April 2024 CSQ

Table of Contents
April 2024
Executive Director’s Message ....................................................... 3
Balancing Act: The Shifting Focus of Child Support Services ....... 7
Moving the Program Forward: Final Rules Issued by the Federal
Office of Child Support Services ................................................. 11
The Differential Impacts of Tax Credits and Filing Status on
Parents Who Live Apart .............................................................. 16
From Customer to Commissioner ............................................... 21
Tennessee’s Child Support Reentry Program: Employee
Innovation Leads to Family-Centered Solution ........................... 30
NCSEA 2024 Policy Forum Wrap-up: “Building Community,
Centering Families, Advancing Equity” ....................................... 35
NCSEA U Alumni Spotlight .......................................................... 40

Chris Wood,
NCSEA Executive Director
I joined the National Child Support Engagement Association (NCSEA) as
Executive Director in April 2023, with the aim of advancing the child support
profession and advocating for the best interests of children and families. I
have now had the opportunity to participate in various events and activities
that have enriched my knowledge, skills, and network in the field of child
support.
My first year as Executive Director began with jumping right into a
successful Board of Directors election process, which took place in May
and June. As NCSEA’s new executive director, I had the privilege of
recording interviews with the candidates who would represent the
association and its members for the next term. The newly elected board
members took office on September 1, 2023. Working with the Board of
Directors and volunteer leaders has been a rewarding aspect of my first
year with NCSEA, and I enjoy supporting them in their roles. The Board
fosters a collaborative environment where diverse perspectives are valued.
Throughout the past year, we debated policy recommendations, explored
funding opportunities, and ensured alignment with NCSEA’s vision. Serving
alongside these experienced leaders in child support has allowed me to
hone my own leadership skills. Their mentorship and guidance have been
invaluable.
One of the most memorable events of the last year was the 2023
Leadership Symposium held in Anaheim, California, last August. The
symposium brought together child support leaders and experts from across
the country to share best practices, discuss emerging trends, and explore

innovative solutions. I attended sessions that covered topics such as
leadership development, data analytics, customer service,
intergovernmental cooperation, and diversity and inclusion. I also had the
chance to network with other attendees and exchange ideas and
perspectives on various issues and challenges facing the child support
community. The symposium was a valuable learning and networking
opportunity for me, and I left feeling inspired and motivated to apply what I
learned to my own work.
On November 29, 2023, the House Committee on Ways and Means’ Joint
Work and Welfare and Oversight Subcommittee held a hearing on
“Strengthening the Child Support Enforcement Program for States and
Tribes,” the first congressional hearing on the child support program since
2001. While NCSEA did not directly provide testimony, all the testimony
was provided by NCSEA members. The hearing was an important
opportunity to present views and recommendations on the federal child
support program and to highlight the achievements and challenges of state,
local, and tribal child support agencies. The testimony was well-received by
the Subcommittee members and generated constructive dialogue on how
to improve and strengthen the child support system.
My first year with NCSEA began drawing to a close with an incredibly
productive 2024 Policy Forum in Washington, DC, in February. The forum
was a platform for NCSEA members to engage with policymakers,
stakeholders, and partners on the federal, state, and local levels. The
Policy Forum featured keynote speakers, panel discussions, and
networking events, covering a wide range of topics such as child support
enforcement, family-centered services, child poverty, child well-being, and
child support innovation. I had the opportunity to meet and connect with
many influential and knowledgeable people, including Congressional staff,
other federal officials, state administrators, attorneys, researchers, and
advocates. The Policy Forum was a fantastic way to wrap up my first year
with NCSEA and positively set the stage for 2024.
In closing, my first year with NCSEA has been a remarkable and fulfilling
one. Looking back, I have learned so much, met a lot of people, and, I
hope, contributed positively to the association and the child support

profession. I am grateful for the opportunities and experiences that NCSEA
is providing me, and I am proud to be a part of this dynamic and diverse
community. I look forward to continuing my work with our Board of
Directors, volunteers, and members to make a positive difference in the
lives of children and families.
Chris Wood
Christopher Wood is the Executive Director of the National Child Support Engagement Association. Chris
and his partner Kelly live in Wilmington, NC, with their puppy, Arthur Guinness, a black and tan German
Shepherd mix who loves naps. All three enjoy trying new recipes, spending time with friends and family,
and exploring the Carolina coast.

Balancing Act: The Shifting Focus
of Child Support Services
by Meg Haynes, Child Support Consultant
I recently stepped back from full-time employment after almost 40 years
with the child support program. NCSEA asked this “old timer” to talk about
how the program has evolved. So, bear with me as I muse about progress,
adjustments, and opportunities ahead.
When I entered child support as a prosecutor in 1984, people often winked
and laughed about “getting away” with not paying support. State laws
governing support dramatically varied. The Child Support Enforcement
Amendments of 1984 had just passed. For the first time all states had to
enforce support orders by income withholding, but it was arrearage based.
States had to develop child support guidelines, but they were advisory.
Numerous states established paternity in public assistance cases through
criminal bastardy proceedings. And DNA testing did not exist. There were
often jury trials where you held up Little Johnny before jurors and hoped he
had Big Johnny’s ears!
Filing interstate cases under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of
Support Act (URESA), the predecessor of the Uniform Interstate Family
Support Act (UIFSA), was like sending them into a black hole. A district
attorney in North Carolina hired me to establish a URESA unit because the
North Carolina Court of Appeals i had found his office negligent: the
prosecutor had handed the trial court judge a URESA case file and then left
the courtroom! Clerks of court would return files to the initiating state
because the petitioner had used the wrong-sized paper based on local
court rules. In 1988 Congress established the U.S. Commission on
Interstate Child Support to identify needed improvements. The Commission
had a profound impact on both the culture and laws shaping child support.

Through its public hearings around the country, testimony before Congress,
appearances on national television shows, and news media campaign, it
highlighted the critical importance of timely financial support as a way to
raise children out of poverty. Its report to Congress resulted in laws and
processes that are now quite familiar. Many focused on automation—the
establishment of federal and state case registries, federal and state
directories of new hires, automated income withholding, expanded
automated locate resources, and financial institution data matches. In order
to use automated enforcement, Congress also enacted laws to make past
due child support payments vested judgments not subject to retroactive
modification.
As a result, child support collections increased. In 1990, only about 56% of
IV-D cases had orders and only about 18% of IV-D cases had payments. ii
In 2010, about 79% of IV-D cases had orders and about 56% of IV-D cases
had payments. iii But the pendulum swing with its heavy emphasis on
enforcement—needed at the time—was extreme. As enforcement became
increasingly automated, research highlighted that many support orders
exceeded people’s ability to pay. And automated enforcement didn’t offer
avenues to address parenting time, non-adversarial agreements, or fears of
increased domestic violence due to the enforcement.

Rightfully, the child support program has sought a greater balance. It
continues to provide the core services of locate, establishment,
enforcement, and review and adjustment. But we also strive to be more
holistic in working with families. We
encourage consent procedures. More than
30 states operate a child support-led
employment program for noncustodial
parents. And Congress has highlighted the
importance of establishing parenting time
arrangements, accompanied by strong
family violence safeguards, when obtaining
child support orders. The most visible signal
of the program’s evolution is the change of
the federal agency’s name from the Office
of Child Support Enforcement to the Office
of Child Support Services.
Of course, the program will continue to evolve. The demographics and
desires of our workforce as well as the families we serve—and could be
serving—will continue to change. There will be an ongoing need for
interagency collaboration, tribal and state cooperation, and review of laws
and policies to ensure they have an equitable impact and balance
enforcement with family-centered practices. Systems need to be nimbler.
We need to continue to address barriers to effective processing of

international cases. But I have never met a more dedicated, passionate,
creative group of individuals than the child support community, and it will
continue to move the program forward in exciting ways.
What a gift it’s been to literally grow up in this community. It’s provided me
the opportunity to make a positive difference in children’s lives. It’s been
intellectually challenging. Most importantly, it’s given me lifelong friends
whom I cherish. Thank you for the journey.
i
See Thelen v. Thelen, 281 S.E.2d 737 (N.C. App. 1981), https://law.justia.com/cases/north-carolina/court-of-appeals/1981/8026dc1025-
1.html.
ii
Office of Child Support Enforcement, Nineteenth Annual Report to Congress (1994), FY 1994 Annual Report to Congress | The Administration
for Children and Families (hhs.gov).
iii
Office of Child Support Enforcement, FY 2010 Annual Report to Congress (2010), FY 2010 Annual Report to Congress | The Administration
for Children and Families (hhs.gov).
Margaret (Meg) Haynes has more than 35 years of child support experience in public, nonprofit, and
private sectors. From 1990 - 1992 she chaired the U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support. Its report
to Congress resulted in major child support reform. Meg participated in the drafting of the Uniform Interstate
Family Support Act from 1990 to 2008. From 2004 – 2007 she was a member of the U.S. delegation during
negotiation of the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention. In 2022 she was a member of the NCSEA
delegation to the Hague Special Commission on implementation of the Convention. She currently co-chairs
the Hague Convention Forms Working Group. Recognitions include the Commissioner’s Distinguished
Service Award from the federal Office of Child Support Services, ERICSA’s Felix Infausto Award for
outstanding contributions in interstate child support, and NCSEA’s Child Support Community Service
Award. She is a lifetime member of NCSEA.

Moving the Program Forward: Final Rules Issued
by the Federal Office of Child Support Services
by Diane Potts, Director, CGI
Federal regulations are published by executive branch agencies to provide
guidance on their interpretation of federal laws and advise how they will be
implemented and enforced. Like laws, federal regulations are published
and codified. Unlike federal laws, however, proposed changes to federal
regulations must go through a notification process called the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The NPRM is the official document that
announces the intended changes and explains the agency’s intent in
addressing a problem or accomplishing a goal with the changes. Every
NPRM is published in the Federal Register and has a specific timeframe for
interested individuals, organizations, states, and other stakeholders to
respond by filing comments with the agency.
This article details two significant final rules issued recently through the
NPRM process by the federal Office of Child Support Services (OCSS).
NCSEA filed comments to the NPRMs in support of both regulatory
changes and believes that they will improve the child support program for
states and tribes.
New Rule Eliminates Costs for Tribes to Operate a Child Support
Program
Tribes that operate child support programs have been successful collecting
support for families. In federal fiscal year 2022, Tribal child support
programs collected $51 million in payments, including $10 million collected

in intergovernmental cases on behalf of another Tribe, state, or country.
With 53 percent of Native American children in Tribal areas with programs
living in single-parent families, there is a compelling need for Tribal child
support programs.
Yet there are only 61 Tribes currently
operating a child support program, a small
percentage of the 574 federally recognized
Tribes in the United States. The main
barrier to greater participation is the 80-20
and 90-10 cost sharing rates between
Tribes and federal government. Because
Tribal governments have fewer revenue-generating options than state
governments, the match often requires Tribes to choose between allocating
scarce resources to provide critical services, or develop and operate a child
support program. OCSS issued an NPRM on April 21, 2023, to address this
problem and NCSEA filed comments in support of eliminating cost sharing
entirely.
On February 12, 2024, OCSS
announced a final rule that
eliminated the burdensome cost
sharing requirement for Tribal child
support programs. See 89 Fed.
Reg. 9784, Elimination of the Tribal
Non-Federal Share Requirement.
The change will take effect later this
year on October 1, 2024.
As explained by Health and Human
Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, the change will “make it easier and less
expensive for Tribal community-run child support programs to meet the
needs of their communities.” OCSS Commissioner Tanguler Gray praised
the final rule stating: “We’ve heard their feedback loud and clear, and are
doing what we can to remove unnecessary burdens to operating their own
programs. This rule does just that, and will make it easier for existing and
new Tribal child support programs to access funding they need to improve
outcomes for children and families.”
The final rule also was intended to promote equity and aims to honor Tribal
sovereignty. To further the survival and welfare of Indian Tribes and people,
the final rule reiterates the federal commitment to provide services needed

to protect and enhance Tribal lands, resources, and self-government. This
includes economic and social programs like child support that serve to
raise the standard of living and social well-being of Native people. As
explained by ACF Administration for Native Americans Commissioner and
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native American Affairs Patrice H. Kunesh,
“I'm proud of our Tribal partnerships and how this rule works to improve
equity and reduce systemic barriers to services. The Administration for
Children and Families will continue to support social and economic
development in a manner that provides Tribal Nations with the greatest
possible self-determination.”
New Rule Gives Relief to Title IV-D Programs In Times of Emergency
Under Title IV-D, state child support programs must achieve specific
performance levels in paternity establishment, support order establishment,
and current support collections. The threshold performance levels that
programs must meet are:
• Paternity establishment percentage (PEP) of 90% under 45 C.F.R. §
305.40(a)(1);
• Support order establishment of 40% under 45 C.F.R. §305.40(a)(3);
and
• Current collections performance of 35% under 45 C.F.R.
§305.40(a)(3).
If a child support program fails to achieve these performance levels with
complete and reliable performance measure data, the program may be
assessed penalties against its TANF grant.
When state child support programs are
serving families under normal
circumstances, it is reasonable to require
programs to meet those performance
levels. The COVID-19 pandemic, however,
illustrated how severely child support
program operations can be impacted by
court and office shutdowns. States
experienced significant workload burdens
and service backlogs that were not

attributable to any shortcomings of the program. In these situations,
imposing a financial penalty against a state’s TANF funding is illogical
because it takes away valuable resources that are critically needed during
emergencies.
In response to the pandemic, OCSS issued an NPRM and final rule
modifying 45 C.F.R. §305.61(e). The new regulation provided time-limited
relief to the PEP for federal fiscal years 2020, 2021, and 2022.
Going forward, however, OCSS saw the benefits of having the ability to
provide temporary relief to states for future emergencies without having to
go through the lengthy NPRM process. OCSS issued an NPRM on July 13,
2023, to make that change and improve the process. NCSEA filed
comments in support.
On March 4, 2024, OCSS issued a
final rule providing ongoing
authority to grant prompt relief to
state programs, if justified by the
circumstances, without having to
engage in the formal rulemaking
process. See 89 Fed. Reg. 15475,
Modifications to Performance
Standards During Natural Disasters
and Other Calamities. The change
was effective immediately.
The rule allows OCSS to modify performance measure requirements and
waive penalties for failure to meet these requirements when an emergency
impacts a state’s ability to achieve the paternity establishment, support
order establishment, and current collections standards. The rule also allows
OCSS to set aside adverse data reliability audit findings caused by an
emergency such as a pandemic that also could trigger a financial penalty.
ACF Acting Assistant Secretary Jeff Hild explained that natural disasters
today are “an increasing fact of life and our programs must be flexible and
adapt in the face of emergencies.” The rule helps ensure child support
programs have continued funding to help families in need in the aftermath
of disasters.
Commissioner Gray praised the child support programs as having been
“incredibly resilient and innovative in finding ways to continue providing
services to families during the pandemic.” With the final rule, child support

now has “an important tool to help programs weather future emergencies,”
by authorizing the Health and Human Services Secretary to provide
targeted and time-limited relief to states from the PEP, support order
establishment, and current support collections performance thresholds
when natural disasters and other calamities impact program operations.
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.

The Differential Impacts of Tax Credits and Filing
Status on Parents Who Live Apart
by Elizabeth Morgan, Management Consultant, Public
Knowledge, and Jim Fleming, Director, North Dakota Child
Support Services
It is widely known that raising children is expensive; however, the United
States tax code provides some individuals raising minor children with
several tax credits that can provide financial buffers, especially for lowincome
families. Some of these tax credits include the Child and
Dependent Care Credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and the
Child Tax Credit (CTC). This article will focus on the EITC and the CTC.
Some parents are also able to take advantage of filing taxes as Head of
Household.
Parents who live apart can experience a disparity in tax benefits between
their households based on which parent has primary custody of the
children, even when both parents contribute equally to raising the children.
This article explores the differential impacts of the application of the EITC
and CTC based on taxpayers’ income, filing status, and whether they claim
their child(ren) as dependents.
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
In the 1960s and 1970s, there was a debate over reforming welfare, at that
time known as the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
program. AFDC caseloads were increasing and there was an interest in
encouraging work and reducing the need for welfare. In 1975, Congress
enacted the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) on a temporary basis as part

of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975. Over the
years, the EITC was expanded to include
increases in the maximum credit amount,
broader eligibility criteria, and additional
benefits for families with more children.
The EITC provides low to moderate-income working individuals and
families with a reduction in the amount of taxes owed or a refund if the
credit exceeds the tax liability. The EITC was designed to serve as a work
incentive to encourage individuals to seek and maintain employment,
thereby promoting workforce participation and reducing reliance on cash
assistance.
To be eligible for the EITC, a taxpayer must
have earned income from employment, selfemployment,
or certain other sources, and
meet certain income limits. In addition,
individuals can claim a larger amount of the
EITC if they care for a “qualifying child” in
their home for more than half of the year. A
“qualifying child” is defined as a child under
age 19 at the end of the tax year (or under age 24 if a full-time student).
The Child Tax Credit (CTC)
While the EITC is available to individuals with or without
minor children in the household, the credit is substantially
larger for those with children. The CTC, however, is
available only to families who will claim one or more
qualifying children as dependents when filing their tax
returns. A qualifying child must:
• Be under age 17 at the end of the year;
• Live with the parent for more than half the year; and
• Be properly claimed as a dependent on the parent’s tax return.
Parents can qualify for the full amount of the CTC if they meet all eligibility
factors and their annual income does not exceed $200,000.
Differential impacts of the EITC and CTC on parents who live apart
While the EITC and the CTC primarily benefit families with children, the
EITC and CTC do not apply equally to parents who live apart. Generally,

the parent who receives support is the parent with whom the child lives for
most of the year—one requirement for claiming the EITC and the CTC.
However, parents who pay support
generally do not qualify for the EITC and
CTC due to the residential requirements. If a
parent who pays support has a qualifying
child and meets all other eligibility criteria,
he or she may be able to claim the EITC
and the CTC to include the amount for the
qualifying child. However, both parents
cannot claim the EITC and CTC for the
same child in the same tax year. In cases of
shared custody, the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) typically allows the parent who
receives support to claim the credit unless there is a written agreement or
court order specifying otherwise.
The differential impacts of the EITC and the CTC and Head of
Household filing status on parents who live apart: An Example
This scenario provides an example of how two parents living apart receive
substantially different tax benefits with respect to the EITC, the CTC, and
Head of Household filing status. iv
The facts of this scenario are as follows: two parents, Pat and Sam (both
30 years old), have one five-year-old child, Dana. Pat and Sam were never
married, and they live in separate households.
Pat and Sam have never gone to court to establish child support, though
parentage was established administratively at the time of Dana’s birth.
Dana lives most of the year (nine months) with Pat, and she lives with Sam
for three months during the summer.
Both parents earn the same income, and they equally share the cost of
childcare and medical expenses.
The following tables demonstrate the results of applying the current EITC
and CTC eligibility rules to Pat and Sam based on increasing income
levels.

Income of both parents: $15,000
Parent
Filing
Status
Standard
Deduction
AGI v EITC CTC
Federal Tax
Refund
Total Tax
Benefits
Pat HH vi $20,800 $15,000 $3,995 $2,000 $5,595 $11,590
Sam Single $13,850 $15,000 $201 $0 $87 $288
Income of both parents: $25,000
Parent
Filing
Status
Standard
Deduction
AGI EITC CTC
Federal Tax
Refund
Total Tax
Benefits
Pat HH $ 20,800 $25,000 $3,442 $2,000 $ 5,026 $ 10,468
Sam Single $ 13,850 $25,000 $ 0 $ 0 ($ 1,118) ($ 1,118)
Income of both parents: $40,000
Parent
Filing
Status
Standard
Deduction
AGI EITC CTC
Federal Tax
Refund
Total Tax
Benefits
Pat HH $20,800 $40,000 $1,045 $2,000 $1,059 $4,104
Sam Single $ 13,850 $40,000 $0 $0 ($2,918) ($2,918)
What can be done to reduce the disparity?
The differential impact of the EITC and CTC and Head of Household filing
status on parents who pay support in comparison to parents who receive
support could be mitigated through congressional action. One approach
would be for Congress to expand the EITC, CTC, and Head of Household
eligibility criteria to include parents who pay support and who have
significant parenting time or are current in meeting their financial child
support obligations.
Another approach would be to create alternative tax benefits or credits
specifically targeted at parents who pay support. These credits could be
designed to provide financial assistance or incentives for employment,
education, or other activities that support the well-being of their children.
Conclusion
Parents who meet their child support obligations are supporting their
children, just in a different way from custodial parents. Yet, low-income
parents who pay child support, in particular, are taxed at a much higher
effective rate than parents who receive support. This provides a challenge

to regular payment of support and places parents who owe child support at
a disadvantage in supporting their children and being self-sufficient. Just as
parents who receive support are recognized in the Internal Revenue Code
for the cost of raising children, so too should parents who provide support
for their children in the form of monthly child support payments.
iv
Computing hypothetical federal income tax calculations requires many assumptions, such as whether the parent would claim the standard
deduction or itemize deductions. For the purposes of this scenario, the calculations have deliberately been kept as simple as possible. Further,
it is assumed that the parents have not obtained a court order governing which parent can claim the child as a dependent and have not
otherwise agreed that the noncustodial parent can claim the child as a dependent.
v
AGI: Adjusted Gross Income.
vi
HH: Head of Household.
Elizabeth Morgan is a management consultant for Public Knowledge® where she provides subject matter
expertise on data privacy law and child support policy, as a consultant to the Office of Child Support
Services (OCSS). Elizabeth has focused much of her career on child support distribution policy and has
been a lead author of federal policy guidance and training for distribution requirements under both
PRWORA and the DRA of 2005. She is an individual member of NCSEA and has served as co-chair of
NCSEA’s Policy and Government Relations’ Legislative Education Subcommittee for the past five years.
She is a past-president and honorary lifetime board member of WICSEC. Elizabeth holds a B.A. from
Whitman College, an M.S. from Western Washington University, and a J.D. from Seattle University.
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.

From Customer to Commissioner
by Vicki Turetsky, Esq.
We all come to child support for different reasons. This is what I learned
along my journey.
To help children, understand the parents’ story. We all have a story, the
personal and professional experiences that shape our understanding. My
story is not unique. To escape an abusive home, I married at 17, and had
my first child the month I turned 18. My then-husband also came from a
troubled home. Our families experienced mental illness, substance use,
family violence, incarceration, and suicide. We divorced 10 years later and I
then raised our children mostly alone.
Until my children reached their teen years, we stayed afloat through a
combination of earnings, child support, and public assistance. My part-time
jobs included department store clerk, restaurant cashier, waitress, museum
docent, and correspondence school instructor. None included health
insurance or sick leave. I was fired from one job when I became pregnant
with my second child, and fired from another when my children had chicken
pox and I had no back-up care.
Some years we received child support and some years we didn’t. At one
time or another, we benefited from public and community assistance,
including AFDC, Food Stamps, WIC, EITC, Medicaid, Section 8 housing,
free school lunch program, commodity cheese, food banks, public health
clinic, and legal aid. I shopped at Goodwill and yard sales. We did not have
a car. Now I know, based on the types of public assistance we received,
that our household income was at or near the federal poverty threshold for
a decade.

But I didn’t feel poor. I felt resourceful. We
just needed a little help. When I applied
for AFDC, I was required to assign my
child support rights. It made no sense—
child support was our own money. I closed
my case and made do. Forty-six years
later, I am still mad about cost recovery.
Give young people a picture and a way
out. After high school, I enrolled in
community college. But I dropped out at the end
of my first year, when my first child was born. I
had no encouragement, money, or childcare to stay in
school. Five years later, I applied to the University of Minnesota. We moved
into a 500-unit student family housing community managed as a
cooperative. I got involved, and eventually became the board president of
the housing corporation. Everything I know about politics I learned in that
role. I was planning to become a librarian but was encouraged by my
friends to go to law school.
In 1979, I became the first single parent admitted to the University of
Chicago Law School. Three-quarters of the students and nearly the entire
faculty were male. During my first year, Chicago public school teachers
went on strike, so my children sat on a bench outside my classroom every
day. From the beginning, I wanted to become an anti-poverty attorney. I
became an officer of the law school legal clinic, and initiated a project to
represent adolescents in child welfare proceedings.
Encourage fathers to stay involved. My views about implementing
realistic child support policies and the role of fathers in the child support
program developed over time. I had my own personal experiences. I was
also influenced by my experiences as a legal services supervising attorney
in the Newark, NJ area. I represented inadequately housed and homeless
people, keeping weekly intake hours at a local soup kitchen.
But I really began to understand the effects of existing child support policies
when I worked for MDRC, a nonprofit research firm in New York City. I
helped implement a research demonstration pilot in the early 1990s called
Parent’s Fair Share (PFS). PFS tested a model that included employment
services, child support case management, peer support, and mediation that
later became the basis for the Child Support Noncustodial Parent

Employment Demonstration (CSPED). I talked with many fathers, and
heard their trauma, pain, grief, despair, humor, and hope.
In about 1997, early advocates for low-income noncustodial parents made
a strategic decision to engage NCSEA in a dialogue. I remember the first
time they presented on “fragile families” and “deadbroke dads” at an
NCSEA conference. They were almost hissed off the stage, but they were
persuasive. I began to publish reports identifying more realistic child
support policies, became a national fatherhood leadership board member,
and worked with Congress to draft child support distribution and sections of
the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant legislation that
ultimately passed as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA).
The child support program began in a different era. My then-husband
and I ran a dairy farm in the early 1970s. Early in my marriage, I was not
permitted to work outside the farm, drive the car, or have a checkbook. But
out of financial necessity, I then became the primary wage-earner. I applied
for a credit card at the very department store where I worked, but was
denied. Only my husband could open a credit card account, and only his
income counted. Later, when my husband and I separated, my car
insurance coverage was cancelled, although his policy continued. The
insurance agent explained marital coverture to me--under the law, man and
wife were considered one person, and unfortunately for me, that person
was the husband. I tried to get renter’s insurance, but found out that I was
uninsurable as a divorced mother.
At that time, divorced fathers weren’t encouraged to stick around. The
attitude was: “Let him get on with his life,” and “The new husband can take
care of the kids.” There was little appreciation for the traumatic loss
experienced by children and their parents. Voluntary acknowledgment of
parentage and child support enforcement has helped transform the way we
look at fathers.
Title IV-D was enacted to increase gender equity. Title IV-D of the
Social Security Act was enacted in 1975 with overwhelming support from
women’s rights and anti-poverty advocates. It was one of a series of laws
intended to level the playing field between men and women, such as the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974. As OCSS commissioner, I
participated in several international conferences, and learned that one of
the first steps taken by countries with emerging civil rights for women was
to adopt a family law code granting mothers the right to obtain child
support.

But title IV-D had a second purpose:
welfare cost recovery. These cost recovery
policies were part of an older history,
rooted in Victorian-era poor relief laws that
treated public assistance as a debt. Cost
recovery laws have a long racist legacy,
and the chronological arc of the “deadbeat
parent” phase of the program mirrored the
rise of incarceration and the retrenchment of
public assistance programs.
The right to child support itself is ancient. In fact, in
1665, my ancestor, Herodias Long, successfully sued
the father of her children for child support in Rhode Island, although they
had never married. Since its inception, the child support program has
struggled to reconcile the legal right of children to obtain parental support,
the unequal economic footing of men and women, and reimbursement of
cash assistance.
Generational change has brought a different set of insights to the child
support program. Many of the people who implemented title IV-D had
experienced divorce and raised children as single mothers. Many of the
legislators at that time were divorced fathers. Many of the people who
make the child support program run today were once children who lived
apart from a parent.
The child support program has come a long way. My first job out of law
school in 1982 was with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, where I
represented the range of human services programs, including child
support. Minnesota has a state-administered, county-run program. At that
time, the state central office only had 4 or 5 staff. Except for the largest
counties, child support cases were handled by private attorneys under
county contract. Child support was enforced primarily through wage
garnishment, civil contempt, and criminal prosecutions. In its earliest days,
the child support program operated exclusively as a cost-recovery program.
In 1984, Congress required states to expand services to parents who did
not receive AFDC but requested services.
I started working with the title IV-D program before child support guidelines
were implemented. Order amounts varied widely. Low-income noncustodial
parents of children receiving AFDC were typically charged the full amount
of assistance paid out, including Medicaid birthing costs and retroactive

support. Better-off fathers, on the other hand, often received nominal
orders. In fact, many divorced fathers did not have a monthly support order
at all. Part of my job as a state attorney was to review lump sum divorce
decrees to determine whether they satisfied a “best interests of the child”
standard. It was then common for wives to get the house and a lump sum
settlement of a few thousand dollars in lieu of a monthly support order
during a child’s minority.
This also was before UIFSA was enacted. We operated under the Uniform
Reciprocal Enforcement of Child Support Act (URESA). In order to enforce
child support orders across state lines, both states had to enter into a
compact—a little like a bilateral agreement in international cases. Part of
my job was to review new URESA agreements. My interstate child support
case wasn’t going to go anywhere because Minnesota didn’t have a
URESA agreement with Pennsylvania. I didn’t even try to enforce my case.
I represented the state in several class action lawsuits challenging federal
laws enacted in 1981 and 1984. My first case was a constitutional
challenge to the tax offset program. In another case, the state joined
families in challenging federal sibling deeming rules, which required all
children in the household to apply for AFDC and assign their child support
rights. We had affidavits from several parents who decided to change
custody rather than assign their support payments or who stopped paying
child support altogether. During my career, I’ve been privileged to work on
two U.S. Supreme Court cases.
Program architecture underlies family experiences. In late 1994, I
began working as a policy analyst at a national policy advocacy
organization called the Center for Law in Social Policy (CLASP) in
Washington, DC, and later became its family policy director. I specialized in
family policy for 15 years, focusing on low-income families and fathers,
domestic violence, and prison re-entry, including the Second Chance Act. I
also focused on the guts of the child support program: systems
implementation, program structure, and financing. A major part of my job
was legislative advocacy. I was often on the hill and in the media, and
coordinated closely with state directors. I had a hand in almost every child
support law passed by Congress between 1996 and 2009, when I became
OCSS commissioner.
1994 was truly an incredible time to return to the child support program.
Three weeks into the job, I went to my first NCSEA policy forum. The
conference was held at a pivotal point in the program’s history: the shift to

administrative and automated
enforcement, which moved case
processing from “retail to wholesale.” At
the same time, states were implementing
income withholding and the other
provisions of the Family Support Act of
1988, while OCSS had just issued its
paternity rules.
Two years earlier, in 1992, the U.S.
Commission on Interstate Child Support had
released its groundbreaking “blueprint for reform”
report that provided the framework for the child support
provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). I was a part of a coalition of states
and advocates providing input into the legislation. PRWORA ushered in the
computerized child support program. Computerization was essential for the
modern program, and strong enforcement authorities established its
credibility to collect child support. But this stronger role also led to excesses
that did harm.
Change is hard. After PRWORA was enacted, states struggled to
implement their new computer systems. I testified on the hill about
computer systems delays, and developed the alternative computer penalty
provision included in legislation. I also played a role in the Child Support
Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (CSPIA). Yet program performance
remained dismally flat. Discouraged Congressional members threatened to
move the program to the IRS or to privatize it. Just as the political threat
was becoming real, PRWORA results kicked in. As the quarterly reports
rolled in, I saw with amazement that performance rates had doubled in one
quarter. I jumped in a cab to the House committee office, quarterly data in
hand, and the political crisis was averted.
The child support program had reached another crossroads: retained
collections were no longer sufficient to pay for the program, and the federal
government was losing money. However, states continued to “make a
profit,” that is, state retained collections exceeded state expenditures. To
address the problem, OMB threatened behind the scenes to cut the federal
match rate to 50 percent. Yet the program was not overfunded but instead
grossly underfunded. In a meeting with OMB, I identified cost recovery
revenues—not the federal match rate—as the problem, and suggested that

ACF meet with stakeholders to reexamine the mission, financing,
performance, and role of noncustodial parents. OMB gave us a year
reprieve. We traveled around the country, holding 10 or 12 national and
regional meetings. This was about 1998 and 1999. The outcome was a
consensus mission that embraced low-income fathers and a plan to
eliminate cost recovery. Between 1997 and 2005, Congress introduced
about 40 bipartisan bills to reform distribution.
A family-centered program requires a broader perspective. A more
holistic child support program focuses more broadly on family needs, and
relies upon collaboration with other family-serving programs. Throughout its
history, the child support program has been isolated from other human
services programs, and has had trouble attracting media interest and
advocacy support. During our push in Congress to reverse the funding cut
included in the DRA, I realized that the standard political arguments for
funding the program no longer worked. I introduced a family-centered
framework as OCSS commissioner in part to make the child support
program more relatable to program stakeholders.
I brought a broad human services perspective to my child support work. My
professional background included AFDC, Food Stamps, Medicaid, child
welfare, housing, employment, refugee assistance, and other programs.
Throughout my career, I’ve toggled between legal, administrative, direct
service, and research roles. As a division director for the Minnesota
Department of Human Services, I was in charge of several crossdepartment
functions, including administrative appeals, rulemaking, and
grants and contracts, and received the state’s first “reinventing
government” award. I also represented the state in contract negotiations to
develop FAMIS, the old mainframe system for Medicaid, AFDC, and Food
Stamps.
During my time at CLASP, I was active in NCSEA, as well as APHSA and
NCCSD. I served a term on the NCSEA board, coordinated much of
NCSEA’s policy work, and participated on conference planning committees
for several years. I also helped launch the CSQ, and wrote monthly
legislative columns for the publication.
Program staff have to get behind real change. I became OCSS
commissioner during the middle of the worst recession since the Great
Depression. To make matters worse, the DRA had included a devastating
cut in child support funding, which we were only able to postpone by a
couple of years. Some county child support programs experienced 30

percent or more staffing cuts. OCSS also
experienced significant funding cuts. My
staff and I anxiously monitored new hire
data. The program was not really back on
its feet until 2012.
Coming into office, I wanted to establish
the vision, consensus, and policy
framework for a family-centered program.
My predecessors had laid the groundwork
through policy guidance, grant projects, and
initiatives like PAID. Texas was pioneering an
impressive family-centered program model, and
several other states and counties had implemented grant-funded initiatives.
The problem was that these grant initiatives often were not seen as part of
the “real” child support program, and were not sustained when the grant
ended. I wanted to integrate family-centered policies and practices into the
program. But with the fiscal crisis, few people were in the mood to hear
about an upcoming shift in federal priorities.
I remember one cab ride to a conference in 2010. My cabdriver told me that
he could not make enough money driving cab during the recession to pay
his child support. He wanted to go back to school to get an HVAC
certificate. He said he regularly saw his children, and his former wife
supported his plan. However, the county attorney had threatened him with
jail if he quit. I told his story at the conference. The story was not wellreceived.
Have a Plan B. I spent the recession years trying to describe the families I
knew and the type of approaches that would work. I also focused on
changing the language we used. To draw the picture, I borrowed familycentered
principles and language from the child welfare field. I sketched out
the “bubble chart” for a presentation slide. Much to my surprise, it became
our logo. We began drafting the 2016 Flexibility, Efficiency, and
Modernization rule early in the first term. As the program restabilized after
the recession, federal, state, county, and tribal child support agencies
engaged in extensive discussions about the program’s future. We stepped
up federal research to deepen the evidentiary basis, including CSPED,
Procedural Justice-Informed Alternatives to Contempt (PJAC), and
Parenting Time Opportunities for Children (PTOC). We modernized our

communications strategy and conducted extensive outreach to courts and
other stakeholders.
Of course, we also had other priorities. In addition to the 2016 rule, OCSS
adopted tribal systems, data-sharing, and intergovernmental rules. We
facilitated ratification of the Hague treaty, modernized the FPLS, and
implemented the model tribal system. The number of tribal programs
doubled between 2008 and 2016. I am proud of the work states, tribes, and
my own team at OCSS accomplished during that time—and the time since.
I am gratified to see the child support program continue to grapple with
social change and make progress toward a more equitable program.
Everything has its season. I’ve always seen myself as a translator. After
leaving OCSS, I’ve continued to write and consult with foundations,
advocacy groups, and others to build capacity to support families. I am
grateful for a career that has been so personally meaningful to me. As a
girl, I never expected to have a career at all. I was raised in a time as full of
social change and uncertainty as now. My way out was through
parenthood, school, and work. My lived experiences gave me a specific
kind of insight into the child support program. I encourage you to create
meaning from your own journey, and let that meaning impact your work.
Vicki Turetsky, Esq. served as OCSS commissioner between 2009 and 2017.

Tennessee’s Child Support Reentry Program:
Employee Innovation Leads to Family-Centered
Solution
by Patti Wood, Director of Operations, Child Support Field
Services and Family Assistance and Child Support Contracts
Child support programs have a unique opportunity to address the needs of
families that have experienced the incarceration of a parent. Unlike other
social safety net programs, the child support program can have
responsibility for a child support case for many years and can develop a
deep understanding of the needs, wants, and desires that parents have for
their children. However, this partnership level cannot be obtained without
an intensive case management program that extends beyond financial
assistance. Parents who are recently released from a correctional facility
face myriad challenges, from obtaining a copy of their birth certificate as
well as identification, to facing incarceration for not paying child support
obligations.
In 2019, a group of emerging leaders within the Tennessee Department of
Human Services (TDHS) presented a proposal to department leaders
regarding the need for a TDHS-operated child support reentry team. The
proposal outlined the challenges justice-involved parents face and the
solutions that a specialized reentry team could offer to incarcerated and
recently released parents. This groundbreaking effort gained support from
executive leadership, and a commitment was made to create a TDHSoperated
child support reentry team.

Creation of the Child Support Reentry
Team (CSRT)
Upon approval to move forward with the
creation of the CSRT, many administrative
obstacles had to be overcome, including the
establishment of positions, changes to the
child support guidelines, changes to state
law, and funding. However, the biggest and
most complex question that had to be
answered was, “What role can the child support program play in supporting
parents who are justice-involved?”
The task of creating the team was to establish TDHS positions. After almost
a year of work from various contributors inside and outside TDHS, CSRT
began taking shape. In August 2020, the proposed CSRT positions were
established. While the positions were vacant, it was a huge step in making
the proposal a reality.
A survey of state law and Tennessee’s child support guidelines revealed
several gaps that needed to be addressed before the work could begin.
The TDHS Policy Team and Office of General Counsel collaborated to
revise the child support guidelines, allowing individuals incarcerated for
more than 180 days to request a review of their current child support order
due to this change in circumstance. A self-support reserve was created,
and a child support minimum order was established. In addition, state law
needed to be revised to allow TDHS the ability to initiate the review of a
current child support order when there is a known change of circumstance.
These mission-critical updates to Tennessee’s child support guidelines and
state law created a pathway for CSRT to effectively serve justice-involved
parents.
TDHS also identified funding to assist justice-involved parents with
essential needs.
Phase One: Modifications for Incarcerated Parents
With these tasks accomplished, the new guiding question became, “What
role can the child support program and CSRT play in supporting parents
who are justice-involved?” Research and demonstration grants have shown
that child support programs can play an important role in alleviating barriers
for justice-involved parents. However, the barriers faced by child support
offices in locating and contacting a parent who is incarcerated often prevent

orders from being set or modified based on the parent’s actual income or
lack of income.
CSRT began a focused outreach campaign to the Tennessee Department
of Correction (TDOC) and its reentry coordinators. The campaign aimed to
enlist TDOC reentry coordinators’ assistance to serve as liaisons in
providing incarcerated parents with the necessary paperwork to request a
review of their current child support order and ensure the completed
paperwork was returned to the child support reentry coordinator. The key to
establishing the partnership was to be open to and accommodate the
needs of TDOC reentry coordinators, and not to create an additional
burden on an already taxing position.
Beginning in July 2021, Tennessee’s CSRT initiated reviews of current child
support orders for parents who were currently incarcerated for more than
180 days. CSRT reviews child support cases where the non-custodial
parent is incarcerated based on information captured by the local
caseworker in the statewide child support case management system. The
child support reentry coordinator completes research to determine if the
case qualifies for review, initiates the review on eligible cases by sending
review paperwork to the TDOC reentry coordinator, and notifies the local
child support office the review has been initiated. The child support reentry
coordinator monitors the case for a modified order and provides the

incarcerated parent with a copy of the review findings and a copy of the
modified order.
As of January 2024, Tennessee’s CSRT has served hundreds of parents
and facilitated modifications to their child support cases. Since the
implementation of the program, Tennessee’s current child support ratio has
increased.
Phase Two: Direct Services for Justice-involved Parents
With the successful implementation of Phase One, CSRT broadened its
focus and began exploring ways to provide justice-involved parents with
housing stability, food stability, education, job training opportunities, access
to their children, and emotional support. This was done to assist them with
reentering their communities and the lives of their children.
Beginning in February 2024, CSRT began meeting with incarcerated
parents within 60 days of release across three TDOC facilities. The goal is
to meet individually with parents near their release date and share
information about reentry services. At this meeting, CSRT will provide the
parents with information about the child support program and their
individual case(s). They will also review exit plans to identify gaps that
could be filled by CSRT and furnish them with a direct contact if they
choose to enroll in the program upon release.
Community Partnerships
While CSRT is not actively seeking referrals from community partners, the
plan is to expand its direct service footprint in the coming year. In
preparation for the expansion, groundwork is being laid with stakeholders
across Tennessee. The team travels throughout the state, attending events
to provide information about the program.
Strategic Approach to Services
From the proposal to the implementation of
Phase One and Phase Two, every aspect
of the program has been carefully planned
and vetted to ensure the correct services
are provided at the correct time. Engaging
stakeholders inside and outside of TDHS
has allowed the team to serve hundreds of
incarcerated parents by obtaining a modification of their current child
support.

TDHS and TDOC leadership have supported the decision to roll out
services slowly and strategically. Establishing trust with justice-involved
parents and reframing their child support experience is not something that
can happen overnight. Providing reliable and customized services for their
situation can only happen when the family unit is at the center of every
decision.
To learn more about the TDHS child support re-entry team, contact Patti
Wood at Patricia.Wood@tn.gov.
Patti Wood serves as the Director of Operations for Child Support Field Operations and Family Assistance
and Child Support Contracts for the Tennessee Department of Human Services. Patti began her career in
child support in 1998 as a caseworker and has served in various leadership positions in both private and
public sectors. She began her career with the Department of Human Services in 2009 as the Administrator
for the Fourth Judicial District; the only state-operated full-service child support office in Tennessee. In her
role as Director of Operations, Patti provides oversight for the 32 Judicial Districts, Central Registry,
Contract Management for Family Assistance and Child Support, and the Child Support Re-entry Team. She
received a Bachelor of Science degree from Tusculum College and a master’s degree in strategic
leadership from Tennessee State University. Patti also serves on various boards, including the TN
Government Executive Institute and the Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association (ERICSA).

NCSEA 2024 Policy Forum Wrap-up:
“Building Community, Centering Families,
Advancing Equity”
by Laura Galindo and Trish Skophammer,
NCSEA 2024 Policy Forum Co-chairs
“Those were some really amazing speakers!” “The sessions have been
dynamic and engaging.” Or simply put, “Wow.” These are just a few of
exciting statements from the more than 680 in-person and virtual child
support and human services professionals who attended this year’s Policy
Forum held in Washington, D.C. from February 1st to 3rd. This year’s
theme was “Building Community, Centering Families, Advancing
Equity.”
NCSEA Policy Forum co-chair Trish Skophammer, a.k.a.
Barbara Walters, opened the conference with Commissioner
Tanguler Gray, who shared achievements and lessons learned
not only during her time as OCSS Commissioner, but also along
the path she took before becoming Commissioner. It was enlightening to
hear a more personal side of Commissioner Gray, along with what keeps
her up at night, which can often also motivate her.
House Ways and Means Policy Advisors Becca Nathanson and
Charlotte Rock followed up the opening session with Erin Frisch,
Michigan’s Child Support Director and NCSEA President, and
Diane Potts moderating. Becca and Charlotte gave great tips on
providing examples to legislators on how policy decisions impact the

families we serve. These considerations should be taken when considering
the policies we make within our states.
The “To Fear or Fear Not: Benefits, Risks, and Considerations
for Implementing Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)” plenary
kicked off the afternoon sessions with Jamia McDonald, Deloitte
Consulting LLP, and Eyal Darmon, Accenture, along with
moderator David Kilgore, providing great insight on what AI is and how it
should be appropriately used. For many of us who may not be as educated
on AI, this extremely educational session ignited excitement about how it
could be used in the child support program.
Thursday rounded out with the “Unlocking the Power of
Community-Based Organizations: Strategies for Development
and Sustainable Growth” session. Diane Wallace Booker from
the American Dream Academy, Lauren Farrell of the Urban
Institute, Willie Bell, CEO/Founder of the fatherhood program F.A.R.M., and
Darla Biel of South Dakota’s Center for Prevention of Child Maltreatment,
through the moderation of Mary Nelson of APHSA, demonstrated there’s
more to collaborating with community-based organizations. It’s also about
engagement, strength leveraging and perspectives, and the grassroots
connections that community-based organizations have with the people we
serve.
Thursday’s sessions set up Friday nicely, beginning with
“Breaking Barriers and Building Futures: Advancing Policy-
Centered Partnerships to Empower Family Services.” Eileen
Stack, IV-D Director (NY); Shaneen Moore, Deputy Assistant
Commissioner and Child Support Director (MN); Matt Lyons, Senior
Director of Policy & Practice of APHSA; and John Rees, Senior Policy
Advisor with the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, were joined by Elise
Topliss who kept the panelists engaged in conversation. Matt shared the
path APHSA took to connect with the child support program in the broader
human services system to strengthen families. Matt also discussed how
APHSA worked with John on benefit cliffs to understand the root cause of
why people are struggling, and how they should be considered in
policymaking. John explained that the Federal Bank is involved in this
space because its mandates include promoting maximum employment.
Because benefit cliffs are a significant obstacle to economic mobility and
maximum employment, the Federal Bank has developed a variety of tools,
including one that John demonstrated to emphasize the impact of

employment on the various programs in which a family might be enrolled.
Shaneen shared how important the support of children and families is to
the Minnesota Governor, and how he has invested in this support, creating
the Children, Youth, and Families agency to encompass several programs
under one umbrella in order to elevate support for children and a familycentered
approach. Eileen provided valuable information on New York’s
approach to integrated eligibility and no wrong door, with a mission on
positive outcomes and financial stability.
Friday morning concluded with Konitra Jack conversing with
authors Kathy Edin, Luke Schaefer, and Timothy Nelson of The
Injustice of Place: Uncovering the Legacy of Poverty in America.
This dynamic session provided a historical look at poverty in
rural America, which has the poorest communities, despite the myth that
they are mainly in urban settings. Though they touched on several
outstanding key points in history supported by data, this session would
have had to expand through the entire day to capture the full breadth of the
book.
Friday afternoon kicked off with
the “Thanks for the Help! A
Family-Centered Approach to
Employment Services” plenary.
Angelisa Young, Chief of the Shared
Services Section of the D.C. Child Support
Services Division, and Robert Prevost,
Deputy Director of Arapaho County,
Colorado, engaged with moderator
Kimberly Curtis, Director of the Division of
Policy and Training for OCSS, to explain different approaches to
employment services. Michael Stevenson, Workforce Development
Specialist with the D.C. Child Support Services Division, along with parents
Robert Holliday and Nickie Thompson, demonstrated the success of D.C.’s
employment services, and how their collaboration opened the doors to a
better relationship with their children.
Friday ended with Heather McGhee, author of The Sum of Us:
What Racism Costs and How We Can Prosper Together.
Heather shared that despite its position as one of the world’s
most advanced economies, America has, time and time again,
created policies that routinely fail its people, from the 2008 financial crisis to

crippling student debt, to the continued lack of universal healthcare. But
there exists a common thread that links all of these problems: structural
racism—the driver of inequality— not just for people of color, but for
everyone. NCSEA President Frisch and Commissioner Gray discussed
what we heard through a child support program lens.
The last day of the conference was just as exciting as Thursday
and Friday, with the opening of the first session, “Tradition,
Transition, and Transformation: Tribal Child Support.” Lisa
Skenandore moderated the panel. William (Bill) Woods, a staff
attorney with the Three Affiliated Tribes, provided a look at the history of the
Tribal child support program, and Crystal Bowman, Program Manager for
the Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria, a newly established
Tribal IV-D program, provided great insight into the process of becoming an
IV-D program and what it means to them. Panelists deeply understood the
unique challenges and opportunities within tribal communities. We also
learned why improving tribal child support involves collaboration and
cultural sensitivity.
During the closing plenary, Margot Bean led a conversation with
Michael Adrian, the Division Director of the Michigan Office of
Child Support; Monica Turnbaugh, Policy, Legal & Publication
Manager with the Washington Division of Child Support; Jane
Venohr, Economist/Research Associate for the Center of Policy and
Research; and Michael Hayes, Sr. Programs Manager with OCSS. In this
session, “Calling All Families: Requirements and Best Practices for
Equitable Policy Making,” the panel discussed how policy development
processes must evolve to understand the direct impact on families better.
They shared best practices for including parents, guardians, and advocates
to avoid unintended consequences by understanding the direct impact on
families and striving to improve program policy.
The 2024 NCSEA Policy Forum was only possible with the hard work and
planning of the Policy Forum Planning Committee. Our sincere thanks to
the team:
Alisha Griffin
Amy Roehrenbeck
Amy Shaum
Ann Marie Oldani
Camber Thompson
Janice McDaniel
Jay Bland
Jen McFaggan
Jonell Sullivan
Katie Morgan

Carla West
Connie Chesnik
Corrinne Flores
Daniel King
Daun Perino
Diane Potts
Elaine Sorensen
Elise Topliss
Elizabeth West
Emily Gregg
Erin Frisch
Fredrika Louis
Gretchen Anderson
Kelly Micka
Konitra Jack
Laura Roth
Lyndsy Irwin
Margot Bean
Marie Waite
Meg Haynes
Phyllis Nance
Rob Velcoff
Robbie Endris
Sophia Ticer
Vangeria Harvey
We look forward to seeing you in Washington, D.C. next year for the 2025
Policy Forum, which will be held from February 6th to February 8th!
Laura Galindo is a Senior Consultant with CSG Government Solutions in the Child Support Practice.
Before joining CSG Government Solutions in 2018, Laura served as the IV-D Director from December 2015
to 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.

NCSEA U Alumni Spotlight