This chapter presents information specific to the collaborative demonstrations being conducted in Alaska, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, and Minnesota. We begin our discussion with brief remarks about the demonstration projects as a group. Those comments are followed by individual State reports. Each State report contains information on:
In addition, we have compiled State project information into a chart that facilitates comparisons among the State services, sites, and special populations. The summary graphic is located at the end of this chapter.
It is important to note that these State reports are not meant to be all-inclusive; rather, they are intended to provide examples of the range of each State’s efforts. More comprehensive and specific information can be obtained by contacting the States directly. Specific contact information appears following the matrix at the end of this chapter.
In order to facilitate effective replication in other jurisdictions, one of the goals of the demonstration projects is to learn as much as possible about what is happening and why it is happening. The projects selected for this demonstration provide a rich diversity in terms of project goals, activities, and populations served.
Project goals and objectives run the gamut, from ascertaining the impact of interventions to linking partner agencies in the collaboration to improving child support and paternity establishment. Alaska’s main objective is to increase child support collections while stimulating more noncustodial parents to become involved in the welfare of their children. Connecticut hopes to learn more about how training, advocacy, and education can be tailored to suit three very distinct local sites that serve low-income populations. Illinois is attempting to increase paternity establishment and child support collections for families who have children enrolled in Head Start and child care programs. Maryland plans to learn more about how child support can be used to keep custodial parents off TANF. Minnesota intends to link the three partner agencies for the purpose of sharing of information as well as for information distribution.
In several of the State reports we mention special populations that are part of the collaboration, but the diversity goes beyond any specific ethnic group. In any given population there is a wide variety of client groups involved, including infants, toddlers, preschoolers, school-aged children, mothers, fathers, stepparents, blended families, grandparents raising grandchildren, and teen parents. When factoring in demographic factors such as ethnic and cultural groups, urban and rural settings, socioeconomic status and others, the number of combinations multiplies and further illustrates the diversity of the populations served by the demonstration projects.
Our final comments prior to the presentation of State reports contain two caveats. First, this implementation evaluation was completed when projects were just reaching the midway point of a three-year project. As a result, the State descriptions do not represent end results, final processes, or comprehensive listings of services and activities. States continue to innovate and plan to add components to their collaborations as of this writing.
| Some of the early childhood staff spoke forcefully of the need to reach out to very young teens. Not surprisingly, they regard prevention and intervention as equally important. |
Second, project goals, activities, and populations served by the different demonstrations indicate just how diverse these projects are. Readers who may be considering replication of specific components from the demonstrations should also take into account the organizational, contextual, and environmental elements present in the specific demonstration sites.
The following section of this chapter presents a brief discussion of the demonstrations being conducted in the individual States.
The Alaska demonstration project is based in the Juneau Office of the Alaska Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED), a satellite of the main CSED office located in Anchorage. Alaska’s twelve-town demonstration project includes several agencies in addition to Head Start, child care, and child support. These include:
Alaska’s primary goal is to increase child support collections while fostering the involvement of noncustodial parental in their children’s welfare. The establishment of a public information program that includes information exchanges among the partner agencies is viewed as an important part of this process, as is cross training. Five objectives that will facilitate the achievement of this goal have been identified:
Clients served by organizations participating in the demonstration are generally low to middle income. Reflecting the ethnic composition of southeast Alaska, they include Caucasians and Alaskan Natives.
Alaska has set out to work with a wide variety of organizations that provide services to children. As a result, potential child support clients living in communities that are part of the collaboration may learn about the program from any number of sources.
In addition, the geographic characteristics of southeast Alaska have an impact on how the work is carried out. The distance between the northernmost and southernmost sites is more than 350 miles, and transportation between towns must occur by air or by boat.
The Southeast Regional Child Support office in Juneau began by designating a staff person to work full time as the collaboration coordinator. Child support staff met with state-level staff from agencies involved in the demonstration project. They identified and contacted those agencies’ local offices and provided group and individual training on child support. Concurrently, the child support coordinator developed educational materials to be distributed to the staff and clients of the organizations involved.
Other local organizations have been added to this project as the coordinator has learned of them. Typically, the coordinator’s visit to a given community includes meeting with existing partners and also with potential new participants.
| As a result of Alaska's decision to include additional "partners" in this collaborative effort, nearly all human services agencies in participating communities should be able to provide information about child support in Alaska. |
The specific services and activities provided by the agencies and organizations participating in the project vary greatly. The categories below show the range of services provided.
While we cannot yet speak to Alaska’s success in meeting its project goal of increasing child support collections while stimulating parental involvement, the demonstration has been quite successful in establishing, implementing, and even expanding an information exchange, training, and public education program. A cross training model has been developed and utilized, and access to child support services has been increased through local organizations and a dedicated toll-free line to the Juneau office.
In addition, the coordinator has performed case management for those persons who have used the dedicated phone line in an effort to ensure that their inquiries receive prompt responses.
Alaska has also been successful in identifying some of its own specific cultural and social impediments to seeking child support. For example, staff has gained a greater understanding of Alaskan Native culture as it relates to child support. This includes the importance of the concept of subsistence among some Alaskan Natives, which is often illustrated by the fact that many children are often supported by families that provide food in the form of fish, moose, etc.
Finally, all of the communities involved in the demonstration project are isolated from one another. Having people come to visit to discuss child support has had a tremendous positive impact. As one Head Start staff person describes it, the demonstration project "put a face on child support" that facilitated the building of a more accurate understanding of the program.
| Alaska's use of a toll-free number dedicated to the project has an additional benefit. It can be used to help child support track calls and follow-up on services provided. |
The main challenge facing the project in Alaska is the answer to the question: "What’s next?" Child support staff understand that more work needs to be done to further the relationships they have already developed. Local contacts have been made, training has been conducted, and training materials are being revised. Still in the future is a training video. In contrast to most other States, there has not been a great deal of turnover among the Alaska players in the project, so the primary emphasis is now on how best to expand on existing partnerships.
The information provided by child support has resulted in significant changes among the child care and Head Start staff, as reported by this State collaboration coordinator:
|
One of the things that works well in this collaboration is that it has
allowed some very busy people to take the time to learn about child support
enforcement. That has "demystified" some misinformation.
Ample time for reflection appears to be a common characteristic of the States in which staff are most verbal about an attitude change. |
Before this demonstration project began, the perception of child support as an adversarial, punitive organization was prevalent among child care and Head Start staff. Information, training, and discussions with the coordinator have helped these early childhood professionals develop a more accurate understanding of child support.
Geographically large States with small populations may find it useful to examine Alaska’s approach toward maximizing the benefits of limited resources. In addition, States with small communities might also want to consider this model of expansive partnership or the inclusion of multiple partners at local sites.
The Connecticut demonstration project is based in the Hartford office of the Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF), a community-based contractor. Partners in the collaboration include:
Connecticut’s primary goal is the demonstration of methods for conducting outreach, education, and advocacy about child support services for three distinct child care agencies serving low-income families: Head Start, child care, and a family resource center based in an elementary school. Toward that end four specific objectives have been identified:
Among the primary services provided by CWEALF are training, education, advocacy, and guidance on projects related to the involvement of fathers.
Most participants at the three sites are low-income. By design, this is one of the few ways in which families across sites are similar. Families of low-income preschoolers at the Head Start center are most likely to be rural and Caucasian. In contrast, the twelve centers of the city-sponsored child care collaboration partner provide care for children from 6 weeks to twelve years of age who are predominately urban and African-American. Use of a sliding-fee scale allows them to serve a slightly more economically diverse group of families. Most of the families at the predominantly Puerto Rican public elementary school are either bilingual in Spanish and English or speak Spanish as their primary language.
| Locating a demonstration site in an elementary school has interesting possibilities. Not only does the staff work closely with the onsite day care providers but they also work with teachers throughout the school. Unlike the other demonstration models, this model has the potential to involve many middle-income families. |
Connecticut’s use of an outside contractor to coordinate this demonstration clearly influences the operation of this project. CWEALF is an agency that has 25-years of experience with issues related to women, families, diversity, personal responsibility and self-sufficiency, to cite a few phrases from their brochure. Experience and expertise in collaborative work with community agencies make CWEALF well suited to coordinate a project of this nature. In addition, the staff member responsible for coordinating this project is very accessible to the partner agencies. Staff frequently speak of the importance of having someone "there" for them:
| Oh, yes. Our project coordinator is the right person for this kind of job. If she doesn’t know something she will find out for us. She will call us back. She is always right there and that’s important, especially if you are asking for something that the parent is waiting for. It’s more personal. It’s more like family. |
CWEALF is accountable to the DSS Child Support Bureau and the DSS Child Care Team, creating an additional collaborative relationship of sorts. However, adds the project coordinator, CWEALF doesn’t have as much power as DSS. She can’t call regional offices across the State and require them to do certain things for her. Gaining the trust of staff and parents may be easier for her as a non-DSS staff person, she says, but getting things done may be harder.
Another factor important to the design of this demonstration project is the decision to operate three identifiably distinct sites. As a result, in this demonstration, it is easy to see the influence of staffing patterns on the project’s outcome. For example, the contribution of Connecticut’s single local Head Start center with its family service workers (FSWs)2 is different from the contribution of a child care program without such FSWs available to them.
During the first year CWEALF began work on this project by training staff on such topics as finding out what concerns parents have about child support, how to bring up the subject with families, and how to help parents through the process of applying for child support.
Although training and advocacy efforts continue, in the second year CWEALF has devoted more attention both to parent training and to projects concerning the male figures involved in children’s lives. Ongoing on-site workshops are conducted for parents.
All sites have begun to make centers and classrooms more "male friendly." The project coordinator anticipates that fatherhood initiatives will be operating with full services for noncustodial dads by the fall of 1999. Referrals to job training or educational programs will be available as well as help with issues that might be getting in the way of paternity establishment, child support payments, or parents spending time with their children.
| As is true with many of the other states, Connecticut's work on fatherhood objectives is primarily a second year project. Further study should reveal more about this part of the project. |
In Head Start:
At Child Care:
At the Family Resource Center:
Connecticut appears to be well on its way to achieving its primary objective: a demonstration of methods of outreach, advocacy and education about child support enforcement for three different agencies. This process of individualizing services for three agencies and their unique populations is complex and time consuming, but above all, necessary.
| So we just needed to really give them the freedom to do the different kinds of things they want to do and to all be a little different. They need that to be effective. It is not a problem but it has been a challenge. |
The time that Connecticut took to train and mentor staff during the first year of the project seem to have been critical. Head Start and child care staff had time to reflect upon their own feelings about being "enforcers" of child support collection and then to begin to make a paradigm shift.
Now in its second year of operation, Connecticut has begun to focus more on parent training. This training is provided both by CWEALF and by staff at the local Head Start and child care centers. The fact that staff had already had a year of training and reflection is evident in this phase of the demonstration. They are increasingly able to answer parents’ questions and address their concerns.
| The importance of time for reflection was a recurring theme for the States that were most successful in helping people develop more positive attitudes about child support enforcement. |
Changes in players and sites have influenced project implementation across States, and Connecticut is no exception. Changes in Connecticut include:
It was not only change that proved challenging. Sometimes lack of change provided a challenge, too. For example, parents speak of the frustration of working with a child support system that is slow to respond or insensitive.
During a conference call, the project coordinator described changes she has seen:
| I think that the biggest shift I have seen and the most exciting thing since this has started is the change in attitude in child care centers. When we first came in, there was a real lack of trust and a sense of defensiveness because we were representing DSS or the State and they were very much seen as the bad guys. The mentality was "we are not going to turn our parents in to you, we’re not going to rat out our deadbeat dads, we’re not going to be your enforcers for you." That has so radically changed now that all of our centers put in questions about child support in their initial intake forms. They have made it a part of all their parent meetings. They have taken it on as an issue that they are proactive about. I don’t even have to ask anymore — it is just sort of a part of everything. And that is sort of a big deal. I think it is a great thing to be able to say we’ve accomplished that in a year. |
| Potential partners who are reluctant to work with child support enforcement can benefit from support and guidance and perhaps develop a new perspective at the same time. That is where Minnesota and Connecticut chose to concentrate first year efforts. |
Interviews conducted during the site visits confirmed her assessment. Staff at all three sites mentioned this change in their own thinking. (See Chapter III: Lessons from the Field for more discussion of this change process.)
Less clear, however, is the change among child support enforcement staff in Connecticut. They have let us know that for this collaboration to be truly effective, they also need to change. One constraint to change is that child support enforcement staff have very large caseloads. These caseloads can lead to a fear of "losing control." Another aspect of the large caseloads, said one worker, is that "you stop looking at individual children and families. It’s frightening."
It is important to note that this particular worker isn’t resistant to change — rather she welcomes it. "We’re hoping that programs like this will help us look at individuals and families as whole entities." She cautions, however, that building a new structure is a process that takes time, and that it has a ripple effect that spreads. She reminds us that child support staff also bring something important to this collaborative effort. "I would venture to say that my unit brings a perspective which values parents as decision makers and advocates, and that is a valuable perspective."
Using an outside contractor was an effective strategy for a State with large caseload to staff ratios. Also, because Connecticut’s three demonstration sites have discrete populations and purposes, States interested in implementing new child support enforcement practices might find this collaboration a good place to begin.
The Illinois demonstration project is based in Chicago in the Office of Community Outreach, Division of Child Support Enforcement, Illinois Department of Public Aid. Members of this collaboration include child care and Head Start centers in various locations throughout the State.
Illinois’s primary goal is to increase paternity establishment and child support collections for children and families in Head Start and child care programs. Specific project goals include the following:
Most participants in the Illinois project are low income-families. Reflecting the diversity found in the State, they include several ethnic populations, urban and rural dwellers, and Spanish and other foreign language speakers.
Locating the project in the Office of Community Outreach has been very positive. The knowledge gained from others in that office and the networks established by the Community Outreach office staff have decreased the time it usually takes to identify players.
The other design factor that has affected the project is the decision to involve child care and Head Start staff in the completion of the Voluntary Acknowledgement of Paternity form. This decision represents a departure from the traditional approach of involving non-child support staff only in information exchange. In this demonstration project, Head Start and child care staff at selected sites now work on the completion of the forms that are an integral part of many child support cases.
Finally, child support staff have begun to use the willingness of potential partners as a selection criterion. As the coordinator states, "You can’t talk them into doing it."
| An invesment in networking prior to the collaboration yielded big benefits when looking for partners for this project. |
According to staff in the Community Outreach office, the key to this demonstration and to any outreach effort is participation in other agencies’ conferences, because those meetings educate staff about other programs and about child support. Through these conferences child support staff identified potential participants and met with key staff from large Head Start organizations, staff from the State child care agency, and the Illinois Head Start Association staff.
The child support agency grant project manager is responsible for meeting with staff from that agency to achieve several objectives. These include determining which staff members are willing to participate; providing staff training; finding support for the ongoing efforts of child care and Head Start staff; and continuing to create interest in the collaboration among staff in participating and non-participating agencies.
In participating Head Start and child care agencies, the following services and activities are provided as part of the collaboration effort.
A measure of the success of the Illinois demonstration project is the number of agencies that have chosen to join it. Now the project has sixteen sites, which represents a five-fold increase over the number anticipated. In addition, Illinois has been able to build working partnerships with Head Start and child care providers, educate staff and clients about paternity establishment, and address misconceptions about paternity establishment. Given the diverse environments and populations child support has been working with, these results are pleasantly surprising and represent substantial success of this project to date.
Numerous changes in personnel in the partner agencies have been a continual challenge. In each case where child support staff identified a delay in bringing a new collaborating organization on board, staff turnover was a contributing factor.
According to some Head Start FSWs we interviewed, Illinois’s strong focus on paternity establishment negatively affected the overall receptiveness of parents. These FSWs report that the emphasis on the legal aspects of paternity establishment alienated parents, especially those parents who already had paternity established, or who had previous negative experiences with the child support agency. Other FSWs attribute this lowered receptiveness to complex legal issues. The FSWs stated that as the demonstration project has continued, there has been more emphasis on the non-legal aspects of child support, such as the emotional support children receive from having a relationship with their fathers.
| Emphasis on legal aspects seemed to have little appeal to parents. |
This project has provided staff members in participating Head Start and child care agencies with important opportunities for learning. For example, when asked whether partnering with child support had been worth the extra work, a Head Start worker answered, "Yes, even if one life has been changed, it’s worth it." On the other hand, another FSW stated he couldn’t wait for the demonstration project to end. He felt that parents were offended by inquiries about child support. The FSW was surprised at the resistance and negative response they received from clients when the subject of paternity was addressed.
FSWs attributed some of the parents’ negative reaction to disillusionment with the child support office. Many families felt that child support "didn’t do anything" with their cases or had heard rumors to that effect. This concern was also identified by staff at the Community Outreach office, who wondered about child support’s ability to adequately respond to the increased demand for services brought about by the demonstration project and similar efforts.
| Attitudes about child support among collaborating Head Start staff in Illinois range from very positive to very negative. |
Through the efforts of the Community Outreach office prior to the demonstration project, the child support agency has gained some of the information essential for this project. This information involved identifying: key players in the community, distinctions between Head Start and child care, central issues for Head Start and child care, and how child support can fit in with the spectrum of services provided.
| Building a network with the potential collaborating community should be considered as a prelude to the replication process. |
In summary, an evaluation of family needs coupled with an assessment of how well child support enforcement is integrated into the network of family service providers can help identify appropriate steps to successfully implement a partnership.
The Maryland demonstration project is based at the State Department of Human Resources in Baltimore. The new coordinator is from the Division of Research for the Office of Child Support Enforcement. Partners in the collaboration include:
Maryland’s primary objective is to reach custodial parents not currently receiving TANF and to assist them in pursuing child support so they can achieve economic independence. Specific objectives include the following:
Primary services include resource and referral services, development and distribution of materials, and outreach to local providers.
Maryland’s demonstration sites are located in Baltimore, an urban area with a high poverty rate for young children; Anne Arundel County, a suburban area with a larger middle-class population; and the rural Tri County area of Southern Maryland. Most of the population in these areas is either Caucasian or African-American, although Baltimore also includes both Vietnamese and Hmong populations. Outreach efforts in all three areas are directed toward the staff and parents involved in Head Start and child care programs as well as toward family day care home providers.
First, Maryland’s demonstration sites include an existing resource and referral program and two local DSS sites. The two DSS sites concentrate much of their efforts on outreach and the dissemination of materials. For all three sites, funds for this project are a small part of larger program budgets that include multiple sources of funding. Extra staff has not been hired; and it seems that, for existing staff, the addition of new job responsibilities has been difficult.
Second, the original target population for this project was custodial parents who were not already part of TANF. Both the State evaluator’s report and site visit indicated that the non-TANF population is not necessarily the one being reached. Considerable time has been spent, for example, working with Head Start, a program that, as a result of its income guidelines, is unlikely to yield many parents who are not already part of TANF.
| Information on working with non-TANF families will be a valuable contribution from the Maryland Collaboration project. This information should be presented in State evaluation reports. |
Outreach work was among the tasks emphasized during the first year. Presentations were made at conferences and meetings, materials were distributed to providers, and the project coordinator worked as an active member of the State Head Start collaboration group. All sites began to develop relationships with local child care providers.
While these efforts continue into the second year, local sites have begun to implement more intensive outreach programs. To reach all licensed child care providers within the target areas, home visits have been made to providers, computer lists of potential families have been generated, materials have been developed and distributed, job fairs have been attended and numerous presentations have been made to local organizations of parents and providers.
The former project coordinator has stated that the goal of the third year will be to reach every Head Start and child care program in the State and to maintain the project’s current level of outreach to parents and providers.
| The quick reference cards, known as Hot Topic cards, have been successful with both parents and providers. Designed to be placed on refrigerator doors, they are easy to reference. |
The Maryland Committee for Children:
Anne Arundel County:
Tri-County:
LOCATE, Maryland’s resource and referral program, continues to flourish. The telephone counselors thought carefully about the ways in which they adapt their services to the issue of child support. Their adaptations included an amended intake form coupled with additional training for counselors.
A variety of materials such as quick reference cards, pamphlets, flyers, and posters have been developed and disseminated across sites. Many of these portray the "softer side" of child support — parents developing a relationship with their child. Some materials are available in both Spanish and English. The DSS sites reach a large number of local providers through these informational materials.
Maryland is no more immune to change than the rest of the States involved in this demonstration project. In fact, the project coordinator role has recently changed hands. Other changes include a new project evaluator and a new grants manager.
Much of this state’s activity includes materials distribution and referral services, but follow-up, viewed as an important component of this project, has proved difficult. For example, in the Tri-County area specially marked applications were distributed but none have been returned. Both LOCATE and Anne Arundel County have tried to follow up with phone calls. Staff members we spoke to gave several reasons for this problem. First, said one, materials had been distributed primarily to families in programs like Head Start. These families are already in the system. Another staffer feels the difficulty lies with providers, who consider it intrusive to follow up on distributed materials, which are "kind of a personal matter, so they don’t ask about it." Yet another person attributed the difficulty with follow-up to the desire of agencies to respect the confidentiality of their clients.
| This grant provided local sites with relatively small amounts of money, and these dollars were then combined with funding from other sources. While this makes sense in terms of program integration, it does complicate follow-up efforts. This may be part of the price of collaboration. |
DSS cites a new, more positive attitude on the part of child care providers, a recent change they attribute to the optimistic messages spread through advertising the softer side of child support enforcement. "I don’t feel the same resistance as when we started this a year and a half ago in the child care community," one staffer said. However, a DSS staff member said, this change does not apply to family day care providers.
Some of the people interviewed describe the way parents respond to the counselors at LOCATE as very different from the way they relate to DSS staff. They believe that parents prefer working with LOCATE because it feels less bureaucratic and seems more responsive. One person said it was "just easier to trust a contractor." Staff from both LOCATE and DSS describe said talking to LOCATE is more comfortable than "talking to a systems person." According to these LOCATE and DSS staff members, the child support program in Baltimore has a reputation for being unresponsive. These comments raise the possibility that there is still work to be done in the development of a more positive image of child support enforcement there.
Maryland’s demonstration project could be helpful to States interested in the development of materials (all sites), and the distribution of materials to a diverse network of providers (in Anne Arundel County) or to States interested in the enhancement of resource and referral services (LOCATE). The Tri-County program has developed brochures and posters that depict inspiring images and provide positive reasons for paying child support.
The Minnesota demonstration project is supervised by the State Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED), Department of Human Services, located in St. Paul. There are four regional demonstration sites, and each has participants from:
Each regional collaboration has a staff member from the CSED office in St. Paul who is assigned to coordinate the partnership. Since the child support enforcement program in Minnesota is county administered, the county child support offices have some control over who participates.
Minnesota’s demonstration project strives to link child support with child care and Head Start programs for the purpose of sharing information and information distribution. As part of this process, multimedia information is distributed to all families served. At the local level, the strengths of each local service provider are assessed, and an action plan designed to build on those strengths is developed.
The five regional sites in Minnesota encompass a demographically diverse population, including suburban and rural settings, and Native American and Hmong populations. Most of the clients served are low to middle income.
The most unique design factor in the Minnesota collaboration is the cross training of staff. In order for child support staff to learn about child care and Head Start, staff from those organizations visited child support offices and educated workers about their programs. In turn, child support staff visited child care and Head Start locations, providing training on their program. In some locations, the information exchange was taken one step further, as a staff person from one agency spent a few hours "shadowing" a staff person from another agency in order to get a more complete idea about the nature of the work they perform.
| Cross-training in Minnesota means two-way instruction, as staff from one agency trains the staff from the other and vice versa. |
In each region, representatives from every collaborating organization gather on a monthly basis to review and assess the past month’s activities and to coordinate the next month’s activities; to discuss issues that have arisen; and to formulate responses to identified issues. Every other month, meetings are convened among all collaborators for similar purposes.
| One of the things that I have found very neat is that the regions are able to brainstorm within themselves on how they can keep their own communication lines open. They have found these other people to talk to. We are really challenged because of the large geographic area we are in — we have to travel 100 miles from one end of the county to the other. They’re able to figure out ways to keep in contact. Counties have had some great ideas, Head Start has had some great ideas, and they are able to share that and steal from each other. |
After this grant was awarded, CSED staff worked diligently to establish contractual relationships with the participating agencies so that funds could be used to establish a work plan and to reimburse project-related expenses.
Sites were established according to the Head Start regions with one CSED staff assigned to coordinate the activities of a region while another staff person was responsible for overall project coordination. Although there were work plans in place, the precise nature of the activities evolved over the first few months of the demonstration.
Cross-training began, as did the regularly scheduled regional and statewide meetings of participants. Client referrals were made among these organizations, with additional community outreach activities (in the form of a booth that is used at job fairs and family days at manufacturing facilities, etc.) added. Fatherhood initiatives currently are being added to the mix as is a parent handbook and other parent education materials. A video targeted to parents with children in child care, Head Start and other families in need of information on child support services is also being produced.
In Head Start:
In child care, the Child Care Assistance Office, and resource and referral programs:
Minnesota has successfully achieved several of its stated project objectives. Linkages between Head Start, child care, and child support have been established and are being strengthened through joint activities and cross-training. Through periodic regional and statewide meetings, all participating organizations have a voice in ongoing implementation and strategic planning. Multi-media presentations are in the works for the coming year.
| The decision of State child support staff to apply training to the change process upon their own culture was unique to Minnesota. |
Members from the various participating agencies have learned to compensate for the fact that child support, child care, and Head Start are in different agencies at the State level, to address issues of tribal sovereignty as they relate to collaborating, and to manage variations among county governments involved in the same demonstration region.
| For county administered child-support programs, gaining the investment of all potential local offices in a collaboration before starting is important. |
The Minnesota child support program is State supervised but county administered. As a result, county child support programs have a great deal of say in how their programs are operated. County child support directors often feel pressure to perform from the county commissioners, who have funding authority for the program.
Some county child support programs have chosen not to participate in this project, citing differences between their organization’s responsibilities and the activities of this demonstration grant. It is possible that all child care and Head Start organizations in a region may be participating in this project, but that some child support agencies may have chosen not to become involved.
Child support staff have expressed concern about their ability to effectively contribute to a project that involves working in close collaboration with other agencies. The traditional culture of child support has been counter to collaboration:
| We asked our partners if they were going to get enough out of it if we concentrated our efforts on child support workers because this has not been our culture here at child support. So we are looking at a cultural shift. Our other partners thought that was the best thing we could do for every one of them. |
Recognition of the problem has led the State child support office to take steps to bring in those county offices that are not currently participating in this project.
| Personal contacts among collaborators helped dispel previously held misconceptions. |
In addition, child support staff have had an opportunity to learn about the population they serve in a more direct manner.
| We found that working with Head Start gave us a forum to go out and meet with parents about child support questions. I recently did a little training with Battle Creek Head Start, which happens to be half Hmong. One of the parent advocates there is a Hmong interpreter. There was an interesting exchange of information, where every once in a while I would stop and let him translate. I found a lot of interest and a lot of misinformation there. I think providing accurate and consistent information to parents is something we are focussing on. |
The attitudes of Head Start staff began to change when child support staff came to their office to train them. "Child support staff come to our office, and my staff see they aren’t tyrants." Head Start staff had concerns about being affiliated with child support, but they have agreed to be publicly linked with child support as long as the nature of the relationship remains one of information exchange. Tangible evidence of the willingness to be linked is the portable booth used for community outreach which represents child care, Head Start, and child support together. Further evidence is the cooperation required to ensure that each community is represented at the booth.
At the onset of the project, the child support enforcement office invested resources to develop contractual relationships among all the participating agencies. As a result, the partners’ actual costs exceeded original cost estimates. The contracts were necessary in order to establish the responsibilities of the collaborative relationship and provide reimbursement to the partners for expenses incurred as part of the project. The time and resources required for these start-up tasks should be taken into consideration by organizations planning a similar initiative.
| Contracting and related start-up costs were far greater than anticipated. |
Minnesota’s development of a handbook for all demonstration partners has proven invaluable. Given the partners different conceptual frameworks and combined with their busy schedules, the documentation of each program is a valuable reference tool, and one which could be replicated in other jurisdictions.
Finally, Minnesota is the only demonstration State to fully cross train staff. As a result, staff in all agencies has a working knowledge of the other collaborating agencies, enabling them to make referrals based on information about the organization to which they are sending their clients. This experience with cross training demonstrates that instructing each partner on the roles and responsibilities of the others is a valuable investment.
Each of the five States discussed in this chapter volunteered to explore, examine, and demonstrate unique approaches to implementing collaborative demonstration grants between child support enforcement, Head Start, and child care. Each State chose to examine different aspects of and approaches for working with such collaborations. Some States chose to concentrate on the distribution of informational materials while others chose to focus on the development of a new staff understanding of the issues involved. Some States opted to provide a similar service across sites while others elected to make their programs and services more site specific. In short, taken as a group these States provide a broad picture of many of the issues pertinent to collaborations of this nature. States interested in pursuing similar collaborations should find much guidance and direction from these efforts.
| ALASKA | CONNECTICUT | ILLINOIS | MARYLAND | MINNESOTA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Three-year funding level | 105,140 | 300,000 | 434,546 | 77,700 | 453,000 |
| Service by type | |||||
| Resource and Referral | X | X | X | X | |
| Training — providers | X | X | X | X | X |
| Training — parents | X | ||||
| Community Outreach | X | X | X | X | X |
| Materials Development | X | X | X | X | X |
| Video (in process) | X | X | X | ||
| Conferences | X | X | X | ||
| Acknowledgement of Paternity | X | ||||
| Fatherhood Activities | |||||
| Fathers' group | X | X | |||
| Encourage classroom visits by non-custodial parent | X | X | |||
| Newsletter for dads | X | ||||
| "Male friendly" classrooms | |||||
| Special events | X | ||||
| Sites by type | |||||
| Head Start | X | X | X | X | X |
| Child Care: 0-3 | X | X | X | X | X |
| Child Care: After school | X | X | X | ||
| Elementary School | X | ||||
| Local DSS office | X | ||||
| Resource and referral | X | X | X | ||
| Other | X | ||||
| Special Populations | |||||
| Puerto Rican | X | ||||
| Other Hispanic | X | ||||
| Hmong | X | X | |||
| Native American/Alaska Native | X | X | |||
| ALASKA | CONNECTICUT | ILLILNOIS | MARYLAND | MINNESOTA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Person: Shirley Dean
Child Support Enforcement Division — Southeast Regional Office
410 Willoughby Ave., Suite 107
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: (907) 465-5182
Fax: 907-465-5190
E-mail:
Shirley_Dean@revenue.state.ak.us
Contact Person: Babette Mantilla
Connecticut Women's Education & Legal Fund (CWELF)
135 Broad St (YWCA Building)
Hartford, CT
Phone: 860-247-6090
Fax: 860-246-9089
Contact Person: Lois Rakov
Office of Community Outreach
Division of Child Support Enforcement
Illinois Department of Public Aid
32 West Randolph St, 3rd Fl.
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312-793-8213
Fax: 312-793-8734
Contact Person: Willie McCargo
Child Support Enforcement Administration
MD Department of Human Resources
311 West Saratoga St, Room 316-D
Baltimore, MD 21201-3521
Phone: 410-767-0601
Fax: 410-333-8992
E-mail:
wmccargo@csea.dhr.state.md.us
Contact Person: Deborah Kreger
Awareness & Education
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Human Services
444 Lafayette Rd
St. Paul, MN 55155-3846
Phone: 651-296-5737
Fax: 651-297-4409
E-mail:
Deborah.Kreger@state.mn.us
1. Throughout this report the terms "early childhood professionals" and "early childhood providers" are used to refer to both Head Start and child care staff.
2. Throughout this report the term family service worker (FSW) is used as a generic term to refer to the center-level Head Start person responsible for working with families. In reality, this title changes from program to program.
Last updated 3/1/00