch
Erin Frisch has served as the Director of the Office of Child Support at the Michigan Department of Health
and Human Services (MDHHS) since 2012. In this role she is responsible for paternity and child support
court order establishment, order modification and enforcement, and locating parents for over 700,000
children and families. She also co-leads the MDHHS Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Council—a role she
has had since 2019. Erin served from 2019-2020 as Senior Chief Deputy Director for Opportunity at
MDHHS where she oversaw the children’s services agency, the bureau of community services, and the
economic stability administration and focused on integration between public assistance programs and
health, community services, child support and child welfare to reduce poverty for Michiganders. Erin is a
former President of the National Council of Child Support Directors and is the current President of the
National Child Support Engagement Association. Erin graduated from James Madison College at Michigan
State University and has a son and a daughter.

The Profound Impact of Enhanced
Domestic Violence Training and
Practices in Arizona
by Jonell Sullivan, Operations Administrator,
Arizona Department of Economic Security,
Division of Child Support Services
In October 2018, the Arizona Division of Child Support
Services (DCSS) introduced several enhancements to
domestic violence protocol that have made a profound
impact on employees. Through training and system
enhancements, we have bolstered our processes to protect
customer information and refer survivors to organizations
that may help them to safety.
When we first introduced the new protocols, our team was concerned about
adding the responsibility of domestic violence (DV) advocacy in addition to
already large caseloads. To alleviate concerns, we assured our teams that
they are not expected to advocate for domestic violence prevention, but to
recognize, respond, and refer customers who may need domestic violence
supportive services in addition to child support services.
Family Safety Questionnaire
We introduced a family safety screening questionnaire and
trained employees to administer it to every customer orally.
"The family safety questionnaire is a very important first step
to aid customers,” said Child Support Services Officer Bradley
LaCroix. “Sometimes I can sense customers hesitate to
answer; perhaps they are considering certain experiences. Either way, I
tend to err on the side of caution and apply an NDI [non-disclosure
indicator].”
Employees have expanded their knowledge extensively and engaged with
the training, asking clarifying questions, gaining a greater understanding,

and seeking guidance as needed on specific cases. “They use the
questionnaire to recognize potential issues, respond by updating the
system ensuring all safety protocols are in place, and use the resources
that list supportive agencies by location to refer those in need,” said
Training Officer Rosaura Barrett.
Non-Disclosure Indicator (NDI)
If the outcome of the questionnaire indicates any form of
violence, the employee adds the NDI to the case in our case
management system, ATLAS. As part of the enhancements
in 2018, ATLAS was updated to display the NDI more clearly
on customers’ cases. Employees now see several warning
messages alerting them to proceed with caution if the NDI is activated and
family violence may be a concern with one or both parties. The additional
warning screens have been effective, and our teams know how to respond
appropriately.
Domestic Violence Training
The training prepares employees to recognize, respond, and
refer individuals who may be experiencing violence at home.
The DCSS Office of Professional Development partnered with
the Office of Child Support Services and the Arizona Coalition
to End Sexual and Domestic Violence (ACESDV) to develop
training. Representatives from ACESDV participate in classes by answering
trainees’ questions and providing referral resources.
Safe Spaces, Self-Care, and Personal Growth
Our training officers are skilled at creating a safe space. “It’s
rewarding to know I have succeeded at creating the space
necessary for a learner to self-disclose,” explained Rosaura.
“Helping families to safety is deeply fulfilling.”
The classes can be triggering for some employees. “Navigating the feelings
it brought to the surface was difficult at times, but overall the training taught
us how to appropriately handle domestic violence conditions both with
customers and, honestly, outside the workplace as well," said Bradley. At
the end of the classes, DCSS Training Officer Leticia Colbey encourages

the team to practice self-care that evening. She invites them to reflect on
things that bring them joy, such as hugging loved ones.
“The DV education has
changed my perspective of
why it can take so long for
victims to leave and why
they sometimes return to
the place where violence
could happen again.”
– Leticia Colbey
Leticia teaches the domestic violence
classes monthly. “The DV education has
changed my perspective of why it can take
so long for victims to leave and why they
sometimes return to the place where
violence could happen again,” said Leticia.
“I learned that not every DV survivor has
some place they can go, and some have no
one in this world but the DV perpetrator,”
she said. With her new perspective, instead
of advising a survivor to leave, Leticia asks
“What can I do to help?”
“Personally, instructing DV training has improved my understanding…I’m
more knowledgeable about how to engage in conversations with survivors
without being intrusive and provide affirmations, empowerment, respect
and, of course, lots of love,” Rosaura said.
When new employees join DCSS, they take the DV training and gain
access to resources they can use to refer customers to safety as needed.
Jonell Sullivan is the Operations Administrator over Compliance and Financials for the Department of
Economic Security, Division of Child Support Services. Jonell led the team in transforming how Arizona
child support cases are processed when domestic violence is a concern.

Congress Shines a Light on
Federal Tax Information and the
Child Support Program
by Jim Fleming, Tom Joseph, Diane Potts,
Susan Smith, Bryan Tribble, and Vicki Turetsky
On November 29, 2023, the Chairman of the House Ways and Means
Committee convened a joint meeting of the Work and Welfare and
Oversight Subcommittees. The announcement of the hearing listed the
topic as “Strengthening the Child Support Enforcement Program for States
and Tribes” and later described the hearing as pertaining to “Child Support
Enforcement and the Internal Revenue Code.”
Widely believed to be the first Congressional hearing on child support in
more than 20 years, CSQ committee member and former NCSEA
President Diane Potts interviewed four witnesses who testified at the
hearing, as well as NCSEA’s advocate Tom Joseph.
Tom, the House has not yet introduced legislation in this area. Is it
common to hold a hearing without a bill to discuss?
The House and Senate hold hearings throughout the year on a
wide range of topics in which there is a federal interest. The
majority party determines what issues will be heard and
identifies most of the witnesses. At times, hearings are political, with the
majority party deciding that an issue, regardless of whether a bill is
introduced, is of interest to the public and may be framed to garner
support for the majority party’s views. Most hearings, however, either set
the stage for future legislation or are conducted to obtain input on a bill
already introduced.
Witnesses are key to the hearing process. Based on their testimony and
the following question and answer period, the committee of jurisdiction
over the issue (here, House Ways and Means) uses the hearing to
determine how a future or existing bill should be written or amended to
achieve the desired policy. Representatives and senators consider the

witnesses to be experts on the subject at hand. Opening statements by
committee members and their questions of witnesses also provide
insight into the support or opposition to the issue among the committee
members.
If the majority party decides that legislation is necessary to address the
issue, it will schedule a time for a markup of the draft bill. Before the
markup, sponsors of the bill often cite supporting testimony from the
legislative hearing, along with comments filed after the hearing, that
helped them draft the bill and support their position. The markup then
proceeds with amendments (‘marks’) to make changes to the underlying
bill. Once approved, the legislation will go to the floor for debate.
Thank you, Tom, for that very helpful background! Now, let’s hear from four
of the witnesses at the hearing: Vicki Turetsky, Jim Fleming, Sue Smith,
and Bryan Tribble. First question: what went through your mind when
you were first asked to testify?
I was honored and hesitant at the same time. I am semi-retired
now and thought I had put all of that behind me. But I
appreciated the opportunity to stand up for the child support
program. During my time in office, I worked extensively with the IRS to
resolve FTI audit issues under section 6103. We also urged that
Congress include direct tribal tax offset authority as part of the 2014
FPLS tribal access legislation proposed by the Obama administration.
I was excited that the tribal parity/contractor issue was getting so
much attention from Congress. I was also glad for the chance to
tell Congress about the tribal consortium that North Dakota
helps, and how that innovative project has been suspended because of
a similar change in the IRS’s position on disclosures.
There were a host of thoughts, mostly centered around whether
this was something of which I was capable, whether I was the
best person to speak regarding something as critical as federal
tax information to so many families served by the states, tribes, and
territories, etc. Then, after I received permission from my leadership and
our Governor’s Office, it became a reality that this was something I was
going to do. So, I began preparing.

I was asked to testify on Monday afternoon, just two days before
the hearing. I felt I was not the expert from my office who should
have been testifying, but I was chosen to stand in for the most
knowledgeable person in our Tribal Offset Partnership program, who
was injured and unable to fly.
Above: Child support witnesses testifying at the Work and Welfare and Oversight
Subcommittees hearing on child support enforcement. Front row (left to right): Vicki Turetsky,
Independent Consultant; Jim Fleming, Child Support Director, State of North Dakota; Bryan
Tribble, IV-D Administrator, State of Illinois; Susan Smith, Director, Lac Courte Oreilles Child
Support Program; and Marley Corbine, mother. Back row (left to right): Tom Joseph, Vice
President and Managing Partner, Paragon Government Relations; Lisa Skenandore, Systems
and Methods, Inc.; and Tish Keahna Kruzan, Lac Courte Oreilles Child Support Program.
Can you describe the speaker selection process that you
experienced?
A group of folks from NTCSA, NCCSD, and NCSEA were
included in a string of emails with committee staff following a
virtual meeting on November 14. One of the committee staff
replied to me a few days later asking if I would be available on
November 29 in Washington DC. Since the hearing was still tentative, I
was asked not to tell anyone about the possibility of the hearing. After
that, I had a few emails with committee staff and a call from committee
staff the day before the hearing. At some point, I was advised I was the
majority’s witness, which felt strange since I really hadn’t perceived this
as a partisan issue.

I exchanged a series of emails with staff, then had a meeting to
provide them with my perspective on the issue and explain how
it would impact the families of Illinois. After that, I was told of the
possibility of the hearing. So, I started to work through the approval
process.
As I mentioned, I was a last-minute substitute for another person
from my office.
I was asked to be the witness for the minority Members. I have
worked with the committee staff for 25 years and got a phone
call just before Thanksgiving.
How did you prepare?
I went back through many emails, meeting minutes, etc., that we
have had on this topic over the last year or so. I first reached out
to directors who have been on the front lines of this issue to get
information and direction as to what would resonate. Then, I worked with
our state staff to obtain relative data in an attempt to be able to provide
compelling data and reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and guidance.
I drafted my prepared remarks, compiled a few other possible talking
points, and finally met with my leadership to ensure their goals were met
as well.
I worked with the NTCSA’s Legislative Committee (Tish Keahna,
Lisa Skenandore) to rework the previously prepared testimony to
fit my testifying instead.
I knew Jim, Bryan, and Sue would do a great job laying out the
specifics of the FTI issue. I had a different role in mind for
myself–to help translate child support to the tax world. It was a
joint committee hearing, with many members and their staff having
limited familiarity with the child support program and the important
income support it provides to families. I thought the committee members
might want more context and knew I had only five minutes to give oral
testimony. But I had a method–once I had written my testimony, I
chopped it down to three triple-spaced pages. I tried to distill my written
testimony to make three points: (1) child support is a major income
source for families with limited income; (2) the child support program is

inter-jurisdictional; and (3) the program’s core is secure data
management.
At first, it was just a possibility of a hearing, so I did my best to
get some other stuff done. By the Tuesday before Thanksgiving,
it was pretty clear that the hearing was going to happen, so I
asked myself how I would explain this complicated issue to my own
legislature and started typing. After stealing as much time as I could to
work on my testimony while hosting Thanksgiving, I shared my draft with
folks from NTCSA, NCSEA, and NCCSD on Sunday afternoon. They
gave me some great feedback very quickly so I could submit my
testimony by the deadline of 48 hours before the hearing. After hitting
“send” on the written remarks, I started reading my testimony out loud
and removing material until I could get my verbal remarks in under five
minutes. It was a tough editing task, but it prepared me well for the
hearing.
What made you more nervous beforehand–developing and delivering
your prepared remarks? Or the Q&A? Was it easier or more difficult
than you imagined?
I really did not have enough time to prepare. Also, one of the
questions I was asked I had heard before. But when I was asked
the question, it became intertwined with a different question. I
was uncertain what the representative was trying to ask of me, and it
was hard for me to answer.
Before I served as OCSS commissioner, I had a long career as
a national policy advocate. I spent a lot of time on the hill and
had previously worked on legislation with a few of the Committee
Members. I’ve testified about 25 times before Congressional and state
committees. But the last time I testified before a Congressional
committee was more than 13 years ago, and I have turned down most
public speaking requests since leaving OCSS. I am shy, to begin with,
and I was nervous that I was out of practice and that my public speaking
skills were rusty. But once I got started, I was comfortable. Q & A is
always a wild card, but I had tried to prepare for questions ahead of
time.

Preparing the remarks because it is so hard to explain a
complicated issue like this, knowing you have to be brief and
concise in your written testimony and only get five minutes to
testify. Getting down to five minutes was much harder than I imagined.
The Q&A was easier by comparison.
Easily it was delivering the prepared remarks. I started to have a
bit of a panic attack as everything first got underway. Once I
convinced myself that all I had to do was read, I breathed a little
and began to calm down. I think the whole experience was probably
easier than I imagined. When I began speaking, and following the lead
of the other amazing people with whom I was so fortunate to be able to
work that day, it became easier. There may have even been a covert fist
bump under the table, and it really did become kind of fun.
When you look back on that day, what are a few things that stick in
your mind?
I enjoyed reconnecting with hill staff, reuniting with long-time
colleagues, and meeting Marley Corbine, who gave
Congressional Members a clear-eyed view of how withholding
FTI access has harmed tribal families. I especially appreciated Rep.
Gwen Moore’s emphasis on the importance of providing tribal parity for
direct tax offset authority. I also appreciated the bipartisan atmosphere
of the hearing and happily greeted Committee Members, including
Minority Leader Danny Davis and Rep. Moore, both of whom have such
long legislative records of supporting families.
"My career started on Capitol Hill... felt a little like I had
come full circle. As nervous as I was... the warm support
from colleagues before and after the hearing was amazing."
- Jim Fleming
It was a day full of reflection. My career started on Capitol Hill in
August 1989, so it felt a little like I had come full circle. My late
dad and uncle loved politics and probably would have flown out
with me – they were certainly there in spirit. As nervous as I was about

speaking on behalf of the whole child support program at such an
important hearing, the warm support from colleagues before and after the
hearing was amazing. And there may have been an under-the-table fist
bump at one point.
How nervous I was that day is definitely at the top. After that was
the outpouring of well wishes and support I received before the
hearing. Then, there were the congratulatory emails after. I know
we talk about the community and teamwork there is within our small
world of child support, but it is so very true. The level of support I
received and the kindness that was extended, before, during, and
after… all I can say is thank you! It truly meant more to me than any of
you will ever know. On a personal note, I learned that testifying before
Congress was a bucket list item I never knew I had.
What a great job Jim Fleming, Bryan Tribble, Vicki Turetsky, and
Marley Corbine did. I felt there was no congressional
representative who was objecting to fixing the need for Direct
Federal Tax Offset for Tribal Child Support Programs or to the clarifying
of Contractor language for States and Tribes. I felt several of the
Congressional Representatives and their staff who I talked to were
sincere in their efforts going forward to get this done.
Do you think the hearing was effective? What would make it a
successful hearing?
Yes, from the responses and body language of the
subcommittee members, it seemed clear that they were learning
helpful information and saw a problem they wanted to fix. What
would make it a successful hearing? Just the attention to the issue and
having each subcommittee member speak on the record in favor of
strengthening the child support program and fixing the tribal parity and
contractor issues.
I feel that it was very effective. Our role was to succinctly provide
information and details to lawmakers who are in a position to
provide our programs and the families we serve with a remedy
for the current issue that would seriously and negatively impact so
many. What would make it a successful hearing? Ultimately, the

“success” is out of our hands. It will truly be a success when the issue
no longer exists, and no family is being negatively impacted.
Yes, I feel the hearing was effective. It put urgency on the need
for Congress to fix this problem. Success comes when Congress
passes the legislation needed to fix the need for Direct Federal
Tax Offset for Tribal Child Support Programs and to clarify contractor
access for States and Tribes.
I do. Ultimately, the success of a hearing like this is effective
storytelling: Parents and children count on child support, and
they will lose out with narrowed FTI access. Conveying the
human impact of something as dry as section 6103 was as important as
describing the technical issues. I think the hearing was educational,
successfully communicating the importance of child support and the
urgency of continued FTI access for real families. I also think we were
able to convey that the child support program has a strong culture of
information confidentiality and security that holds protection of tax and
other personal data to the highest standards. I think Members came
away from the hearing understanding that narrowed FTI access means
that state and federal costs would skyrocket to maintain the same level
of program effectiveness–and that many states would be unable to
comply.
Would you do it again?
Absolutely!
"This hearing also places a light on the urgency for Congress
to pass a bill... to ensure all Tribal and State Child Support
agencies are able to continue to serve children and families."
- Susan Smith
Yes, most definitely. I feel it was an important step in solving this
issue. This hearing also sheds light on the urgency for Congress
to pass a bill to make the changes necessary to ensure all Tribal

and State Child Support agencies can continue to serve children and
families.
Yes, if I thought it could contribute and add value and bring a
specific perspective, I’d be honored. But I am definitely ready to
pass the baton!
In a heartbeat. I love talking to legislators about child support
and sharing what key partners they can be in strengthening the
program for families. I usually only get to do that with my state
legislature, but if Congress gives us the chance to talk about improving
the program, we should definitely take advantage of that opportunity.
Meet David! The true star of the November 29 Congressional
hearing was David, son of witness Marley Corbine. According
to his mom, David loves playing peek-a-boo, being sung to,
cuddles, and bath time. He is almost rolling over! What a great
example of the millions of children served by the Child
Support program every day.
Thank you all for sharing with us your experience as Congressional
witnesses. One last question–did you have a favorite moment during
the hearing?

It was seeing the awesome young mother, Marley Corbine, with
her baby there to testify before the Congressional Committees.
Well, we all were smitten with Marley’s baby in the audience. I
also loved how Bryan lit up when he described his state’s
innovative policies like 100% family payments. I felt so proud of
the dedication and accomplishments of the three child support directors
on the panel with me–and missed being in the fray.
I like Vicki’s word–we were smitten with Marley’s baby, David. I
could not have imagined ahead of time how impactful it was to
have a young child in the room whose receipt of child support
hinged on whether the committee changed federal law to give tribes
access to FTI. It was very powerful. For the grandparents on the
subcommittees, it probably verged on being irresistible.
I have devoted my entire professional career to serving in the
Illinois child support program. Hearing Illinois referred to as a
“leader” by members of the subcommittee and knowing that my
friends and co-workers would hear this too, made me proud of what we
have been able to accomplish together as a team and what more we will
achieve for the families of our great state.
I would like to close by congratulating all of you on representing the child
support community well on an important issue.
Jim Fleming is the director of the Child Support Section of the North Dakota Department of Health and
Human Services, Immediate Past President of the National Child Support Engagement Association
(NCSEA), member of the Board of Directors for the Western Intergovernmental Child Support Engagement
Council (WICSEC), and former President of the National Council of Child Support Directors (NCCSD). 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 NCCSD Executive Committee and the editorial
committee for the NCSEA Child Support CommuniQue. Jim also co-chairs NCCSD’s Employer
Collaboration Committee. In 2023, Jim was given a Partnership Award for Professional Excellence from the
National Tribal Child Support Association. Jim was named the 2022 recipient of the American Payroll
Association’s Government Partner Award. He received his B.A. from the University of North Dakota and his
J.D. from Notre Dame Law School.

Tom Joseph has represented public sector clients in Washington, D.C., since the early 1980’s. He has
advocated on behalf of NCSEA since 2010. Tom’s career began with the National Association of Counties
(NACo), where he focused on health and human services issues. He later served as NACo’s deputy
director of its legislative department, where he helped manage their lobbying efforts and federal policy
development. Tom left NACo to help establish a Washington, DC, office for Los Angeles County, where he
served full-time as the County’s deputy legislative director. Tom is now Vice President and Managing
Partner at Paragon Government Relations. His firm represents a number of national and state public sector
associations as well as individual county governments. A native Minnesotan and graduate of St. Olaf
College and Duke University, Tom resides in Maryland with his wife Jennifer. As empty nesters, their dog
Phoebe has become their transitional ‘child’ who joins them on their early morning runs.
Diane Potts is the Child Support Lead Director on the National Strategy Team at CGI Technologies and
Solutions Inc. Diane serves on the NCSEA Board of Directors and is co-chair of NCSEA’s Policy and
Government Relations Committee as well as an NCSEA Past-President, past Secretary, and an Honorary
Lifetime Member. Diane also is on the Board of Directors for the Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support
Association (ERICSA) and currently serves as Vice President of Policy and Legislation. In May 2023, she
was awarded ERICSA’s Intergovernmental Award. For six years, Diane was the Illinois Deputy Attorney
General for Child Support. She was appointed as the official observer to the Uniform Law Commission’s
amendment of the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) on NCSEA’s behalf and currently sits on the UPA’s
Enactment Committee. In 2015, she received the Illinois Child Support Lifetime Achievement Award. Diane
received her law degree from Washington University Law School and her undergraduate degree from the
University of Illinois.
Vicki Turetsky is an independent consultant to foundations, nonprofit organizations, and states, and has
authored numerous publications. Between 2009 and 2017, she served as commissioner for the federal
Office of Child Support Services, leading efforts to adopt evidence-based and family-centered policies,
practices, and research that prioritize family well-being, parent engagement, and program equity.
Previously, Ms. Turetsky was the family policy director for the Washington, DC-based Center for Law and
Social Policy (CLASP). She also held positions in the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, Minnesota
Department of Human Services, MDRC, and Union County Legal Services in New Jersey. She is a former
NCSEA board member, actively participated in the policy and conference planning committees, and wrote a
monthly Congressional update column for the Child Support Quarterly for many years. Her work has been
recognized by the Burton Awards (in association with the Library of Congress and American Bar
Association), the National Child Support Engagement Association, the National Tribal Child Support
Association, the Administration for Children and Families, the State of Minnesota, the Annie E. Casey
Foundation, and other organizations. She received her B.A. from the University of Minnesota and her J.D.
from the University of Chicago Law School in 1982.
Susan Smith is currently the Director of the Lac Courte Oreilles Child Support Program. She is a past
President of the National Association of Tribal Child Support Directors and former chair of the IRS-
Legislative Committee. Sue currently serves on the NTCSA Board. She has served on the H.H.S. Assistant
Secretary’s Tribal Advisory Committee. Sue's work history includes Instructor for Professional Development
and Business Ethics at the Lac Courte Oreilles Community College; Lac Courte Oreilles Coordinator for the
Coordinated Services Teams; Oversight of the Lac Courte Oreilles Income Maintenance Program; Director
for the Dallas Early Learning Center; Quality Control Trainer for Hutchinson Technology; Supervisor/Trainer

for Cray Research. Sue has a bachelor's in business administration and is a graduate of Leadership 21
through Cooperative, State, Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES).
Bryan Tribble, with over two decades of dedicated service in various capacities within the Illinois
Department of Healthcare and Family Services–Division of Child Support Services (CSS), boasts a rich
background in policy development, administration, and leadership. His journey as an accountant
commenced in 2001, evolving swiftly to spearhead pivotal projects like the Professional and Recreational
License Revocation and the Administrative Driver’s License Suspension. Passionate about merging child
support expertise with research and implementation, Bryan transitioned to managerial roles in policy,
eventually assuming the helm as the IV-D Administrator for the State of Illinois in 2021. Throughout his
tenure, Bryan actively contributed to the Illinois Family Support Enforcement Association (IFSEA), holding
multiple leadership positions and continuing his involvement as an appointed director. Nationally, he
participated in various capacities within the National Child Support Engagement Association (NCSEA),
including committee roles focused on policy, government relations, and emerging issues. Bryan remains a
committed member of the NCCSD Policy and Practice Committee, showcasing an enduring commitment to
advancing child support policies and practices.

Behavioral Economics and Attracting
Customers to the IV-D Program
by Taylor Ashe, Policy Program Consultant - Program Initiatives,
Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement
In the book Nudge: The Final Edition, Nobel Prize in
Economics winner Richard Thaler and author Cass
Sunstein present a comprehensive introduction to
behavioral economics for the individual,
governments, and society as a whole. i Building off the
comprehensive research on human decision-making
pioneered by Daniel Kahneman, this book highlights
how child support professionals can think of
themselves as “choice architects” who are
“responsible for organizing the context in which
people make decisions” every time they build or
engage in an interaction with parents. ii
At the core of behavioral economics is the discovery that humans make
decisions with countless biases at play. These biases are always present
and inform the way we navigate websites, read email, or process and
internalize advertising. Like the architects who design the built world, child
support professionals have a range of tools available when designing
interactions with potential customers that can help integrate biased human
decision-making into an informed, easy, and pleasant choice architecture

experience. Some of the more powerful tools noted in Nudge and in much
other behavioral economic research are described below:
• Default options are powerful. In countless experiments, defaults
have been found to be highly effective. iii The Texas Office of the
Attorney General received a waiver from the federal Office of Child
Support Services (OCSS) in 1996 that allowed the Texas Child
Support Division to bypass the requirement that families must apply
for IV-D services and pay a fee unless the child is receiving certain
federally-funded benefits. With this waiver, Texas enacted a program
that automatically enrolled all new child support orders in divorce
cases into the IV-D program in counties that chose to participate.
These families could opt out if they chose to, but the default option
was automatic enrollment. An evaluation of this program showed it
was effective; it increased the IV-D caseload and improved
collections. iv After allowing this program to operate for many years,
OCSS eventually terminated the waiver in 2021. Since then, the
Texas Division of Child Support has implemented a streamlined
application process for parties in divorce cases who want to opt into
IV-D services in those counties that participated in the waiver.
• Humans are social creatures. There are countless ways in which
the actions of others who share aspects of identity (political affiliation,
parenthood status, job, etc.) have a profound effect on the decisions
humans make. Language such as, “Parents who work full-time like
you…” can be powerful ways to increase customer engagement.
• Give feedback during a decision-making event. Indicators such as
a progress bar showing how much is left on an online application or
green checkmarks next to the correct format for email addresses and
phone numbers provide real-time feedback to customers and
encourage their decision to continue.
• Describe the result of a choice as a real-world outcome. For
example: “By checking this box, a Family Violence Indicator (FVI) will
be placed on your account for you and your dependents. This will
ensure that none of your personal identifiable information including
address or phone number are shared with the other parent.”

While these are powerful tools that can be used to improve a potential
customer’s experience, considerable thought should be given to the ethical
dimensions surrounding choice architecture. Thaler and Sunstein note that
the purpose of their exploration of “nudges” is to encourage “efforts…to
steer people’s choices in directions that improve their lives.” v In all choice
architecture and interaction design, this purpose should always remain at
the center.
Great Customer Service is at the Heart of the Connection
“Great customer service
means adapting to the
needs of the current
population…effective
digital marketing can be a
key resource in expanding
knowledge about the child
support system”
Ensuring agencies are focused on
providing great customer service is at the
heart of connecting to current customers
and drawing in new ones. In January 2023,
the Urban Institute (UI) released a brief
entitled “Improvements in Public Programs’
Customer Service Experiences Could
Better Meet Enrollees’ Needs and Help
Build Trust in Government.” The brief
centered on follow-up research from the
December 2021 Urban Institute Well-Being and Basic Needs Survey, and
interviewed 27 nonelderly adults who had applied for or received TANF
cash assistance at that time and reported an enrollment challenge. While
focused specifically on TANF and Medicaid/CHIP enrollees, the brief
provides broad lessons that can be applied to customer service
experiences across all government service programs, including child
support.
First, educating this specific demographic of their eligibility and the benefits
of the child support program is important. UI researchers highlighted that
potential customers learn about programs and eligibility requirements
through various sources, including other public programs or fellow
applicants, with most applying on their own. In addition, a study by the Pew
Research Center in late 2018 showed that 81% of Americans “rely a lot on
their own research,” and that Google was the single most commonlynamed
digital tool vi . Digital marketing complements the idea of meeting
customers where they are. Great customer service means adapting to the
needs of the current population, so effective digital marketing can be a key

esource in expanding knowledge about the child support system to those
who are unaware of the services they could receive.
UI researchers identified four common challenges applying for, enrolling in,
and renewing Medicaid/CHIP or TANF:
• Difficulty finding information about how to complete the application;
• Unclear documentation requirements;
• Long waiting periods and tight timelines to submit documentation;
and
• Frustrating renewal process.
Ultimately, these challenges triggered delays in getting assistance and had
“negative consequences on [customers’] lives”. vii Utilizing behavioral
economics to make it easy for potential customers is directly in line with the
first three of the researchers’ primary suggestions for improving customer
service: reduce paperwork requirements; increase automatic
enrollment/joint applications between programs; and improve state agency
websites and online application systems. viii Great customer service means
clearing unnecessary blockages in the application process and streamlining
the customer’s experience to include as few pages, or clicks, as possible.
While all of these suggestions may not be applicable in every scenario,
respecting the busy lives that customers lead reiterates the child support
program’s commitment to customers’ value and participation.
The last and perhaps the most powerful findings from UI indicate the
impact of being nice. Respondents explained to researchers that applying
for public programs can feel “overwhelming” and “stressful,” in addition to
feeling stigmatizing. ix In this vulnerable state, customers were especially
sensitive to the perceived judgments of staff and caseworkers. This aligns
with findings that have emerged from behavioral research highlighting the
long shadow cast over decision-making by the experience and memory of
first impressions, known as the “primary effect.” x These findings also
parallel the digital marketing grants’ results indicating that “judgment-free”
marketing campaigns connected more effectively with potential customers.
This research implores child support leaders to take to heart the Urban
Institute’s suggestions to improve customer service by “hiring and training
staff to be empathetic, nonjudgmental, and committed to resolving
applicants’ questions and issues” xi to ensure the emotional needs of our

customers are not forgotten. Potential customers will remember how they
felt on that first phone call, or the language on their first online application,
and it’s imperative that child support professionals put their most
compassionate foot forward from the beginning.
Conclusion & Practical Tips for Attracting Customers to the IV-D
Program
Behavioral economics suggest that child support agencies
can attract potential customers by making it easy for them to
apply and giving them great customer service. Even with all
the digital ways to communicate with current customers and
potential customers, many still prefer traditional ways of
communicating, such as phone calls and face-to-face
appointments. The best way to engage potential customers is to
communicate with them in their preferred way and to continuously improve
the ways the child support program offers services, promotes programs,
and communicates with customers. In addition to targeting a specific
audience, to achieve the best results agencies must keep in mind that
marketing messages should reflect the social and economic context in
which potentially eligible clients live.
i
Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein, (2021) Nudge: The Final Edition
ii
Thaler and Sunstein, 3
iii
Ibid., 11
iv
Daniel Schroeder and Ashweeta Patnaik (2016) Texas Integrated Child Support System: Final Evaluation Report Ray Marshall Center,
University of Texas at Austin.
https://sites.utexas.edu/raymarshallcenter/files/2016/10/ICSS_Local-Rule_Final_Sep2016.pdf
v
Thaler and Sunstein, 3
vi
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/03/05/most-americans-rely-on-their-own-research-to-make-big-decisions-and-that-oftenmeans-online-searches/
vii
https://www.urban.org/research/publication/improvements-public-programs-customer-service-experiences, 3
viii
Ibid.
ix
Ibid., 13
x
APA Dictionary of Psychology, Primacy Effect https://dictionary.apa.org/primacy-effects
xi
https://www.urban.org/research/publication/improvements-public-programs-customer-service-experiences, 3
Taylor Ashe is a Policy Program Consultant for the Program Initiatives team with the Virginia Division of
Child Support Enforcement. He started with the agency in February of 2021 and currently serves as the
Project Manager for Virginia’s Safe Access for Victims’ Economic Security (SAVES) demonstration grant.
Taylor’s interests in research design, data analysis, and critical theory keep him busy reading about,
designing, and implementing human-centered services that reflect the needs of the citizens he serves.
Taylor has a master’s degree in public administration from the University of Georgia.

Texas Succeeds in Extending New Hire
Reporting Requirements to Rideshare Drivers
by Joel Rogers, Associate Deputy Attorney General for Child
Support Legal Services, Texas Office of the Attorney General
In 2021, the Texas Legislature passed House Bill (HB) 458, which
specifically clarified that rideshare companies operating in Texas must
comply with the state’s new hire reporting requirements for their
independent contractor drivers. Upon enactment by the Governor, this
legislation, combined with collaboration among the Texas Title IV-D agency,
the Office of the Attorney General – Child Support Division (OAG-CSD),
and one major rideshare company, has generated millions of dollars in new
child support collections through income withholding for Texas families.
As a bit of background, Texas law has historically defined compensation
paid to independent contractors as “earnings” and specified that “earnings”
are the basis of guideline child support calculations and are subject to
income withholding for child support. However, the term “earnings” was not
used in the state’s statutes related to new hire reporting requirements,
which just referred to traditional employment terms like “employer” and
“employee.”
In 2015, the Texas Legislature attempted to address this issue by
expanding the definition of “employee” in the new hire reporting laws to
include “individuals hired as independent contractors.” However, other
language in the state’s new hire reporting statutes still utilized terms like
“employer,” “newly hired,” and “rehired,” which still seemed to apply

primarily to traditional W-2 employees and
not to independent contractors earning
compensation through the gig economy,
such as rideshare or delivery drivers.
As a result, this initial legislative change did
not significantly increase new hire reporting
by companies utilizing independent
contractors. Specifically, this approach did
not seem effective in compelling rideshare
companies to utilize new hire reporting for
their independent contractor drivers. For
“The Texas child support
program strives to be a
leader in engaging with
companies and individuals
who operate in the gig
economy to ensure that they
comply with child support
laws and that support
obligations get paid.”
example, in the six-month period before the legislative change, the OAG-
CSD received only 27 new hire reports from one of the major national
rideshare companies, all related to their full-time equivalent employees.
When HB 458 was filed by Representative Matt Shaheen in 2021, its stated
purpose was to remedy a concern that Texas’ statutes related to income
withholding and new hire reporting did not adequately address child
support collections for those working for “transportation network
companies” or “certain technology platforms used for deliveries.” A
rideshare company was termed a “transportation network company” under
existing Texas law, defined as an “entity that for compensation, enables a
passenger to prearrange with a driver, exclusively through the entity’s
digital network, a digitally prearranged ride.”

HB 458 addressed this issue by ensuring that the new hire reporting
requirements for Texas employers also applied to rideshare and similar
type delivery companies that employ large numbers of gig economy
workers. It did this by simply clarifying the definition of four statutory terms
that applied to the state’s new hire reporting program:
• “Earnings” was defined to include compensation from a
transportation network company and compensation from a person
that operates a technology platform used to make deliveries to
customers;
• “Employee” was defined to include a driver who logs in to the digital
network of a transportation network company, regardless of whether
the driver is considered an independent contractor, and an individual
who logs in to or otherwise uses a technology platform to make
deliveries for compensation;
• “Employer” was defined to include a transportation network
company and a person who operates a technology platform used to
make deliveries to customers; and
• “Newly Hired Employee” was defined to include individuals who
receive “earnings” from the employer and who might not strictly be
employed, hired, or rehired in the traditional sense.
Clarifying that rideshare and
similar type companies were
required under state law to
report their independent
contractor drivers to the OAG-
CSD’s State Directory of New
Hires would then help facilitate
the issuance of automated
income withholding orders
(IWOs) to the companies to
withhold any court-ordered
child support obligations from compensation paid to their drivers.
Upon enactment of the new law, but prior to its effective date of September
1, 2021, one major rideshare company, Lyft, immediately reached out to the
OAG-CSD to seek guidance to ensure that their company could be in

compliance with the clarified new hire reporting requirements that now
clearly applied to their 1099 independent contractor drivers. The OAG-
CSD’s Employment Services team began meeting with Lyft weekly to work
out logistical issues related to new hire reporting and income withholding
for their drivers. These weekly meetings continued for six months, well past
the law’s effective date.
Some of the issues addressed during the OAG-CSD’s collaboration with
Lyft were:
• Data/file transfer protocols for the state’s employer portal;
• Changes to the portal to create a new identification code for
independent contractors; and
• Instruction on how to properly respond electronically to National
Medical Support Notices that might now be generated to Lyft for
some of their drivers by the state’s automated child support system.
Lyft also made internal processing changes to
reroute IWOs for their drivers from their Payroll
Department to their Accounts Payable
Department since that department pays the
drivers. The OAG-CSD then worked with Lyft’s
Accounts Payable team, which lacked experience processing IWOs, by
providing instruction on properly calculating withholding amounts from
drivers’ periodic earnings, which optionally can be paid to some drivers as
often as daily, including addressing the maximum withholding limits.
Once the law took effect, the impact of both the legislative change and the
OAG-CSD’s collaboration with Lyft was readily apparent. Comparing
numbers for state fiscal year (SFY) 2022 (the year following the effective
date of the legislative change) to the prior year, in SFY 2021:
• IWOs to Lyft increased from 119 per year to almost 10,000 per year
(the monthly average increased from 10 to 828);
• Total yearly collections from Lyft increased from $227,000 to almost
$9.2 million (averaging over $765,000 per month); and
• Total cases paying from Lyft increased from an average of 37 per
month to almost 1,500 per month.

The ongoing successful impact of this legislation is also apparent in data
compiled from the most recently completed state fiscal year. In SFY 2023,
the OAG-CSD issued 7,428 income withholding orders for Lyft independent
contractors and collected over $7.5 million in child support for Texas
families.
The table below compares SFY 2021 results to SFY 2023 results,
illustrating the success the OAG-CSD has realized working with Lyft.
$900,000
$800,000
$700,000
Lyft Income Withholding Child Support
Collections
FY21/FY23 Comparison
Collections
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$0
Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July August
Month
FY21
FY23
The Texas child support program strives to be a leader in engaging with
companies and individuals who operate in the gig economy to ensure that
they comply with child support laws and that support obligations get paid. In
the upcoming months, the OAG-CSD will work with other major companies
in Texas that utilize rideshare or delivery drivers as independent contractors
to improve compliance with the state’s new hire reporting requirements and
increase the amount of support collected and distributed to families through
IWOs. Fortunately, following its collaboration with the OAG-CSD, Lyft
agreed to become a member of the agency’s Employer Task Force,

enabling them to be utilized as both a resource and an example when
approaching other rideshare or delivery companies.
Joel Rogers is the Associate Deputy Attorney General for Child Support Legal Services for the Texas
Office of the Attorney General. In that role, he supervises over 300 Assistant Attorneys General and
oversees all areas of legal practice for the Child Support Division. Mr. Rogers joined the Child Support
Division in 1995 and has worked in several areas of the agency, serving in various senior management
roles. Since 2011, Mr. Rogers has also served in a dual capacity as the Child Support Division’s legislative
attorney, representing the Title IV-D agency at the State Capitol and in legislative hearings. Mr. Rogers
graduated with a B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin in 1989 and received his J.D. from George
Washington University Law School in 1992.

NCSEA 2024 Policy Forum Preview
by Laura Galindo and Trish Skophammer,
NCSEA 2024 Policy Forum Co-chairs
We are excited to share a sneak peek into Policy Forum 2024! This year’s
theme is “Building Community, Centering Families, Advancing
Equity,” and we’re offering some great plenaries that address working with
the community, including the voices of those we serve and those with
whom we partner, and understanding the impact on families when child
support and other systems intersect.
Child support and human services professionals from around the country
will gather February 1-3 in Washington, D.C. for the annual Policy Forum.
NCSEA continues to provide rich content, dynamic speakers, and an
opportunity to network. We continue to move the child support program
forward through listening and learning from one another.
We set out to plan a conference that includes many voices, especially
those we don’t hear from often enough. We also wanted to dig into how
families are impacted when they are involved in multiple programs, and
how we can do more to collaborate so that families thrive.
On Thursday, we will hear from the federal Office of Child Support Services
(OCSS) Commissioner, Tanguler Gray, about how OCSS has collaborated
with other programs. Commissioner Gray will share achievements and
lessons learned along the way. We will also hear about recent OCSS
initiatives to support tribal child support programs and some preliminary
information about the Advancing Equity in Child Support grant. Also on

Thursday, NCSEA President Erin Frisch will lead a discussion on the future
of child support with staff from the Senate Committee on Finance and the
House Committee on Ways and Means. We will learn about hot topics on
the Hill and the initiatives and priorities that Congress is considering.
“This conversation will help
drive meaningful change to
improve the lives of children
and families.”
The Thursday afternoon line-up includes a
plenary on generative artificial intelligence
(AI). AI has been front and center in the
news recently, but what does it mean for
government agencies, what questions and
concerns are being discussed, and more
importantly, how can this technology help to better serve child support
clients/customers? Also on Thursday, we’ll learn about engaging the
community, leveraging strengths and perspectives, and the grassroots
connections that community-based organizations have with the people we
serve. This conversation will help drive meaningful change to improve the
lives of children and families.
Friday morning starts with a conversation with the
authors of The Injustice of Place: Uncovering the
Legacy of Poverty in America. This session will give
us a closer look at poverty in rural America,
including the challenges these communities face
and how the exploitation of resources has impacted
them. Friday morning also includes a plenary on
new and innovative approaches to employment
services. We will learn how programs are taking a family-centered
approach to employment services, and how our federal partners are
supporting this approach.
On Friday afternoon, we are excited to present
Heather McGhee, author of The Sum of Us: What
Racism Costs and How We Can Prosper Together.
Heather’s presentation will be followed by a
discussion-led session with President Frisch and
Commissioner Gray. This is an exciting opportunity
to learn how policies driven by structural racism

impact not just people of color but include real-life costs to everyone.
Saturday morning opens with a plenary on
tribal child support. Panelists include those
with a deep understanding of the unique
challenges and opportunities within tribal
communities. We will learn why improving
tribal child support involves collaboration
and cultural sensitivity. The second
“We will learn why
improving tribal child
support involves
collaboration and cultural
sensitivity.”
session on Saturday, and the final session of the Policy Forum, will explore
how policy development processes must evolve to gain a better
understanding of the direct impact on families. We will learn best practices
for including parents, guardians, and advocates to avoid unintended
consequences.
We look forward to seeing you in Washington, D.C. for the 2024 Policy
Forum, where we will continue to learn, think about, and discuss policies
and issues that influence the child support program. We hope you will join
us on the continued journey to a world where every child receives reliable
financial and emotional support.
Laura Galindo is a Senior Consultant with CSG Government Solutions in the Child Support Practice. Prior
to joining CSG Government Solutions in 2018, Laura served as the IV-D Director from December 2015
through April 2018. She was tapped as the IV-D Director while serving as the Deputy IV-A Director over
field operations. Laura worked for the State of New Mexico for over 29 years. Laura has been active in a
wide range of NCSEA committees such as Legislative Education, CommuiQue (CSQ), Emerging Issues &
Best Practices, Research, Audit, Nominating, Professional Development, Web-Talks, Leadership
Symposium, and Policy Forum, and is currently on the Board of Directors.
Dr. Trish Skophammer serves as the Child Support Services Division Director in the Ramsey County
Attorney’s Office in St. Paul, Minnesota. She has 26 years of experience in child support. She has been
involved in NCSEA for many years, co-chairing the Web-Talks committee, serving on the Leadership
Symposium and Policy Forum planning committees, the Emerging Issues and Leading Practices
subcommittee, and on the NCSEA Board as former Director. She actively participates in local associations
and committees, delivering talks on diverse subjects at national, regional, and local events. In addition to
her expertise in child support policy and practice, Trish’s expertise includes leadership topics such as
performance management, strategic planning, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. Trish has a master’s
degree in organizational leadership from Bethel University and a doctorate in public administration from
Hamline University.

Breaking the Mold: Exploring Non-Cash Child
Support Options for Parental Empowerment
by Karen Roye, Director, San Francisco Department of
Child Support Services
The welfare and well-being of children should always be a top priority in
any separation or divorce. When parents part ways, it becomes crucial to
establish a child support arrangement that ensures the child's needs are
met. Traditionally, child support payments have been made in cash, but
what if there were another way? What if parents had the freedom to choose
how they contribute to their child's well-being?
In recent years, a groundbreaking approach has emerged: non-cash child
support court orders. This innovative concept allows parents to move away
from traditional cash payments and instead consider alternative ways to
provide for their children.
With this knowledge in mind, the San Francisco Department of Child
Support Services (SF DCSS) initiated an in-kind pilot program. This article
details the motivations that prompted SF DCSS to pursue non-cash child
support court orders. In 2023, The Urban Institute (UI) worked with SF
DCSS to examine the department's pilot program, culminating in an indepth
analysis published in July 2023.
Access more detailed information concerning the pilot, including the entire
text from the UI brief and a two-page fact sheet, by clicking the proceeding
[linked] assets.

BRIEF
FACT SHEET
Understanding Non-Cash Child Support Court Orders
Before delving into the benefits and intricacies of non-cash child support
court orders, it's essential to understand the limitations of traditional cash
payments. While cash has been the go-to method, it may not always align
with the child's needs. Cash payments can be restrictive and may not
directly contribute to the child's well-being. This is where non-cash child
support options step in.
Non-cash child support court orders offer parents the freedom to explore
various support methods tailored to their child's needs. Instead of relying
solely on cash, parents can consider alternative arrangements that directly
benefit their child. This innovative approach empowers parents to think
outside the box and choose support methods that align with their situation
and their child's individual requirements.
The Benefits of Non-Cash Child Support Court Orders
One of the primary advantages of non-cash child support court orders is
the freedom and flexibility they provide. Through these arrangements,
parents can think creatively and find ways to support their children beyond

simple cash payments. They can contribute in meaningful ways that directly
impact their child's growth and development.
A non-cash support arrangement opens doors to various possibilities. For
instance, instead of paying cash, parents could choose to cover specific
expenses directly, such as medical bills, education fees, or extracurricular
activities. Taking care of these specific needs not only ensures the child's
well-being, but also fosters a sense of parental involvement and
responsibility.
Additionally, non-cash child support court orders emphasize parental
involvement in decision-making. Allowing parents to choose how they
support their child recognizes their unique perspective and the intimate
knowledge they have of their child's needs. This involvement builds a
sense of empowerment and collaboration, crucial elements for successful
co-parenting.
Parental Choice: Tailoring Support to the Child's Needs
“Parental choice is a
fundamental aspect of noncash
child support
arrangements. It allows
parents to consider the
specific needs of their child
and choose how they
contribute.”
Every child is unique, with diverse needs
and interests. Recognizing this diversity,
non-cash child support court orders provide
a platform for parents to tailor support
methods that cater specifically to their
child's requirements.
Parental choice is a fundamental aspect of
non-cash child support arrangements. It
allows parents to consider the specific needs of their child and choose how
they contribute. For example, a child with a passion for music might benefit
more from support that covers music lessons and instrument expenses
instead of a simple cash payment.
Furthermore, non-cash support arrangements encourage parents to think
critically about how they can best support their child's well-being. It
encourages communication and collaboration between parents, fostering
an environment of shared decision-making that benefits the child.
The Five-Stage Process Leading to a Non-Cash Child Support Court
Order

Creating a non-cash child support court order involves a five-stage process
that aims to gather information and ensure that the proposed support
arrangement aligns with the child's best interests.
Stage 1: Informing the parents about non-cash support options. In this
initial stage, the concept of non-cash child support court orders is
introduced to the parents. They learn about the benefits and possible
alternatives to cash payments.
Stage 2: Facilitating discussions between the parents. With an
understanding of non-cash support options, the parents engage in
facilitated discussions. These discussions allow them to express their
preferences, concerns, and explore various non-cash support
arrangements.
Stage 3: Mediation and negotiation to reach an agreement. Mediators play
a vital role in this stage, helping parents find common ground and negotiate
a non-cash support arrangement that works for both parties. The child's
best interests are always at the forefront of these discussions.
Stage 4: Assessing the proposed non-cash support arrangement. The
proposed non-cash support arrangement is carefully evaluated to ensure it
fulfills the child's needs. This assessment helps guarantee that the support
provided will genuinely benefit the child.
Stage 5: Final determination and modification of the child support order.
The court makes the final determination based on the information provided
by the parents, the facilitators, and the mediators. The child support order
is then modified to incorporate the agreed-upon, non-cash support
arrangements, providing a legally recognized framework.

Conclusion
Non-cash child support court orders represent a significant shift in how
parents contribute to their child's well-being during and after divorce or
separation. By allowing parents to move beyond cash payments and
consider alternative support arrangements, children benefit from more
tailored and meaningful support. This empowered parenting approach
encourages collaboration, parental involvement, and ultimately prioritizes
the best interests of the child. As we embrace non-cash child support
options, we are breaking the mold and paving the way for more
empowering and effective methods of child support.
The Team
San Francisco Local Child Support Agency
• Karen Roye, Director
• Carol Beckett, Assistant Director
• Lisa Saporito, Managing Attorney
• Freda Randolph Glenn, Operations
Manager
• Sheryl Myers, Operations Manager
San Francisco Unified Family Court
• Hon. Rebecca Wightman, Commissioner
Office of the Family Law Facilitator
• Judy B. Louie, Director
• Adriane Majlesi, Attorney
• Miguel Rivera, Attorney
• Eric Aguirre, Attorney
Family Court Services
• Felicia Fleming, Acting Manager
• Venecia Margarita, Family Court
Mediator
Special Advisors
• Hon. Abby Abinanti,
• Chief Judge of the Yurok Tribe
• Jennifer Burgess, Program
Manager Title IV-D (Director)
Karen M. Roye was appointed Director of the San Francisco Department of Child Support Services by
Mayor Gavin Newsom in 2004. Director Roye has been a pioneer in introducing innovative programs and
collaborations that revolutionized child support service delivery to custodial and non-custodial parents in
San Francisco. Today, SF DCSS provides a variety of service models that support parents such as: C-
NET, Enhanced Transitional Jobs Demonstration Project (Transitions SF), County Jail Outreach, Debt
Relief, and enhanced domestic violence case management. SF DCSS has developed a parental
empowerment portfolio of innovative services that includes early intervention strategies, family violence
prevention, referrals to employment services, and active collaborations with local partners. Director Roye’s
goal is to create service delivery models that keep pace with the needs of families today so that children
can continue to count on their parents for the financial and medical support they need to be healthy and
successful.