August 2021 CSQ
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
ChildSupportCommuniQue
Table of Contents<br />
July <strong>2021</strong><br />
President’s Message…………………………………………….…………….…….3<br />
Community Corner: Goodbye to Child Support (as we know it)........................5<br />
DEI Work Continues for the Child Support Community………………………...14<br />
Central Registries Doing What We Expect Them to Do………….…………….17<br />
Gender-Neutral Voluntary Establishments of Parentage ………………………25<br />
Motivational Interviewing……………………………………………………………31<br />
NCSEA Needs Your Input for the NCSEA Research Website…………………36<br />
<strong>2021</strong> Leadership Symposium Preview…………………….….………………….38<br />
Meet NCSEA U Alumni……………………………………………………………..41
President’s Message July <strong>2021</strong><br />
by Lisa Skenandore, SMI<br />
Greetings!<br />
I hope this finds you doing well and enjoying the change<br />
in seasons. This year, especially, I found myself happy<br />
to have summer arrive so I can enjoy the outdoors. It is<br />
hard to believe it has been over a year, although<br />
sometimes it feels longer, we have been living through<br />
the COVID-19 pandemic. I have been happy to see<br />
some normalcy return as well as the reemergence of regular activities. This<br />
spring and summer do seem to be a rejuvenation of sorts for us.<br />
Speaking of rejuvenation, it is almost the time of year when NCSEA passes<br />
the gavel for the next leader to take reign. My term as your President started<br />
ten months ago and, before I knew it, it is now almost over. Through it all this<br />
past year, I have been so very pleased to be a part of NCSEA’s great work.<br />
In terms of accomplishments, we not only held two record-breaking virtual<br />
conferences, but also will see our first in-person event return with the <strong>2021</strong><br />
NCSEA Leadership Symposium in the great city of Austin, Texas in <strong>August</strong>.<br />
I, like many of you, am very excited to return in person and not only learn<br />
from each other through the fantastic plenaries and sessions but also<br />
through the networking that the conference provides. It is only the beginning<br />
of many wonderful and engaging new relationships that we are blessed to<br />
develop through these events. I hope many of you will have the opportunity<br />
to join us this year as we have a fantastic event planned with six thoughtprovoking<br />
plenaries.<br />
I’m especially grateful to all our volunteers who make NCSEA what it is, the<br />
national voice for the child support community. Sitting from my seat, I see<br />
the incredible amount of teamwork and countless hours that go into each<br />
and every one of our committees. I am grateful to each of you for your<br />
passion and commitment to NCSEA and our community. I know my work will<br />
continue with NCSEA and I look forward to supporting President-Elect Lori<br />
Bengston in her journey this next year.<br />
I feel incredibly blessed to have had this opportunity. The NCSEA board<br />
members, executive committee, staff, and membership have all played such<br />
an integral role in the success of the association over the course of the past<br />
year. I know I could not have led without the immense support from all of
you. I thank you, Yaw’ko, for sharing your time and expertise with us and I<br />
hope that our paths continue to cross.<br />
All the best,<br />
Lisa<br />
Lisa Skenandore joined Systems and Methods Inc. as the Vice President of Business<br />
Development in January of 2016. Prior to joining SMI, Lisa led the Oneida Nation Child<br />
Support Department as IV-D Director which became a comprehensive tribal child<br />
support program in April of 2008. She began her career in child support when her tribe<br />
received its start-up grant in 2005. Along with child support she has also led other<br />
human service programming in the areas of child welfare, domestic violence, prevention<br />
and foster care. She has served as President of the National Tribal Child Support<br />
Association and National Association of Tribal Child Support Directors. Lisa currently<br />
serves as NCSEA President and is on the Board of Directors of the Eastern Regional<br />
Interstate Child Support Association. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Public<br />
Administration from the University of Wisconsin at Green Bay.
Goodbye to Child Support<br />
(As We Know It)<br />
by Jeff Ball, Project Manager, YoungWilliams<br />
I retired July 9 th . I have spent 34 years thinking about and working in the<br />
child support world. I found my career extremely rewarding. Like Forrest<br />
Gump, I was hanging around during many key moments in the history of<br />
the program, and I have seen its evolution into a well-regarded and welloperated<br />
program.<br />
It is time to ditch this paradigm.<br />
Since the national program’s birth in 1975 when Congress created Title IV-<br />
D, we have focused on collections as the measure of our success. Even<br />
the federal performance measures rely more on the collection base for the<br />
amount of incentive dollars a state receives than how the state performs in<br />
the five indicators.<br />
Parents owe over $113 billion in past due support. Some of it is interest; a<br />
large percentage is owed to governments for TANF reimbursement. But<br />
what sticks out is that most of the billions of past-due support are owed by<br />
parents who are low income, and disproportionately, people of color. Are<br />
we perpetuating poverty and parental discord?<br />
Originally, the goal in 1975 was reimbursing the federal, state, and local<br />
governments for the cost of welfare. The program broadened in the early<br />
1980s to assist parents who had never received public assistance.<br />
Eventually, the family’s past-due support became prioritized in the<br />
distribution chain over the government debt. Some states today pass part<br />
or all of the current support to parents receiving TANF instead of<br />
reimbursing government. We are incrementally moving away from first<br />
paying back governments to giving families their support dollars, whether<br />
timely paid or not.<br />
Today, we are examining the contours of our program and offering<br />
employment assistance to paying parents. We provide referrals to<br />
programs that can aid a parent to overcome barriers, not only to<br />
employment, but to fruitful interaction with his or her children.
But we have dropped ourselves, deus ex<br />
machina, into the lives of people, many<br />
of whom do not want us involved.<br />
Conversely, we have not involved<br />
ourselves in enough situations where our<br />
intervention may make a large difference<br />
to a family, but no one has reached out<br />
to us.<br />
By not representing either parent, we have often disregarded the<br />
arguments and concerns of parents, who appear pro se in the vast majority<br />
of our cases. They usually have a hard time navigating the rules of civil<br />
procedure and evidence in an adversarial court structure that they may<br />
have only previously experienced vicariously by watching Law and Order<br />
episodes.<br />
We usually have an inadequate referral for a parent who cannot see his or<br />
his kids. Our funding is siloed so that all but de minimis activities<br />
associated with parenting plans receive no federal funding.<br />
So what can we do to make two-household children’s lives better? How do<br />
we support children?<br />
Enough of incremental change, building on a 1975 model jazzed up to<br />
collect for parents instead of governments but with many of the<br />
weaknesses found in the original model.<br />
What are the elements of a new system to support children?<br />
The Economic Part<br />
First, we implement child support assurance and child support guarantees.<br />
What is this radical notion of child support assurance? It is an idea that has<br />
been floated since the 1980s. The Institute on Research and Poverty at the<br />
University of Wisconsin’s researchers have written extensively about the<br />
topic. Even the American Enterprise Institute has weighed in favor of the<br />
concept to reduce poverty in 2018. While the pay first model will have a<br />
price tag of several billion dollars, the collection activities that follow will<br />
keep us close to our current collection rate of about two dollars collected for<br />
every three dollars currently owed. Since time is not of the essence in most<br />
cases, since most if not all child support is paid before it is collected, we<br />
can recalibrate how we collect and devote fewer resources.
Child support assurance could be paid directly to the primary residential<br />
parent for the first $10,000 of child support owed per year for one child,<br />
$12,500 for two children, and $15,000 for three or more children. The<br />
program would pay support out in monthly increments and then collect it<br />
from the paying parent through income withholding and tax adjustments. A<br />
few other enforcement tools would be used, but not license suspension. No<br />
interest would accrue on past-due support. Any support order that includes<br />
payments above the assurance amount will be paid monthly through<br />
income withholding or through automatic withdrawal from a bank account.<br />
What is a child support guarantee? It is a floor of support for a child of lowincome<br />
parents who need a supplemental amount of money to even the<br />
playing field with other children. It is a cousin of the child credit that is<br />
starting in July <strong>2021</strong>.<br />
If the order for child support fails to provide sufficient support to meet the<br />
basic needs of the child, a floor of child support will supplement the ordered<br />
amount. For instance, the paying parent is incarcerated, the order is $300<br />
per year for one child, and the<br />
custodial parent’s contribution to<br />
child support used in the order<br />
calculation is $2400 per year. If<br />
the marginal cost of a child is<br />
$6,000 per year (the difference<br />
between the majority residential<br />
time parent’s costs for herself or<br />
himself and the cost for that<br />
What is a child support guarantee? It is a<br />
floor of support for a child of low-income<br />
parents who need a supplemental amount of<br />
money to even the playing field with other<br />
children. It is a cousin of the child credit that<br />
is starting in July <strong>2021</strong>.<br />
parent with one child), the government would pay $500 per month to the<br />
majority residential time parent minus the $200 monthly contribution that<br />
the parent could provide ($2400 divided by 12). So for the year, the<br />
government would pay $3600 to the family, and the paying parent would be<br />
billed for $300 of that amount, and whatever was not paid would be a debt<br />
on his or her taxes the next time they were filed.<br />
If the paying parent is granted parole and is gainfully employed in the<br />
future, the new income level would be used to adjust the support order<br />
automatically on an annual basis. Similar adjustments would be made for<br />
the majority residential time parent as well when it comes to the ordered<br />
amount and the minimum contribution that is then supplemented.
We also should institute a national age of majority at 18 or high school,<br />
whichever is later. The order goes down automatically when one child<br />
emancipates if there are younger children under the order. A disabled child<br />
may have support continued beyond the age of majority upon proof that the<br />
child is not<br />
able to be selfsupporting<br />
from any income<br />
source<br />
(including<br />
Supplemental<br />
Social<br />
Security Income).<br />
Custody<br />
switches and<br />
significant<br />
increases or<br />
decreases<br />
in overnights for<br />
the paying<br />
parent, once<br />
affirmed as<br />
accurate, instantly<br />
amend the<br />
support amount for<br />
the rest of<br />
the year,<br />
proportionately by months.<br />
The Parental Emotional Ties Part<br />
Title IV-D should be interwoven with the new Title IV-G, which addresses<br />
initial custody decisions, access and visitation issues, and parenting plans.<br />
The two parts of Title IV will have separate appropriations, yet the funding<br />
for each part can be used in the other part. In other words, Title IV-D as a<br />
funding source will not prohibit economic child support staff from working in<br />
unison with Title IV-G emotional child support staff. The more seamless the<br />
process the better, including the sharing of computer systems.<br />
Title IV-G would offer mediation of custody and visitation, promotion of<br />
parenting plans, and provide paid referrals for counseling on anger<br />
management and domestic violence victim therapy as part of the new<br />
approach. Title IV-G would also work with the Court Appointed Special<br />
Advocate Program (CASA) on supervised visitation assistance. Title IV-G<br />
staff would entertain modifications of parenting plans when there were<br />
substantial changes in circumstances, children aging out of a previous<br />
plan, or the two households’ distance apart made the last plan impractical.<br />
The Customer Case Ownership Part<br />
Today, the child support agency is the assignee of rights in TANF cases,<br />
stepping in the place of the TANF parent. And even though an applicant in<br />
a never-TANF case can withdraw at any time, Title IV-D agencies control
the destiny of that case. Most parents are sidelined by our approach,<br />
waiting for us to act and respond to changes in income, custody,<br />
overnights, etc. The agencies play catch up since we are not directly<br />
involved in the day-to-day life of the family and often not informed of key<br />
changes until months or years later.<br />
Every person who is not living with the other alleged parent or spouse<br />
should be highly encouraged to use IV-D and/or IV-G services as soon as<br />
the separation occurs. A large, national promotional campaign would help<br />
explain our services and availability.<br />
If one goes to court regarding the children and support, all cases should be<br />
placed in Title IV-D and IV-G agencies unless both legally recognized<br />
parents opt out. Unlike today when parents sign away control of their case<br />
until they withdraw, parents can work out settlements at any time during the<br />
early stages of separation and later for modification purposes to reflect the<br />
changing realities of life. For those<br />
parents who cannot agree, both<br />
parents should be given access to<br />
digital sources or handed paper<br />
materials that explain the processes.<br />
Attorneys will be provided for each<br />
parent or caretaker, but the forum will<br />
not be an adversarial, formal<br />
courtroom but an informal setting where parents can discuss their<br />
difference and try to forge a solution. If a stipulation is reached, the court<br />
will review it to be sure that it reflects equal bargaining power, and then<br />
enter an order incorporating the stipulation.<br />
If parents cannot agree, the points in dispute will be heard by a mediator.<br />
No evidentiary rules apply except for relevancy of the testimony or exhibits<br />
to the issues before the mediator, and an appropriate discounting of<br />
hearsay testimony. The mediator will recommend a solution and if there is<br />
no appeal, it becomes final. If either party still wants to appeal, the case<br />
could go to a traditional court venue.<br />
Parentage can be done on a national scale, with parties appearing for a<br />
buccal swab at the closest lab to them. The results are sent to the OCSS<br />
(Office of Child Support Services) Division of Parentage. Using the Revised<br />
Uniform Parentage Act guidelines, the Division inquires to see if there is a<br />
psychological or nurturing alternative parent. If there is none, then the
iological parent is made the legal parent. If there is a nurturing parent or<br />
parents as well as a biological parent, then a hearing will be held of the<br />
possible legal parents to determine who should be a legal parent and who<br />
should have primary legal responsibility for support.<br />
Domestic violence screening should be done at the start of every case to<br />
ensure that the program proactively aids those who feel threatened.<br />
The Implementation of Procedural and Fair Justice Part<br />
The use of the adversarial system of justice is meant to ferret out the most<br />
credible evidence and produce a series of decisions a third-party judge or<br />
jury can make after carefully reviewing the evidence. It does not work well<br />
in domestic cases.<br />
First, when both parents do not have competent legal representation of<br />
their interests, it is almost impossible for a pro se litigant to match up well<br />
against a well-represented agency or other party. The setting for settling<br />
domestic disputes and creating the atmosphere for a stable two-household<br />
future for the parties and their children should not be a formal courtroom.<br />
Post-COVID, parents should meet in a room<br />
with comfortable chairs with a mediator,<br />
talking about each issue to see if a common<br />
ground exists for a solution, and work<br />
toward a document that is acceptable to<br />
both parents. The mediator must make sure<br />
that there is no arm-twisting or threats,<br />
veiled or otherwise, occurring. For issues<br />
still unresolved, a second mediation is scheduled. If after that mediation,<br />
there is no settlement on all remaining issues, the mediator will make a<br />
recommended finding for the parties to either accept or reject. If the finding<br />
is rejected, a court hearing can be scheduled. The court could hold a final<br />
pre-hearing meeting to discuss options and if there still is no settlement, a<br />
court hearing would be held.<br />
Whoever is writing the orders (attorney, judge, mediator, magistrate) needs<br />
to use a federally approved order that includes more alternative<br />
occurrences than are generally written in orders today to accommodate<br />
changes in family structure without a return to court. Laddering orders for<br />
each child’s emancipation, anticipating a switch in custody or a change in
geographic distance between households (beyond reasonable driving<br />
distance) could be addressed. Proofs of these changes may be filed with<br />
the court and the parties to trigger the changes.<br />
Modification of the support ordered amount may be based on alleged<br />
changes that alter the order<br />
by more than 10% and are<br />
contemplated to be<br />
continuous for one year or<br />
more, subject to rebuttal<br />
arguments by the other<br />
Parents (parties) should and would be in<br />
control of their own cases to a much<br />
greater degree than they are today.<br />
party. A mediator will settle the modification issue. Retroactive modification<br />
will be allowed back to the date of the triggering change or one year,<br />
whichever is shorter.<br />
The Restructuring of Roles Part<br />
Parents (parties) should and would be in control of their own cases to a<br />
much greater degree than they are today. The presumption is the parents<br />
are taking care of their issues, with basic remedies such as income<br />
withholding, tax offset, worker’s compensation, and unemployment benefit<br />
intercept automatically in place. If additional remedies are needed, the child<br />
support agency could assist, working with both parents on a payment plan.<br />
At the end of the year, if there is a balance owed, it is adjusted on the<br />
payor’s tax return based on a form sent to the payor in January.<br />
(Remember that child support assurance and guarantee may make<br />
collection efforts less of a timeliness issue.) Anytime there are disputes that<br />
the parents cannot resolve or if a parent is very hard to track down for<br />
compliance purposes, an elevated response by the agency could be put in<br />
place; however, contempts and criminal prosecutions will be reserved for<br />
only the rarest of egregious situations (e.g., well-off payor purposely hiding<br />
assets or a self-employed payor who dramatically overstates business<br />
deductions or takes small draw-downs).<br />
The federal OCSS and Title IV-G agencies would oversee paternity and<br />
order establishment documentation, using the national guideline, the<br />
national age of majority, and the federal support order and parenting plan<br />
template. All the mediation work would be handled locally. The final orders<br />
would be uploaded to the enhanced National Case Registry, and the
paternity orders and Acknowledgments of Paternity would be filed with<br />
state offices of vital records for birth certificate amendment.<br />
Enforcement would be mostly automated at the national level, replacing<br />
state-level automated enforcement activities. When additional enforcement<br />
efforts are needed, the local office may be asked to conduct local<br />
enforcement activities such as imposing real property liens, conducting a<br />
state financial institution match, file a few contempts, etc. Since many<br />
traditional child support state and local jobs would disappear, the federal<br />
government would hire many of the same workers for the expanded federal<br />
role, all working remotely. Both Title IV-D and IV-G local agencies would<br />
hire several thousand mediators, counselors, and employment specialists.<br />
The New Automation Part<br />
As the federal government develops a national child support system, the<br />
vestigial state systems would be replaced or modified by one model system<br />
adaptable to each state’s and tribe’s needs. The model’s licensing would<br />
be available to several vendors, but the common programming and<br />
platform would be the same.<br />
The federal case management system would expand to handle casework,<br />
with the capacity to handle all IV-D, non-IV-D, and IV-G cases. Needless to<br />
say all documents are imaged and universally available to those with<br />
security clearance to work cases. A federal customer service unit would<br />
respond to all texts, emails, calls, and hard mail as a first-tier response,<br />
sending requests for follow up to the appropriate worker at the federal,<br />
state, or local level.<br />
Interstate cases would be handled at the federal level, unless a local<br />
enforcement technique is needed or a modification request needs<br />
mediation. In the local enforcement case, a local child support attorney<br />
would be deputized by the U.S. Attorney’s office for that district for that<br />
case. UIFSA would be replaced by a revised and expanded Full Faith and<br />
Credit for Child Support Orders Act that<br />
provides federal nationwide jurisdiction<br />
for child support, with venue based on<br />
where the child resides (alternatively, the<br />
parties can agree to the venue in the<br />
state where the last order was issued).<br />
Ideally, child support venue will follow<br />
custody and visitation jurisdiction based
on where the child has resided for the past six months. Congress would<br />
have to make a finding that the in personam jurisdictional limitations of<br />
Kulko v Superior Court are removed to comport with international law and<br />
child custody jurisdiction based on federal plenary nationwide child support<br />
jurisdiction. This is currently the case in federal criminal nonsupport cases.<br />
Mobile applications for both parties would not only put a lot of case data<br />
and program information at the fingertips of the parties, it would allow the<br />
parties to start taking actions in a case, such as a modification. A Q and A<br />
approach like TurboTax would walk the party through the process. Through<br />
the power of videoconferencing a mediator may remotely serve parents in<br />
two different states.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Our collections foundation is too small for the new child support world. The<br />
new goals are:<br />
• Consistent, timely payments to families with a floor level of support;<br />
• more self-help customer service in which the parents are more in<br />
control of their cases;<br />
• a move away from court confrontation to mediation; providing<br />
remedies for all parenting time issues;<br />
• helping parents overcome barriers to parenting and paying support;<br />
and,<br />
• restructuring child support and invigorating the role of the federal<br />
government in establishment, enforcement, and modification of child<br />
support through national jurisdiction and federalized automated<br />
enforcement.<br />
As the 46-year old program refocuses on a broader base for assisting<br />
families, add your vision to what we can do to make the lives of the children<br />
living in two households as enriching as possible.<br />
_______________________________________<br />
Jeff Ball is the Project Manager/IV-D Administrator in Colorado for the El Paso and<br />
Teller County Child Support Services offices for YoungWilliams, PC. He has worked in<br />
the child support field for 28 years and has been an attorney for 34 years. Previously,<br />
Jeff was senior advisor to the OCSE Commissioner, OCSE Technical Assistance<br />
Branch Chief, and OCSE Welfare Reform Liaison. He was general counsel to the U.S.<br />
Commission on Interstate Child Support and helped write the report to Congress:<br />
Supporting Our Children: A Blueprint for Reform. He is a past president of ERICSA and<br />
the 2010 winner of its Felix Infausto Award.
NCSEA’s Emerging Issues and Leading<br />
Practices Sub-Group Continues DEI Work<br />
for the Child Support Community<br />
by Lara Fors, Public Knowledge<br />
The Emerging Issues and Leading Practices (EI & LP) subcommittee of the<br />
Policy and Government Relations Committee examines issues and<br />
practices that can have an impact on the child support program. EI &LP<br />
has a subgroup devoted to continuing the Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion<br />
(DEI) work that began at the NCSEA Policy Forum. The EI & LP DEI subgroup<br />
members are Trish Skophammer, Phyllis Nance, Landis Rossi, Tish<br />
Keahna, Sean Gorman, and Lara Fors.<br />
Vision for DEI Work<br />
NCSEA believes in the importance<br />
of fostering diversity, equity, and<br />
inclusion in the child support<br />
program for staff and for participants<br />
of the program. NCSEA<br />
acknowledges systemic racism and<br />
discrimination exist. NCSEA will<br />
work through education and<br />
advocacy to raise awareness, eliminate biases, and reduce disparate<br />
outcomes in the child support program. We refer to this self-examination,<br />
and the changes we make as a result, as “doing DEI work.”<br />
The EI & LP DEI subgroup formed last year and spent some time thinking<br />
about the best way to approach the DEI topic in the child support program.<br />
We eagerly awaited the <strong>2021</strong> Policy Forum to hear the expert speakers<br />
and listen to the attendees’ reactions and feedback. In our subgroup<br />
meetings, we agreed to ground rules to be respectful, thoughtful, and<br />
gracious with ourselves and one another when we discussed racism and<br />
discrimination in our child support program and in our society. We noticed<br />
our own speech slowed as we became aware of our words and considered<br />
their origins of use. One member referred to the different “silos” of
government offices, and one of us<br />
pointed out that not everyone<br />
understands “silos” or how the word<br />
applies to that situation. 1 Even a<br />
regional or occupational (in this<br />
case, farming) reference can<br />
exclude others from understanding,<br />
which serves an as important<br />
reminder there are many ways we<br />
inadvertently exclude and there are also many ways we can proactively<br />
create more inclusivity.<br />
After the Policy Forum, the EI & LP DEI group met and reflected on<br />
comments during the Discussion Groups and in the conference feedback,<br />
which highlighted organizations would like to be doing DEI work, but were<br />
not sure where or how to start. The EI & LP DEI group believes NCSEA<br />
can be a resource for child support programs by developing a roadmap<br />
toolkit for child support leaders and their organizations. The roadmap toolkit<br />
will include an order of activities, resources, and offer a community of<br />
support.<br />
NCSEA Connects: Diversity, Equity & Inclusion<br />
We also discovered at Policy Forum that child support professionals<br />
appreciated the opportunity to talk about DEI issues and learned from<br />
sharing their questions and experiences. We think the best way to continue<br />
this self-examination is to energize and empower NCSEA’s existing group,<br />
NCSEA Connects: Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion.<br />
This group is a clearinghouse for resources and highlights leading<br />
practices. NCSEA created this community to bring together child support<br />
professionals who are on the forefront of DEI education and reflection and<br />
create a place for sharing research and other information about DEI work.<br />
Currently 69 NCSEA members have joined this community. This is a great<br />
place to start with reviewing DEI research, materials, and leading practices<br />
to create the roadmap toolkit. We propose NCSEA assigns co-chairs to<br />
manage the clearinghouse, secure facilitators, and schedule regular<br />
discussion groups.<br />
1<br />
Merriam-Webster defines a silo as “a trench, pit, or especially a tall cylinder (as of wood or concrete)<br />
usually sealed to exclude air and used for making and storing silage.”
Next Steps<br />
The EI & LP DEI subgroup would like to start with empowering the NCSEA<br />
Connects: Diversity, Equity & Inclusion community. This will be a great<br />
place to begin creating the roadmap toolkit based on the experiences and<br />
resources of the members already sharing their DEI work in child support.<br />
The EI & LP DEI subgroup would like to expand our group to include others<br />
that are interested in creating this roadmap toolkit for child support<br />
programs. To create the best toolkit that includes the right questions and<br />
answers, we are looking for people who are either experienced with DEI<br />
work in their child support program or who are wanting the roadmap toolkit<br />
to start their own journey.<br />
Invitation for Volunteers<br />
If you are already a member of the NCSEA Connects: Diversity, Equity &<br />
Inclusion community and would like to help facilitate the community,<br />
contact Gillyn Croog. If you would like to join the EI & LP DEI subgroup<br />
and help create the roadmap toolkit, please contact Lara Fors at<br />
lfors@pubknow.com.<br />
_________________________________________<br />
Lara Fors joined the Center for the Support of Families in 2019, now known as Public<br />
Knowledge®, after serving for over 25 years in the IV-D program of Missouri. In<br />
Missouri, Lara served as the IV-D Director of the Family Support Division, the First<br />
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney and Director of a multi-county prosecutors’ office in<br />
Springfield, and as Assistant Prosecutor in Kansas City. Lara currently serves on two<br />
NCSEA committees: Policy and Government Relations (PG&R) and is Co-Chair of the<br />
Emerging Issues and Leading Practices P&GR subcommittee. Lara is a past president<br />
of the Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association, ERICSA (2014), and of<br />
the Missouri child support professional association, MCSEA (2007).
Central Registries – Doing What We<br />
Expect Them To Do, Plus So Much More<br />
by Rob Velcoff, Intergovernmental Support Services<br />
Question – What is this a definition of: "A single unit or office within the<br />
State IV-D agency which receives, disseminates and has oversight<br />
responsibility for processing incoming interstate IV-D cases, including<br />
UIFSA petitions and requests for wage withholding in IV-D cases?"<br />
Answer:<br />
A: Central Authority<br />
B: Interstate Tribunal<br />
C: Central Registry<br />
D: What it will say on the author’s tombstone when the time comes.<br />
Assuming you read the title to this article, you know the correct answer is<br />
“C”. Even if you didn’t read the title, there’s a pretty good chance you would<br />
have gotten the correct answer based on your overall knowledge of the IV-<br />
D child support program, especially if you regularly work intergovernmental<br />
cases. After all, each state is federally mandated to operate a Central<br />
Registry. But do you really know everything that Central Registries do?<br />
As previously stated, Central Registries within state IV-D programs are a<br />
requirement in federal regulations: CFR §303.7(b) Provision of services in<br />
intergovernmental IV-D cases. (b) Central registry. (1) The State IV-D<br />
agency must establish a central registry responsible for receiving,<br />
transmitting, and responding to inquiries on all incoming intergovernmental<br />
IV-D cases.<br />
Okay, so what does this mean? Simply put, it means that all IV-D child<br />
support offices within the jurisdiction of the United States (50 states, 4<br />
territories, 60 tribal IV-D agencies) must send all new outgoing interstate<br />
cases to the Central Registry office in the state/territory where the<br />
respondent to an action resides. Hague, federal bilateral, and state-level<br />
agreement foreign countries should send their child support cases in this<br />
same manner. Note that this could mean a filing by either the custodial or
the noncustodial parent. So that’s a lot of incoming cases! In fact, prepandemic<br />
numbers from some of the larger states showed that Central<br />
Registries might receive in excess of 10,000 cases per year.<br />
Not only must the cases be reviewed for accuracy and completeness, they<br />
must be done so within a very limited timeframe, just 10 working days. Plus<br />
the review process is very detailed. CFR §303.7(b)(2)(i – iv). (2) Within 10<br />
working days of receipt of an intergovernmental IV-D case, the central<br />
registry must:<br />
(i) Ensure that the documentation submitted with the case has been<br />
reviewed to determine completeness;<br />
(ii) Forward the case for necessary action either to the central State<br />
Parent Locator Service for location services or to the appropriate agency<br />
for processing;<br />
(iii) Acknowledge receipt of the case and request any missing<br />
documentation; and<br />
(iv) Inform the initiating agency where the case was sent for action.<br />
The next task is somewhat gray. What happens if a case is incomplete,<br />
lacking the required UIFSA forms to complete a tribunal filing? The<br />
regulations state: §303.7(b)(3) If the documentation received with a case is<br />
incomplete and cannot be remedied by the central registry without the<br />
assistance of the initiating agency, the central registry must forward the<br />
case for any action that can be taken pending necessary action by the<br />
initiating agency.<br />
The gray area is what the Central Registry should do if there is no action<br />
that can be taken without the required documentation, which is generally<br />
the case. Although there is a difference of opinion here, and the actions<br />
vary from Central Registry to Central Registry, many such units hold onto<br />
these incomplete cases pending receipt of the required documents. After<br />
all, what is the logic behind sending a case into court for establishment of a<br />
child support order if the Uniform Support Petition or General Testimony is<br />
missing? How can a tribunal register a foreign order without a certified<br />
copy? Simply put, they can’t. So this author’s recommendation has always<br />
been for the Central Registry to hold onto such cases pending receipt of<br />
the required documents.<br />
Note the word “required” in the previous sentence. If the pending document<br />
is not a mandatory UIFSA form, or some other item required by state law<br />
(i.e., a certified copy of the order to be registered, as per UIFSA<br />
§602(a)(2)), then the case should not be held at the Central Registry. But if
there is literally no action that can be taken by the responding agency<br />
without certain information there is no logic to sending the case forward.<br />
Local county child support agencies have enough on their plates that they<br />
should not have to deal with cases where they are unable to take any<br />
follow-up actions. This is more the role of the Central Registry.<br />
Federal case closure criteria come into play here as well. Per CFR<br />
§303.11(b)(17) Case closure criteria, (17) The responding agency<br />
documents failure by the initiating agency to take an action that is essential<br />
for the next step in providing services. The timeframes are very exact and<br />
spelled out. Per §303.7(c)(6) Initiating State IV-D agency responsibilities. 6)<br />
Within 30 calendar days of receipt of the request for information, provide<br />
the responding agency with an updated intergovernmental form and any<br />
necessary additional documentation, or notify the responding agency when<br />
the information will be provided. This means that if the initiating jurisdiction<br />
does not forward the requested documents, the responding state’s Central<br />
Registry may begin the case closure process. §303.11(d)(2) In an<br />
intergovernmental case meeting the criteria for closure under paragraph<br />
(b)(17) of this section, the responding State must notify the initiating<br />
agency, in a record, 60 calendar days prior to closure of the case of the<br />
State's intent to close the case.<br />
What all of this amounts to is that the Central Registry may close its case if<br />
mandatory documentation is not received within appropriate timeframes<br />
following a request to the initiating jurisdiction, and this initial request must<br />
be made within 10 working days of receipt of a case. The general<br />
consensus is that, since there is no action that can be taken without the<br />
required forms, there is no logic for forwarding an incomplete case. Again,<br />
there is some debate about this, as there are some that interpret the<br />
regulations to say that all cases must be forwarded within 10 working days<br />
after receipt by the Central Registry regardless of whether the<br />
documentation is complete or not. This author maintains that on those<br />
cases where there is literally no action that can be taken without certain<br />
documentation, these cases should not be forwarded to a local county child<br />
support office where they would do nothing more than sit idly in a file<br />
cabinet while awaiting the follow-up mandatory paperwork.<br />
Still, since the required documents are received over 90% of the time on<br />
appropriate case referrals (see the statistics below), the overwhelming<br />
majority of cases that are reviewed by the Central Registry are either<br />
complete upon receipt, or are made complete due to follow-up<br />
communication with the initiating jurisdiction. Even incomplete returned
cases can be corrected and made complete, and then sent back to the<br />
appropriate Central Registry for eventual processing. Let’s look at some<br />
recent numbers which the New York Central Registry was kind enough to<br />
provide specifically for this article.<br />
Total Number of Cases<br />
Received<br />
2018 8,388<br />
2019 8,653<br />
2020 4,657<br />
(Note the huge drop in 2020 due to the pandemic!)<br />
Initial Cases Lacking Complete<br />
Documentation<br />
2018 1,271 (15.2%)<br />
2019 1,140 (13.2%)<br />
2020 492 (10.6%)<br />
(Note: In 2018 the Child Support Agency Confidential Information Form<br />
was still relatively new, and many local county child support agencies did<br />
not yet know that this form is required for all new outgoing interstate cases.<br />
Hence the larger percentage of initial incomplete cases.)<br />
Initial Cases Lacking Complete Documentation Over a 3 Year Period<br />
13%<br />
87%<br />
Cases Lacking Complete Documentation<br />
Cases Containing Complete Documentation
Incomplete Cases that Eventually Received the Missing<br />
Documentation<br />
2018 590 (46.4%)<br />
2019 642 (56.3%)<br />
2020 224 (45.5%)<br />
Final Disposition of Initially Incomplete Cases Over a 3<br />
Year Period<br />
49.8%<br />
50.2%<br />
Complete Documentation Eventually Received<br />
Complete Documentation Never Received<br />
Total Percentage by Case Disposition<br />
Case<br />
Case<br />
Completed Returned<br />
Case Inappropriate<br />
2018 7095 (84.6%) 681 (8.1%) 612 (7.3%)<br />
2019 7624 (88.1%) 498 (5.8%) 531 (6.1%)<br />
2020 4042 (86.8%) 268 (5.8%) 347 (7.5%)
Total Percentage by Case Disposition Over a 3 Year<br />
Period<br />
7% 7%<br />
86%<br />
Case Completed Case Returned Case Inappropriate<br />
Total Percentage by Case Disposition for<br />
Appropriate Cases Only<br />
Case Completed Case Returned<br />
2018 7095 (91.2%) 681 (8.8%)<br />
2019 7624 (93.9%) 498 (6.1%)<br />
2020 4042 (93.8%) 268 (6.2%)
Total Percentage by Case Disposition for<br />
Appropriate Cases Only Over a 3 Year Period<br />
7%<br />
93%<br />
Case Completed<br />
Case Returned<br />
* All statistics were provided by the New York Central Registry, New York<br />
State Division of Child Support Services, along with their permission to<br />
include same in this article.<br />
In and of itself, the processing of incoming intergovernmental cases would<br />
be a huge undertaking, but Central Registries are federally mandated to<br />
perform one additional task. §303.7(b)(4) The central registry must respond<br />
to inquiries from initiating agencies within 5 working days of receipt of the<br />
request for a case status review. You know all of those times when you are<br />
working an interstate case and you can’t seem to obtain any status<br />
information from the other state? Well, help is on the way! After performing<br />
due diligence in attempting to obtain case status information from the<br />
appropriate local county child support office, or possibly from a regional<br />
office, the next step would be to contact the Central Registry in the<br />
responding state for assistance. Contact information for all Central<br />
Registries can be found on the federal Office of Child Support<br />
Enforcement’s Intergovernmental Reference Guide, the IRG. Such contact<br />
can be made via e-mail, telephone, fax, or written letter (although why an<br />
agency would use the last two options is really bizarre – send an e-mail or<br />
call!). Central Registries are experts at tracking down the appropriate office
or caseworker within their own state and following up to make sure a<br />
response is sent. The Central Registries are perhaps the main tool for<br />
assistance whenever there is a breakdown in communications on an<br />
intergovernmental child support case.<br />
Need even more reasons to love those Central Registries? Well, there are<br />
a bunch of them. The author has only listed the federally mandated tasks<br />
that all Central Registries must perform. That being said, they pretty much<br />
all do many other things as well. Most of them assist their own in-state child<br />
support workers when dealing with an unresponsive agency in another<br />
jurisdiction. Many of them contain expert staff when dealing with<br />
complicated UIFSA issues. More conduct many other functions as well; just<br />
ask them and it’s a certainty they would be happy to list all the tasks they<br />
routinely take care of. And they really do try their very best to assist with<br />
any intergovernmental questions or issues you might have.<br />
So if you’re seeking the unsung heroes of the IV-D program nationwide,<br />
look no further than the state/territory Central Registry offices. And it<br />
wouldn’t hurt to add a ‘thank you’; they would certainly appreciate that!<br />
Rob Velcoff is an independent child support consultant with his own agency,<br />
Intergovernmental Support Services. Previously, he worked for the New York State<br />
Division of Child Support Services for over 30 years. He served as President of the<br />
Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association (ERICSA), and is a recipient of<br />
their Felix Infausto Award (President’s Award). Mr. Velcoff has presented at hundreds of<br />
workshops at more than 100 state, regional, federal, national, and even international<br />
child support conferences on a wide range of topics. An individual member of NCSEA,<br />
Mr. Velcoff received a BS in Criminal Justice from the State University College of New<br />
York at Brockport and an MA in Criminal Justice from the State University of New York<br />
at Albany.
Gender-Neutral Voluntary<br />
Establishments of Parentage: A<br />
Survey of the Early Adopters<br />
by David Love, Mississippi Project, Young Williams<br />
The Voluntary Acknowledgement of Parentage (VAP) 1 is a document that<br />
parents use to legally establish the parentage of a child without the need<br />
for a court order. Traditionally, heterosexual parents use this form to<br />
establish the paternity of a child born out of wedlock.<br />
With the advent of the United State Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell<br />
v. Hodges, 2 the law of the land guaranteed same-sex couples the legal<br />
right to marry; however, unmarried same-sex couples still face additional<br />
obstacles as most states’ VAPs still use the gender-specific “mother,”<br />
“father,” and “paternity” terminology.<br />
This practice is beginning to change. Eight states have adopted genderneutral<br />
VAPs. These forms contain language that removes any reference to<br />
the gender of the parent, thereby allowing same-sex couples to use the<br />
forms to establish parentage. Gender-neutral language is often used to<br />
establish the parentage of children born through assisted reproduction or<br />
surrogacy. In these situations, the use of a VAP eliminates the need to<br />
undertake a time-consuming and expensive co-parent adoption process to<br />
establish legal parentage.<br />
The Emerging Issues and Leading Practices Subcommittee of the NCSEA<br />
Policy and Government Relations Committee sent a survey to the eight<br />
state IV-D agencies, and seven provided responses. 3 The chart below<br />
shows the states that have adopted gender-neutral VAPs, the year of each<br />
state’s implementation, and whether the revisions were part of adopting the<br />
Uniform Parentage Act 2017 (UPA). The chart also includes links to state-<br />
1<br />
While these documents are not designated as VAPs in every state, this article uses the term to<br />
apply to all states’ acknowledgments of parentage forms.<br />
2<br />
576 U.S. 644 (2015).<br />
3<br />
Nevada did not participate in the srvey.
specific statutory provisions creating the gender-neutral VAP, and links to<br />
the VAP forms in English and Spanish.<br />
State<br />
Year<br />
Implemented<br />
Part of<br />
UPA 2017<br />
Adoption?<br />
California 2020 Yes 4<br />
Maryland 2019 No<br />
Statutory Citation<br />
CA Fam Code §§<br />
7570 -7581<br />
MD Code Family<br />
Law § 5–1028<br />
Link to<br />
VAP<br />
ENG<br />
SPA<br />
ENG<br />
SPA<br />
Massachusetts 2018 No None ENG<br />
Nevada 2017 NRS 126.053 ENG<br />
New York <strong>2021</strong> No PBH § 4135-B ENG<br />
Rhode Island <strong>2021</strong> Yes 5 R.I. Gen. Laws §<br />
15-8.1-301<br />
ENG<br />
Vermont 2018 Yes 6 15C V.S.A. § 301 ENG<br />
Washington 2019 No RCW 26.26A.205<br />
ENG<br />
SPA<br />
Differences between Gender-Neutral VAP and Traditional VAP<br />
The most notable characteristics shared by each of the forms are the<br />
replacement of the term “paternity” with “parentage” and the removal of<br />
mandatory references to the parents’ gender. This allows same-sex<br />
couples to be signatories.<br />
Five of the gender-neutral VAPs use terminology that distinguishes the<br />
birth parent. 7 The remaining three do not make such a distinction and<br />
instead simply use the term “parent.” Each of the surveyed states also<br />
chose to use a single form. The survey responses indicate this decision<br />
was driven by a desire for simplicity and the equal treatment of all parents. 8<br />
4<br />
California’s revision of the VAP was part of the adoption of the UPA 2017; however, there was not a full<br />
replace and repeal of the paternity statutes as some of the provisions in the UPA 2017 were already<br />
implemented.<br />
5<br />
Rhode Island adopted a combination of the UPA 2017 and the Vermont Parentage Act.<br />
6<br />
Vermont adopted a modified version of the UPA.<br />
7<br />
California, Maryland, New York, Vermont, and Washington require that one of the signatories be the<br />
birth parent.<br />
8<br />
Massachusetts’ initial gender-neutral VAP was one of two forms. The dual forms were necessary due to<br />
initial state system limitations. A single gender-neutral form was implemented in 2019.
Six of the VAPs do not contain language to identify gender of the non-birth<br />
parent. However, both California and New York require the “other parent” to<br />
indicate whether they are the biological father of the child. Both states<br />
indicated this question was included only for statistical purposes. 9<br />
Massachusetts’ VAP requires notarization, and two additional states<br />
require the use of a notary under certain circumstances; however, the<br />
remaining forms no longer contain language requiring notarization. 10 New<br />
York requires two witnesses who are not related to either parent, but the<br />
remaining states only require a single witness.<br />
Three states use a Denial of Parentage form. 11 These documents allow a<br />
presumed or biological parent to release any parental claim to the child. By<br />
completing the denial, the signatory is discharged of all parental rights and<br />
duties. However, the denials must be completed in conjunction with a<br />
properly executed VAP containing the signatures of two parents. The use<br />
of these forms allows these states greater flexibility in situations involving<br />
assisted reproduction and surrogacy.<br />
Processes and Stakeholders Involved in the Creation of Gender-<br />
Neutral VAPs<br />
All the surveyed states except Massachusetts 12 required legislative action<br />
to create a revised VAP. For California, Rhode Island, and Vermont, this<br />
was part of the adoption (in part or in whole) of the 2017 version of the<br />
UPA. In Maryland and New York, the legislative changes addressed the<br />
need for the legal establishment of parentage for those who use assisted<br />
reproduction technologies. In Washington, one goal of the legislation was<br />
to align Department of Health policies with those of the Department of<br />
Licensing. 13<br />
9<br />
California indicated it included the question for statistical reporting of the usage by same-sex couples,<br />
while New York indicated it included the question for the purposes of determining eligibility of the current<br />
federal Paternity Establishment Percentage (PEP) performance measure. Rhode Island indicated it also<br />
asks the gender of each parent for statistical purposes, but that designation is not reflected within the<br />
language of its VAP.<br />
10<br />
Maryland’s VAP requires notarization unless signed by a staff member of the hospital, IV-D office, or<br />
Health Department. California requires notarization if the VAP is signed outside of California or outside of<br />
a hospital, prenatal clinic, or authorized agency.<br />
11<br />
Vermont, Rhode Island, and Washington allow the use of denial forms.<br />
12<br />
The impetus to revise the existing VAP was the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in<br />
Partanen v. Gallagher, 59 N.E.3d 1133 (Mass. 2016).<br />
13<br />
The Washington Department of Licensing updated its polices to include gender-neutral licenses and<br />
state identification cards.
As is common with legislative change, revising the VAPs was not swiftly<br />
accomplished in all states. In Rhode Island, legislation had to be introduced<br />
three consecutive years before it passed. In Vermont, the first workgroup to<br />
study the issue was convened in 2014, and the necessary legislation was<br />
not passed until 2018. 14 Other states adopted the revisions more quickly. In<br />
Maryland, the legislation passed in the first year it was introduced.<br />
Massachusetts adopted the revisions within a year and a half after the<br />
state’s Supreme Judicial Court suggested that same sex couples could<br />
establish parentage by signing a VAP.<br />
To implement these revisions to the VAPs, each state’s IV-D agency<br />
consulted with a collection of governmental agencies. In every surveyed<br />
state, this manifested at a minimum as a partnership between the state’s<br />
IV-D agency and the Department of Health/Vital Records. 15 The states<br />
indicated there was extensive collaboration to ensure that both agencies<br />
would accept the revisions. Training was also an important part of this<br />
cooperation. Vermont worked closely with its Department of Health to<br />
develop training materials and brochures for the new forms, while New<br />
York developed, coordinated, and hosted trainings for hospital staff in<br />
conjunction with its Department of Health. Some states created a larger<br />
coalition which included the courts, the private bar, medical providers, other<br />
state agencies, advocacy groups, and legislators. 16<br />
Challenges in Creating a Gender-Neutral VAP<br />
Most surveyed states indicated that the major challenge to establishing a<br />
gender-neutral VAP was creating a single form for multiple factual<br />
situations that would address complex legal concepts while keeping the<br />
format concise, user-friendly, and easily understandable. To avoid gender<br />
identification complexities, California chose to ask whether a birth parent is<br />
married and whether the other parent is the only possible genetic parent.<br />
Vermont uses the terms “birth parent” and “parent,” but acknowledges this<br />
terminology may lead to confusion.<br />
14<br />
The 2014 workgroup’s recommendation was that a statutory change was necessary. In 2017, the state<br />
legislature commissioned a subsequent workgroup, that recommended the passage of the Vermont<br />
Parentage Act, a modified version of the UPA. The legislation was introduced and passed in 2018.<br />
15<br />
Rhode Island and Washington both listed these two entities as being the only agencies involved in the<br />
process.<br />
16<br />
California created a large-scale workgroup within the IV-D agency that consulted with its Department of<br />
Health, the courts and advocacy groups. Vermont’s legislative workgroup included representatives from<br />
the courts, the private bar, legislatures, medical providers, Family Services, and the IV-D agency. New<br />
York consulted with its Department of Health, the New York City Department of Health and Mental<br />
Hygiene, and its state IV-E agency.
States also focused on inclusive language, demonstrated with the form’s<br />
neutral terminology. 17 In addition to the form itself, states indicated that the<br />
language revisions often increased the length and complexity of the<br />
instructions.<br />
All the responding states answered that there have been no legal<br />
challenges to the validity or use of the gender-neutral VAP. 18<br />
Services Provided to Same-Sex Couples<br />
All surveyed states answered that they provide full parentage<br />
establishment services to same-sex couples. This includes filing parentage<br />
complaints when a VAP was not signed or cannot be signed. 19 All<br />
responding states indicated that, with an open IV-D case, they provide the<br />
same services for establishment and enforcement of support to same-sex<br />
couples as they do different-sex couples.<br />
Lessons Learned<br />
Based upon the survey results, implementation of gender-neutral VAPs has<br />
been quite successful. Most of the states would not make any adjustments<br />
to the current VAP process. Rhode Island and Washington commented<br />
that removing the notarized signature requirement is what they like best<br />
about their form.<br />
Several states have acknowledged that the current VAP forms and<br />
processes are not perfect. California indicated the instructions are too<br />
complicated and would ideally prefer to reduce the complexity of the<br />
process, while acknowledging that is likely not possible without the use of<br />
multiple forms. Vermont echoed that assessment and expressed concern<br />
about how the overall complexity of the process places a large burden<br />
upon the signatories; however, Vermont concluded that additional revisions<br />
to the VAP would not lessen that burden. Vermont also noted that its<br />
requirement that signatories initial multiple statements creates a higher<br />
likelihood that the form will not be correctly completed. Rhode Island would<br />
17<br />
California uses the term “person who gave birth” rather than the UPA term “woman who gave birth” and<br />
allows parents to identify as male, female, or nonbinary. New York noted difficulty in translating the form<br />
as the Spanish word for “parent” is not gender neutral.<br />
18<br />
Washington commented that there were objecting organizations and individuals while Senate Bill 6037<br />
was moving through the legislature, but once the law was passed, there have been no challenges.<br />
19<br />
Massachusetts specifically indicated it would assist same-sex couples who file an application with the<br />
establishment of parentage through judicial action. Vermont noted that, while its VAP can be used only by<br />
same-sex couples who are married or by a party to assisted reproductive technologies or a gestational<br />
carrier agreement, it would pursue other judicial avenues for the establishment of parentage in other<br />
circumstances.
have redesigned the form so that the Notice of Rights and Responsibilities<br />
is on the back of the VAP.<br />
Number of Gender-Neutral VAPs Used for Same-Sex Couples<br />
There is little data on the usage of VAPs by same-sex couples. This is due<br />
to the relatively recent implementation in most states coupled with the<br />
forms’ design, which often solicits no information regarding the gender of<br />
the signatories. Two states have provided data: in California from January<br />
2020 through March <strong>2021</strong>, over 1,000 same-sex VAPs were executed, and<br />
in Massachusetts since 2018, 67 same-sex couples completed a VAP. 20<br />
Next Steps<br />
NCSEA will post the survey questions and responses for members to view<br />
on the Emerging Issues and Leading Practices page of the NCSEA<br />
website. The resources linked to this article are offered to any state or<br />
territory considering the implementation of a gender-neutral VAP. The<br />
experiences of the surveyed states indicate revisions to existing VAPs are<br />
not easily accomplished. According to these states, the VAP changes will<br />
require legislative and/or judicial action but do not necessarily require<br />
adoption of UPA 2017. Additionally, IV-D agencies need to build a coalition<br />
of support including multiple governmental agencies, stakeholders, and<br />
advocacy groups to create a document that properly addresses the needs<br />
of all seeking to establish parentage.<br />
_________________________________________<br />
David Love recently joined YoungWilliams as the Assistant Legal Director for the<br />
Mississippi Project after working as an attorney for the Mississippi Department of<br />
Human Services for more than two decades. Before retiring from MDHS, David served<br />
as a Deputy Director. In that role, he led the policy and systems support liaison teams.<br />
David earned his juris doctor from the University of Mississippi School of Law in 1996<br />
and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Mississippi State in 1993.<br />
20<br />
California and Massachusetts statistics were provided May 5, <strong>2021</strong>, and March 19, <strong>2021</strong>, respectively.
Motivational Interviewing Introduction<br />
by Stacey Riley, Senior Child Support Specialist, Michigan<br />
Office of Child Support<br />
Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a meaningful, collaborative conversation<br />
that allows staff to engage customers on a deeper level and strengthen<br />
individuals’ motivation to change. MI is an empathetic and practical<br />
approach to reduce customer ambivalence, placing responsibility on<br />
customers by giving them ownership of their actions and success.<br />
More than two years ago, the Michigan Office of Child Support (OCS), a<br />
bureau of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services<br />
(MDHHS), began researching the strengths and benefits of MI, and<br />
exploring how it could improve customer cooperation with the child support<br />
program to ensure assistance benefits remain open at the appropriate<br />
level. With the use of MI, OCS had high hopes of reducing the number of<br />
cases in noncooperation, while treating all customers fairly to achieve a<br />
common goal.<br />
OCS created and successfully launched a pilot group in September 2019.<br />
This small group of child support specialists logged hundreds of cases and<br />
used MI methods when calling these customers. Of the cases that began in<br />
noncooperation, 80% returned to cooperative status by the end of the call.<br />
Specialists reported they felt less stress on 97% of the MI calls. Due to the<br />
COVID-19 pandemic, the rollout of MI was delayed, but OCS is happy to<br />
announce that, as of the end of May <strong>2021</strong>, more than 100 staff have been<br />
trained on MI.<br />
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at MDHHS<br />
While researching and learning more about MI, it became apparent that<br />
there was a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) component to this
approach. The child support program is comprised of people of all races,<br />
sexual orientations, socio-economic statuses, religions, and so on. MDHHS<br />
continuously seeks methods to improve the lives of Michigan families by<br />
finding ways to reduce and prevent risks, promote equity, foster healthy<br />
habits, and transform the health and human services system (MDHHS,<br />
2019). To achieve this, the department needs to ensure its employees<br />
understand the power of health and social inequities, are aware of the<br />
communities at greater risk for experiencing inequities, and work together<br />
to create effective strategies for promoting equity (MDHHS, 2019).<br />
In 2018, MDHHS proposed a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Plan<br />
(MDHHS, 2018) with the following mission statement:<br />
To promote and foster a culture that values diversity, equity,<br />
and inclusion throughout the Michigan Department of Health<br />
and Human Services and the diverse communities we serve in<br />
order to achieve our highest potential. (MDHHS, 2018, p. 1)<br />
The plan’s vision statement asserts:<br />
Diversity, as reflected in our leadership and throughout our<br />
workforce, offers a valuable range of experiences and<br />
perspectives. Our diverse workforce will be an essential asset<br />
for developing and providing health and human services that<br />
are culturally proficient to address existing and emerging health<br />
and social issues. (MDHHS, 2018, p. 1)<br />
MDHHS created a proposal to exemplify the values of diversity,<br />
equity, and inclusion (DEI) while aligning with MDHHS’s strategic<br />
priority. The department felt this step was “necessary to improve<br />
outcomes for employees, communities, stakeholders, and customers<br />
by addressing inequities at a systemic level” (MDHHS, 2018, p. 3). In<br />
addition to the internal improvements DEI would create for MDHHS,<br />
the department anticipated that DEI would also improve relationships<br />
between employees and the people they serve. In 2019, MDHHS<br />
implemented its Mandatory Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Training<br />
Policy (APB 2019-037) to reduce inequalities and improve the lives of<br />
Michigan’s citizens (MDHHS, 2019).<br />
Achieving DEI through MI<br />
There is a legacy of inequity in the world, and state government has not<br />
escaped this problem. Fighting against these injustices can seem<br />
overwhelming. It takes more than individual action to enact change.
Motivational interviewing will help ensure OCS customers are viewed as<br />
unique individuals and treated fairly and equally, regardless of their<br />
differences, by creating more consistent interviewing processes and<br />
allowing customers to direct their own outcomes. Allowing customers to<br />
lead conversations through the use of MI will limit implicit bias. Often called<br />
unconscious bias, implicit biases are thoughts, attitudes, and stereotypes<br />
that manifest as a result of one’s environment, culture, and even the media,<br />
without the individual realizing the biases are occurring (Ruhl, 2020). These<br />
biases are typically related to race, gender, and sexuality, although there<br />
are additional categories (Ruhl, 2020). Implicit bias differs from the more<br />
familiar explicit bias, which presents as conscious acknowledgment and<br />
expression of discrimination and unfair treatment of others (Maxfield,<br />
Thorpe, Koontz, & Grimm, <strong>2021</strong>). While both implicit and explicit biases can<br />
change the way an individual shapes his or her decisions, explicit bias<br />
involves more malice because the individual is aware of his or her<br />
discriminatory behavior and yet continues to act accordingly (Daumeyer,<br />
Onyeador, Brown, & Richeson, 2019).<br />
Implicit bias causes discrimination even when the individual is unaware it is<br />
happening. Implicit bias may pollute decision-making and cause impulsive<br />
negative reactions, which are often undetectable because they are<br />
unconscious and difficult to measure (Mitchell, 2018). Implicit bias can be<br />
powerful enough to influence the decisions a child support specialist makes<br />
(Mitchell, 2018) for a customer. This is why it is best to remove decisionmaking<br />
responsibility from the specialist and place it back onto the<br />
customer, using MI methods. Implicit bias can elicit a visceral reaction and<br />
can be harmful; however, it can be managed through self-awareness<br />
(Maxfield, Thorpe, Koontz, & Grimm, <strong>2021</strong>). Studies show that, where<br />
implicit bias is present, accountability decreases because of the<br />
unconscious nature of the bias and unintentional discrimination (Daumeyer<br />
et al., 2019). Trainings and policies addressing implicit bias and the<br />
consequences of discrimination are beneficial in the reduction of implicit<br />
bias over time (Daumeyer et al., 2019).<br />
The goal of MI is to support the customer’s freedom of choice, while<br />
keeping the child support specialist’s personal feelings and experiences out<br />
of the conversation. One of the four key elements in the spirit of MI is<br />
evocation. Evocation involves eliciting the customer’s ideas and solutions,<br />
which is advantageous to the outcome because the customer knows best<br />
his or her own motivation for, and obstacles hindering, change. MI helps<br />
staff avoid communication traps such as taking sides, labeling, blaming,<br />
interrogating, giving unsolicited advice, or setting goals the customer is
unable to achieve. These communication traps can also lead to or be<br />
caused by implicit bias or discrimination.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Many child support customers are socially and economically<br />
disadvantaged. Cooperation with the child support program is critical to<br />
these families’ financial survival. Introducing motivational interviewing skills<br />
into the child support program helps families lead their own changes and<br />
reduces implicit bias, discrimination, and otherwise unfair and unequal<br />
treatment. Moving responsibility for the outcome of child support cases<br />
from staff to customers and allowing customers to lead the conversations<br />
removes unintended discrimination and behaviors. It is important to<br />
remember that, while the specialist brings child support expertise to the<br />
conversation, the customer is the expert on what is best for himself or<br />
herself. Only the customer knows the history and circumstances that<br />
brought him or her to this moment.<br />
The use of motivational interviewing, in combination with existing<br />
MDHHS policy and mandatory training, will help enact change and combat<br />
racism and other disparities throughout the department. Understanding<br />
implicit bias and training staff to recognize it will reduce unintentional<br />
discrimination that can occur as a result of these unconscious thoughts and<br />
attitudes.<br />
References<br />
Daumeyer, N. M., Onyeador, I. N., Brown, X., & Richeson, J. A. (2019).<br />
Consequences of attributing discrimination to implicit vs. explicit<br />
bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 84, 103812.<br />
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.04.010<br />
Maxfield, C., Thorpe, M., Koontz, N., & Grimm, L. (<strong>2021</strong>). You’re Biased!<br />
Deal With It. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 18(1), 161–165.<br />
https://www.jacr.org/article/S1546-1440(20)30680-3/fulltext<br />
MDHHS. (2018). Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Plan.<br />
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdhhs/MDHHS_Diversity_Equity_an<br />
d_Inclusion_Plan_649033_7.pdf MDHHS. (2019).<br />
https://dhhs.michigan.gov/OLMWEB/EX/AP/Public/APR/500.pdf<br />
Mitchell, G. (2018). An implicit bias primer. Virginia Journal of Social Policy<br />
& the Law, 25, 27–59. http://vjspl.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Mitchell-<br />
25.1-formatted-KMM-updated.pdf<br />
Ruhl, C. (2020). Implicit or unconscious bias. Simply Psychology.<br />
https://www.simplypsychology.org/implicit-bias.html.
Stacey Riley is a Senior Child Support Specialist for the Michigan Office of Child<br />
Support (OCS), where she has served for the last 7 years. She was previously an<br />
Eligibility Specialist for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. Stacey<br />
began researching Motivational Interviewing (MI) 2.5 years ago for OCS, and it carried<br />
over into her master’s degree journey at Central Michigan University, providing her with<br />
the opportunity to expand on ideas and knowledge to bring back to OCS. Stacey, joined<br />
by co-lead, Lawrence White, pioneered MI within the OCS along with a small group of<br />
Support Specialists (Kristin Bejarano, Mary Duddles-Smith, LaTresa Eason-Worthy,<br />
Mary Jo Neirink, and Antoinette Wilder), all of whom she would like to thank for their<br />
contributions to the effort. Stacey looks forward to seeing MI expand and grow across<br />
the entire Michigan Child Support Program. Stacey holds a Bachelor of Science in<br />
Psychology and a Master of Science in Administration with a concentration in Project<br />
Management.
NCSEA Needs Your Input for the<br />
NCSEA Research Website<br />
by Austin Holik, Terri Jones, Ryann Levering-White<br />
and Jane Venohr<br />
The NCSEA Research Subcommittee is reviewing research relevant to the<br />
child support program and working to make this information easily<br />
accessible. The Research Topics section of the NCSEA website houses a<br />
significant amount of valuable research, but we need your input to make it<br />
better. To keep the website viable and relevant, we ask the child support<br />
community to complete this brief survey as soon as you can. The survey<br />
will close on <strong>August</strong> 15 th .<br />
Our goal is to provide a one-stop place for NCSEA members and those<br />
exploring the NCSEA website to find recent studies, basic child support<br />
statistics, and research informing child support policy and operations. If you<br />
are not a regular user of the website, we encourage you to check it out and<br />
provide your feedback. Keep reading to learn more about what the website<br />
currently has to offer.<br />
The NCSEA Research Corner contains publications organized into seven<br />
broad categories. Click https://www.ncsea.org/resources-info/research/<br />
and save the link in your favorites for quick access.<br />
1<br />
Child Support Caseloads<br />
and Demographics<br />
Publications include summaries of caseload and<br />
demographics from U.S. Census data, federal Office of<br />
Child Support Enforcement data, and other large databases.<br />
2<br />
Financial Support and<br />
Ability to Pay<br />
Publications on parents’ ability to contribute financially to<br />
their children’s well-being, materials regarding earnings,<br />
factors associated with support payment or nonpayment,<br />
parent work programs, impacts of large arrearages, and<br />
other related topics.<br />
3<br />
Parental Engagement and<br />
Emotional Support<br />
4<br />
Intersection of Child Support<br />
with Other Family-Focused<br />
Programs<br />
Publications on parents’ ability to contribute to their children’s<br />
emotional and psychological well-being. This includes<br />
materials regarding custody, parenting time, healthy parenting,<br />
benefits of fatherhood, two-parent cooperation, and other<br />
related topics.<br />
Publications that provide insight into how local, state,<br />
and/or federal programs impact family well-being and<br />
outcomes.
5<br />
Child Support Operations<br />
and Program<br />
Administration<br />
Publications that pertain to child support operations and<br />
the administration of the child support program. This<br />
includes publications on performance and program<br />
outcome measures.<br />
6<br />
Child Child Support Guidelines<br />
Reports from state child support guidelines<br />
reviews.<br />
7<br />
Other Websites with<br />
Additional and Related<br />
Research<br />
Links to websites with research relevant to<br />
child support.<br />
The Research Corner was produced through the collaborative efforts of<br />
NCSEA’s all-volunteer Research Subcommittee and NCSEA leadership<br />
and staff. Other current activities include drafting a research brief on<br />
modifications, identifying administrative data fields that could be pooled<br />
across states and tribunals for the purpose of researching child support<br />
issues, and developing strategies to encourage research organizations to<br />
produce research and surveys informing child support policies and<br />
practices. We welcome your input on any of these activities. Please provide<br />
your suggestions by answering the last question of the survey.<br />
_________________________________________<br />
Austin, Terri, Ryann, and Jane are part of a workgroup within the NCSEA Research<br />
Subcommittee dedicated to improving the research links for the NCSEA community.<br />
Austin Holik is a Human Services Program Specialist with the Minnesota Child Support<br />
Division in Saint Paul.<br />
Terri Jones is the Central Registry Manager for the Division of Child Support Services of<br />
the Georgia Department of Human Services.<br />
Ryann Levering-White is the Senior Policy Analyst with the Ohio CSEA Directors’<br />
Association (OCDA) in Columbus, Ohio.<br />
Jane Venohr is a research associate/economist with the Center for Policy Research in<br />
Denver, Colorado.
NCSEA <strong>2021</strong> Leadership Symposium:<br />
A Preview<br />
by Ashley Dexter & Charles Smith<br />
Co-chairs, Leadership Symposium<br />
NCSEA’s <strong>2021</strong> Leadership Symposium will be held IN PERSON <strong>August</strong> 1<br />
– 4 at the Austin Marriott Downtown in Austin, TX. The venue is centrally<br />
located to many of downtown Austin’s sights, restaurants, and nightlife.<br />
Austin is a vibrant top-tier city, with a charm uniquely its own. In Austin, you<br />
can hike or bike around Lady Bird Lake, rent a canoe, or fish from the<br />
shore. Whether you are a shopper, foodie, or enjoy the nightlife, Austin<br />
yields an abundance of shops, restaurants, and musical venues to satisfy<br />
every craving, all within downtown walking distance.<br />
The theme for this year’s symposium is Think Forward. The past 15 months<br />
brought uncharted territory for everyone in the program, and things<br />
continue to evolve daily. As leaders, we need to lead ourselves, our teams,<br />
and the child support community forward. The planning committee<br />
reviewed all your wonderful proposal submissions and put together<br />
innovative workshops aimed at helping all of us “think forward” by<br />
continuing to grow in the child support program through vision and a<br />
service-minded focus.<br />
This year’s symposium continues with the focus on leadership in the child<br />
support community. Attendees will find a variety of plenaries, workshops,<br />
and hands-on learning labs that will address leadership, child support<br />
program improvements and innovations, technology, and diversity, equity,<br />
and inclusion. Be on the lookout for surveys prior to the conference that will<br />
be used in conjunction with a couple of the workshops or learning labs. The<br />
information you supply upfront will further enhance the robust, interactive<br />
conversations that we look forward to having with you at the Leadership<br />
Symposium.
The symposium kicks off Sunday evening with the Welcome Reception at<br />
5:30 p.m. CST and continues Monday morning with breakfast and Plenary<br />
I: Leading with the Heart. You will not want to miss this! Monday afternoon,<br />
we continue exploring the human side of our work, how it impacts our<br />
personal lives, and the mental health and emotional vulnerabilities exposed<br />
during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also offer three opportunities to<br />
participate in learning labs, as well as other great breakout workshops<br />
during the morning and afternoon.<br />
Tuesday kicks off with another must-see plenary, where we will hear from<br />
fathers about their experiences with the child support program. These<br />
fathers’ perspectives can help lead us forward to better collaborate and<br />
engage fathers in our daily work. In the afternoon, several IV-D directors<br />
from around the country will share their thoughts and recommendations on<br />
what may become the “new normal” in the child support program. Tuesday<br />
includes three more learning lab opportunities and several breakout<br />
workshops with varying focuses.<br />
Wednesday includes two morning plenaries that will dive deeper into<br />
conversations about the future of the child support program based on<br />
current legislation, global trends, and the human side of change that we<br />
need to consider as we chart the future.<br />
Lastly, we are excited to discuss the networking opportunities at this<br />
symposium. Ninety-eight percent of past attendees said networking was<br />
their primary reason for attending. From the moment the reception begins<br />
on Sunday, we have incorporated opportunities for you to network with your<br />
peers, colleagues, and the vendors sponsoring our symposium. There will<br />
be a Welcome Reception Sunday, a President’s Reception Monday, and<br />
opportunities for vendor showcases built into the schedule.<br />
We are excited that the symposium creates the opportunity to come<br />
together, learn, establish new connections, and renew old friendships. As<br />
Austin is a city on the move, we cannot think of a better place to support<br />
this year’s focus of “Think Forward.” We look forward to seeing y‘all in<br />
Austin!
Ashley Dexter is a Specialist Senior with Deloitte Consulting LLC. She has served on<br />
the NCSEA Board of Directors and as the Leadership Symposium Planning Committee<br />
Co-Chair for the past 3 years.<br />
Charles Smith is the President/CEO for Charles R. Smith Consulting, a company he<br />
created in June 2018 after retiring from Texas state government in May 2018 with more<br />
than thirty years of credited service. He serves on the NCSEA Board of Directors and<br />
co-chairs the <strong>2021</strong> Leadership Symposium.
Is NCSEA U For You?<br />
NCSEA U was chartered in 2013 and currently has<br />
more than 135 alumni. NCSEA U provides a unique<br />
premier educational and professional development<br />
opportunity. It is structured for learning leaders in the<br />
child support community and it complements NCSEA’s<br />
other educational initiatives and strategies. The<br />
program is taught by nationally recognized child<br />
support leaders, offering a variety of informative and<br />
strategic topics. Classes are structured with an<br />
emphasis on group discussions that include work/life balance and best practice initiatives<br />
with real time work environment scenarios.<br />
Whether for yourself or your staff, NCSEA U offers a transformative learning experience<br />
and is a catalyst for networking opportunities. NCSEA U alumni would love for you to<br />
become a part of this unique group. Because we are proud of NCSEA U, we will be<br />
featuring Alumni in upcoming <strong>CSQ</strong> articles. Their stories will highlight why NCSEA U is for<br />
you.<br />
Meet Our NCSEA U Alumni<br />
Laura Van Buskirk- Class 2016<br />
Placer County Department of Child Support Services<br />
Director<br />
Since attending NCSEA U, what opportunities (personal and professional) have you experienced?<br />
Since attending NCSEA U, I now co-chair an NCSEA subcommittee, co-facilitate an NCSEA affinity group,<br />
and am honored to serve on several NCSEA committees. Through NCSEA U and the opportunities that<br />
bring NCSEA U alumni together, I have forged lifelong friendships and important professional alliances. A<br />
year ago, I achieved a lifelong dream to move to California, where I have the distinct privilege of serving as<br />
director of one of the state's 47 regional and county child support agencies. I truly believe realizing this<br />
dream would not have happened without the "NCSEA U boost." Attending NCSEA U helped me form closeknit<br />
relationships with other leaders, which boosted my confidence, enlarged my vision, and emboldened<br />
me to go after my dreams.<br />
Why would you recommend NCSEA U to others? If you want to move into a position of leadership or<br />
dramatically enhance your leadership abilities, attending NCSEA U is the single most important step you<br />
can take.<br />
What is a key leadership attribute that you appreciate in others? Why? Humility - because all the other<br />
virtues of leadership stem from it. Leadership is not about the leader. It's about the team whom the leader<br />
serves. Truly inspirational leaders are not in it for themselves. They understand that this position of<br />
leadership is a tremendous responsibility - an obligation to help their team be the best every day.
Jonell Sullivan-Class 2019<br />
Arizona Department of Economic Security<br />
Organizational Enhancement Manager<br />
Most valuable aspect of the NCSEA U experience? Hearing the instructors explain the topics through<br />
their life experiences. Interacting with peers from all across the United States.<br />
NCSEA U @ Leadership Symposium focuses on the emerging and learning leader. How do you<br />
define leadership? Leadership to me is helping grow and inspire people who are within my circle to be the<br />
very best they can be. A leader wants to motivate, inspire and promote energy to their team. Leadership<br />
needs to have a bit of humor and we should not take ourselves too serious.<br />
Do you believe that attending NCSEA U helped shaped this definition? How or how not?<br />
NCSEA U absolutely helped me grow as a leader. Hearing lecture and then doing practical examples really<br />
provided some additional tools to develop leaders. Being able to hear other opinions expanded my<br />
knowledge and provided different options.<br />
Leon Fernando – Class of 2016<br />
Alameda County Child Support Services<br />
Community Relations Manager<br />
What was your course curriculum/theme? Great Ideas - From Concept to Completion. The curriculum<br />
focused on the leader's role in supporting innovation and creativity, developing and getting buy-in for great<br />
ideas, and putting them into action. We looked at everything from decision-making models and project<br />
planning, to considerations for networking and successfully advocating for support from key stakeholders,<br />
and how to deal with obstacles and setbacks successfully.<br />
Since attending NCSEA U, what opportunities (personal and professional) have you experienced?<br />
NCSEA U opened up my perspective on the child support program. I was able to take that new perspective<br />
with me into my work in engaging the public, other child support organizations, and other service agencies. I<br />
learned to see the program from the outside to understand what our participants and key stakeholders<br />
need, and this in turn has led to the development of better service delivery, more productive community<br />
partnerships, and better outcomes for the families we serve.<br />
Do you believe that attending NCSEA U helped shaped this definition? This one is from Abraham<br />
Lincoln “No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.” It's a reminder to me<br />
that my position doesn't make me a leader; its what I say and the actions that I take that cause other people<br />
to follow my lead. Leading an organization means advancing its aims, and also supporting the people who<br />
do the work of the organization.