This report examines the early work of five demonstrations that have been designed to promote collaborations between child support enforcement, Head Start, and the child care community. In Fiscal Year 1997, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) awarded funds to the State Child Support Enforcement agencies of Alaska, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, and Minnesota.1 The States are currently using these funds to pilot State-specific approaches to promoting and facilitating access to child support services. The States involved in these demonstration projects were also asked to focus on increasing the three partner agencies’ understanding of both child support and parenting issues.2
While each of the five States and, indeed, each local community is unique, there are also similarities across these State programs, similarities due in part to the fact that all three of the partner agencies are federally funded. Some understanding of the characteristics of the partner agencies is important because they have influenced the current climate and attitudes that underlie these collaborations.3
All three of the collaboration partners are funded through the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Also a component of ACF is The Office of Family Assistance, which distributes the block grant funds for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program (TANF). TANF is important to this project because Child Support Enforcement, Head Start, and Child Care are all part of the HHS Working Families Initiative, a program designed to help TANF families reduce welfare dependence and to help all low-income families sustain self-sufficiency. However, if each of the three partner agencies shares this common focus of supporting self-sufficiency among low-income families, each agency, by virtue of mission and organization, also contributes in distinct ways to this partnership.
In 1975 Congress created the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Program by enacting title IV-D of the Social Security Act for the purpose of establishing and enforcing the support obligations owed by noncustodial parents to their children. Major activities of the CSE program include locating noncustodial parents; establishing paternity; establishing support orders; and collecting and distributing support. The CSE program also assists parents in obtaining and enforcing medical support orders. The CSE Program is a joint undertaking involving Federal, State, and local cooperative efforts. Because the States and territories run their own CSE programs, there are 54 separate systems, each with is own unique laws and procedures. Some States operate all aspects of their child support enforcement program directly while other States contract out or privatize part of the program operation. Still other States use their county structures to administer some or most aspects of the program. According to the Child Support Enforcement FY 1998 Preliminary Draft Report, about $14.3 billion in current and past-due child support was collected in FY 1998. About 83 percent of this was paid to families while the remaining 17 percent was used to reimburse the Federal and State governments for welfare expenditures.
CSE program expenditures for FY 1998 totaled $3.6 billion dollars. The Federal Government shares in the cost of funding the CSE program by contributing to States’ administrative costs (66 percent) and providing incentive payments to States. These incentive payments may equal 10 percent or more of total State expenditures.
CSE services are automatically available for families receiving assistance under TANF. Currently child support funds collected usually reimburse the State and Federal governments for TANF payments made to the family, that is, the collections made on behalf of these families do not go to the families but are used by the State to recoup cash welfare payments. However, some States opt (at their own expense) to pass some portion of or all child support collected to the custodial TANF family.
Families that don’t receive TANF may also receive child support services if they apply for them. Child support payments that are collected on behalf of non-TANF families are sent to the family. For these families, States must charge an application fee of up to $25, but many States pay this fee from State funds and charge custodial parents little or nothing for their services. A recent DHHS analysis of data collected by the Bureau of the Census indicates that about 41 percent of CSE families are below the poverty level. Slightly less than 30 percent have incomes between 100 and 200 percent of poverty, and slightly more than 30 percent have incomes over 200 percent of poverty.
The CSE program is closely linked to law-enforcement activities and to the courts. Non-payment of child support is ordinarily under the civil jurisdiction of the courts, but in certain instances it can lead to criminal prosecution. Non-payment of child support can also lead to suspension of drivers’ and professional licenses, denial of passport application, collection of unpaid support through withholding of Federal and State tax refunds, and through liens, levies, and attachments of bank accounts and other assets. Most current support is collected through wage attachment at the noncustodial parents’ place of employment.
Because of high caseloads, the child support enforcement program has recently been emphasizing mass case processing through database matching and other types of automated processing. Depending on the individual circumstances of a case, neither the custodial parent nor the noncustodial parent is likely to have a "relationship" with the child support worker who handles their case. In fact, they may never even meet or talk directly with the worker. It is generally CSE policy not to allow the custodial parent discretion in choosing the services that will be provided or the enforcement techniques that will be used, once CSE services have been applied for.
Started in 1965, Head Start is a national program designed to provide comprehensive services for low-income children ages three to five and their families. Since its inception, more than 15 million children and their families have participated in Head Start.
In FY 1998, $4.3 billion was available for Head Start services. Approximately 1,400 community-based non-profit organizations and school systems receive grants from this sum to operate local programs. There are Head Start programs in all 50 States as well as in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories.
Although each local program is designed to reflect the strengths and needs of its community, all Head Start programs share common goals:
President Clinton's signing of the Head Start Act Amendments of 1994 also established the new Early Head Start program, which extended the benefits of Head Start to children under three and to pregnant women. In FY 1998, funding for Early Head Start totaled $279 million, more than 5 percent of the total Head Start budget.
Early Head Start focuses on four cornerstones that are essential to quality programs: child development, family development, community building, and staff development. Like Head Start programs for three-to-five-year-old children, Early Head Start programs are designed to reinforce and respond to the unique strengths and needs of each child and family. Services include quality early education in and out of the home; home visits; parent education, including parent-child activities; comprehensive health services, including services to women before, during, and after pregnancy; nutrition; and case management and peer support groups for parents.
It is important to note that Head Start plays a major role in focusing attention on the importance of early childhood development. The program has an impact on: child development and child day care services; the expansion of State and local activities for children; the range and quality of services offered to young children and their families; and the design of training programs for those who staff such programs.
A large and growing percentage of children spend time every day in child care — whether with a neighbor, in a family child care home, in a child care center, or in an after-school program. However, unlike CSE and Head Start, child care programs and services are funded by a variety of State and Federal dollars.
A major source of funding for child care programs is the subsidies that are available through the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) to assist low-income families in obtaining child care so they can work or attend training or educational programs. Subsidized child care services are provided to eligible families through certificates or contracts with providers. Parents may select any operator legally providing services — for example, center-based, family child care home, or care by a relative. To be eligible for a subsidy, a child must be under age 13 and have a family income level that does not exceed 85% of the State median income (though States may set stricter income limits). Parents contribute to the cost of care by making co-payments on a sliding fee scale. Many States have waiting lists for subsidies because they lack the resources to serve all eligible families.
Each State must designate a lead agency to administer the CCDF. Unlike CSE and Head Start, both of which have nationally set performance standards, specific child care standards are set primarily at the State and local level.
Over $3 billion in Federal funds was available through the CCDF in fiscal year 1998. While the majority of CCDF funds are used for subsidies, certain funds are allocated specifically to improve the quality of child care through activities such as provider training and compensation, monitoring, and health and safety initiatives.
To draw down Federal CCDF funds in fiscal year 1998, States appropriated approximately $1.5 billion in maintenance of effort and matching funds, and a number of States report additional appropriations of State and local resources. In addition, States can use other Federal funding sources, such as the Social Services Block Grant, for child care.
All parents, regardless of their eligibility for a subsidy, can access the services provided by child care resource and referral agencies. These community-based programs that provide information to parents about child care, including information about local providers, the elements of high-quality care, and advice on selecting a provider. They are funded through State and local governments as well as through the private sector.
In addition to information about the partners is this collaboration, it is also important to be familiar with the welfare reform legislation known as the Personal Responsibility Act and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). Enacted in 1996, PRWORA is relevant to these demonstrations for three reasons.
First, PRWORA provided states with new child support enforcement tools that increased the program’s emphasis on computerization and automated processes. This helped move the program farther from a case-by-case operations model. At the center of these reforms was the establishment of State and Federal case registries, the development of State and Federal databases that contain information on all new hires, and the requirement that all quarterly wage records reported to State employment insurance offices be reported to the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement. At the same time, the 1996 legislation recognized the importance of children’s access to their noncustodial parents by authorizing, within the CSE program, an Access and Visitation Grant Program to help states support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ visitation with and access to their children.
|
TANF was responsible for a number of earlier collaborations between the
Department of Social Services (the umbrella agency which operates both TANF
and child support) and child support, Head Start, and child care programs.
For example, in Maryland, a local Head Start program serving infants and
toddlers (Early Head Start) has become a training site for the local office
of the Department of Social Services (DSS). As one of the people involved
in this collaboration said, this arrangement helps DSS in several ways.
It provides them with placements for parents interested in working in the
field. Perhaps equally important, it also provides DSS with some sorely
needed slots for infant and toddler care.
That same local Head Start program and DSS office also collaborate on a "sibling care" after-school program. Siblings of Head Start children are bused to the Head Start center after the local elementary school finishes its day. By providing time for siblings to be together, both DSS and Head Start feel they are helping to strengthen the bonds of attachment within families. TANF funds help make this possible. |
Second, PRWORA created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to replace Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). TANF revolutionized the nature and culture of the cash assistance program for poor families by making employment its main objective, and by placing time limits on families’ receipt of cash payments.
This "back-to-work" movement fostered by TANF had major implications for both Head Start and child care. Head Start, which typically serves large numbers of families receiving welfare, has traditionally provided children with half-day classroom programs. As TANF required more parents to go school or work, local Head Start programs began to explore ways to meet families’ needs for full-day child care. One of the ways some local Head Start programs have provided longer days is through formal arrangements with local child care providers.
|
The structure of each of the three agency partners influences the nature
of their collaborations. Child care subsidy program and child support
enforcement funds and policy flow from the Federal level to the State
level.
This is not true for Head Start. In general, Federal funding for local programs flows through Regional Federal Offices directly to local programs known as "grantees." |
Third, PRWORA altered child care assistance programs for low-income families by consolidating Federal child care funding for low-income children into a single block grant to States. This block grant, known as the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), allowed States to redesign their child care systems. Because of TANF and CCDF and their implications, both the Head Start and child care communities began to forge new collaborations.
As TANF began to move the Head Start and child care communities into closer collaborative relationships, the child support enforcement community was also being nudged in new directions. This was due to a shift in that community’s attitude toward fathers. By the 1990s noncustodial fathers were seen as more than just financial providers. They had begun to be viewed as a potential source of emotional and social support for their children and even as a helping hand for their families.
The child support enforcement community has begun to recognize that there are many issues that the parties in any child support case must deal with. Many State and local CSE programs are examining ways in which they can become more integrated with other social services programs.
|
|
| This is an adaptation of a diagram representing the interactive nature of collaboration. It was developed by the Minnesota collaboration. |
For example, the 4th Edition of the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement’s Compendium of State Best Practices (1998) presents sections on States’ practices on domestic violence, fragile families, and outreach and collaboration in addition to the traditional child support enforcement functions. Information exchange, training, and establishing links to other community service providers are common threads.
Recognizing the importance of working with other agencies, the Office of Child Support Enforcement initiated agreements with the Child Care Bureau and the Head Start Bureau. Copies of these agreements were distributed to the directors of all State Child Support agencies to encourage these agencies to exchange information and develop partnerships that could enhance the mission of both agencies. (See Appendix A for copies of the formal memoranda of understanding among the partners.) The grants funded under this demonstration were an outgrowth of these agreements.
The environment in which these collaborative grants were administered is a dynamic and challenging one. How the child support, child care, and Head Start organizations that participated in these five demonstrations responded to the challenge is the focus of this report.
The specific goals of this implementation evaluation are as follows:
This implementation evaluation was intended to build upon each State’s project-specific evaluation. Additionally, it was intended to examine cross-site issues, provide feedback regarding findings, and summarize findings that could be used to support the replication of these collaborations in other sites.
| Others in the child advocacy community have also recognized the importance of the third goal. In a June 23, 1999, issue of the Report on Preschool Programs, the National Center for Children in Poverty writes about the expansion of fatherhood initiatives. They describe the following "pitfall." One persistent problem is that states tend to focus only on child support and father absence and ‘ignore the larger role that fathers can play in nurturing the emotional well-being of their children.’ |
In the end, only five State demonstration projects were examined. Missouri had not begun its project by the time site visits were completed. Specific evaluations conducted by the different states were not included in this report, because all of the demonstrations were in early stages and had no findings to report.
This report covers the early implementation activities of each demonstration project. Most of the data were gathered when states were beginning the second year of their three-year demonstrations. Alaska’s demonstration, however, was still in its first year of operation.
Most of the data for this implementation evaluation were gathered during site visits conducted from January through April of 1999. Below are brief summaries of sites we visited and the people we interviewed:
In Alaska, we met with the collaboration coordinator and manager of the Southeast Regional office of the Child Support Enforcement Division in Juneau. We also attended a meeting of collaborators that included the Head Start Family and Community Partnerships coordinator, the Department of Social Services coordinator of child care programs, the program manager of Healthy Families, and the education center supervisor for Even Start Programs. In Ketchikan, we met with staff from the local public assistance office and the staff of the local Tlingit-Haida Head Start. We also attended a meeting of local child care providers, where the coordinator made a presentation on the collaboration. In Petersburg, we met with staff of the local Department of Health and Social Services, with the family advocate and supervising teacher at the local Head Start center, and with a public health nurse. Site visits were conducted April 13th, 14th, and 15th.
On February 22nd, 23rd, and 24th, we visited four sites in Connecticut. In Hartford, at the office of Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF), the project coordinator was interviewed; a group discussion was held with the CWEALF project coordinator and representatives from the Department of Social Services (DSS) Child Support Bureau and DSS Child Care Team; and a provider meeting was observed. Present at the provider meeting were a speaker from a public relations firm, representatives from the three pilot sites, the State evaluator, and the project coordinator. At the Family Resource Center in Hartford, interviews were conducted with the program site director, another staff member of the Family Resource Center, and a child care provider from the in-school day care center. In New Haven, interviews were conducted with several staff members from the New Haven Child Development Program. Interviews at the Head Start center in Litchfield included a small group of parents and the family resource worker (FRW).
On March 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, we visited four sites in Illinois. In Harvey and Blue Island, we interviewed staff at local Head Start centers operated by the Community and Economic Development Association of Cook County. In Chicago, interviews were conducted with the collaboration coordinators at the Community Outreach Office of the Division of Child Support Enforcement. In Springfield, we met with the director and community coordinator of the Springfield Urban League Head Start program. In addition, a group interview was conducted with six advocates from the same program.
In Maryland we visited four sites. These visits were conducted on January 13th, March 10th, and March 11th. In Baltimore, we visited both the Child Support Enforcement Administration office and the office of the Maryland Committee for Children. During those visits we interviewed the project coordinator, the director of the resource and referral program for the Maryland Committee for Children, and one of the telephone counselors for that program. At the office of the Charles County Department of Social Services, we interviewed the assistant director for child support. We also visited the Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services, where we talked with two staff members. Phone interviews were held with Head Start staff.
Three Minnesota sites were visited on March 16th and 17th. On the 16th, we held a group interview with State child support enforcement staff in their offices in St. Paul. Also in attendance was a representative of the Head Start program. During that afternoon, we met with the manager of the child care resource and referral program from one region of the State. On the 17th, we attended a monthly meeting of the demonstration grant partners from another region, then interviewed child care, Head Start, and child support staff who also attended the meeting.
Many of the interviews were taped and transcribed. Those typed transcripts, along with typed field notes, were entered into QSR NUD*IST 4.0, a qualitative software package. The software was used to help identify and analyze common themes.
Additional data were gathered through a review of documents such as quarterly reports as well as through follow-up conference calls. The content of those conference calls was also taped and transcribed.
The task of gathering and analyzing data was divided between two researchers, both of whom brought distinct, relevant backgrounds to this project. One researcher is experienced in child support enforcement; the other researcher’s background is more specifically related to Head Start and child care. These different perspectives proved invaluable as transcripts and field notes were passed back and forth for comment.
Chapter II, State Reports, contains a brief discussion of each state’s demonstration project. The description of each State’s collaboration is organized in the following manner:
Individual State descriptions are followed by a cross-site matrix, which captures some of the state-specific data. Immediately following the matrix is a list of individuals identified as State contacts.
Chapter III, Lessons from the Field, explores themes common to all or most of the demonstration projects. The themes examined are those of attitude change, the importance of tailoring the design of the demonstration to the individual population, the desirability of integrating tasks into already existing jobs, the different levels of experience with collaboration, conflicting messages, the value of time for reflection, and the importance of planning.
Chapter IV, Reflections, provides concluding remarks by first revisiting the original goals of the demonstration projects. It then discusses the characteristics of each of the three partner agencies before presenting several larger policy issues for reflection.
This report also contains two appendices. Appendix A contains copies of the policy memoranda that set the stage for these demonstration grants. Appendix B contains examples of documents developed by states with the use of funds awarded through this project.
1. Funds were also awarded to the State of Missouri, but Missouri found it necessary to delay implementation of this project and so was not included in this process evaluation.
2. Throughout this report the term partner agency is used to refer to the three agencies of child support enforcement, child care and Head Start.
3. It is important to understand that the collaboration partners have over-lapping rather than identical constituencies.
Last updated 3/1/00