In this chapter we begin by revisiting the original project goals to examine their implicit questions. Following this we provide some reflection about the strengths and challenges each of the three partners brings to a joint project such as these demonstration grants. The chapter ends with a discussion about several larger policy issues.
To such a complex question, we must answer both yes and no. Yes, because of these projects Head Start and child care staff have become more knowledgeable about the work of child support enforcement. Some staff members have learned more about general child support services and regulations. Staff in other States have become more expert about specific topics within child support enforcement. (An example would be the Illinois providers who are involved in the paternity establishment program.)
We do not think that child support staff’s understanding of Head Start and child care has been enhanced to the same degree. With the exception of the demonstration project in Minnesota, child support staff were not a target audience for information exchange and training; so, many child support staff were not provided an opportunity to learn more about child care and Head Start.
Is there an increased sense of trust across agencies? Yes. While there is no quantitative evidence to support this contention, trust is demonstrated by the success the partner agencies have had in collaborating on these projects. It seems that staff felt an increased sense of trust after a partnering agency delivered what it had promised. Unfortunately, the mixed messages described in Chapter III serve to mitigate this growth of trust; these mixed messages need to be addressed. As staff spend more time together, trust may grow and they may find ways to reduce the number of conflicting messages.
As to whether the demonstration projects have facilitated the development of a shared mission, the answer is yes, in a variety of ways. As we traveled around from site to site, we found that the word "responsibility" was used over and over again in reference to parents. Child support staff spoke of "responsibility." So did staff we spoke with in child care centers and in Head Start programs. What do you mean when you speak of responsibility, we asked the early childhood professionals, expecting them to address only emotional and psychological support. We mean, they told us, financial responsibility as well. "They go together, the emotional and the financial. It’s a package deal — the kids and the kids’ dads." Indeed, it is our assessment that the partner agencies share a mission, that of helping parents accept responsibility for their children.
We found another aspect of shared mission. Everyone with whom we spoke believes that children do better if fathers are involved in their lives. This mission statement may be put into practice differently by each group, but our interviews with staff indicate that this focus on the need children have for their fathers was one of the first parcels of common ground identified. It raises the possibility that fatherhood initiatives should be scheduled to begin early in collaborative efforts. Perhaps the two components of shared mission that were identified during the first year and a half of these demonstration grants will provide a suitable starting point for other States interested in replicating similar projects.
One outcome of these demonstration grants has certainly been increased access to child support enforcement agencies. Head Start and child care staff have been able to make referrals to child support programs and parents have a sense of who to go to for services. In Alaska, parents can even make toll-free calls.
However, it is still too early to determine if increased access to child support services will result in increased collections. Some child support agencies have small numbers of staff within the division that administers the program, and those numbers did not always include the staff responsible for actually processing cases. More than one child support staff person with whom we spoke expressed concern about the program’s ability to respond to the "business being drummed up" by staff working on this project.
As for the question of whether Head Start and child care families and staff are more willing to use child support services, it appears that both staff and parents are trying to become more comfortable with this process. Unfortunately, parents continue to relate stories of their negative experiences with the "system."
Many of the child support staff with whom we spoke have long understood how important fathers are to their children. However, they also said that their job responsibilities require them to focus on issues more germane to the goals and objectives of their organization, such as collections.
We are not able to determine how widespread this perception is among child support staff. The limited number of child support staff involved in these demonstrations makes it difficult to know how representative their perceptions actually are, and many of the staff we talked to had administrative rather than service-delivery responsibilities. Additionally, while child support staff may well understand the importance of fathers’ involvement, they may not know how to make it happen. The Minnesota design, which includes child support staff training by child care and Head Start personnel, provides one model for helping child support staff learn from the early childhood professionals.
The experiences of the five States that volunteered to explore collaborative working relationships between child support enforcement, Head Start, and child care provide valuable information about what works and what doesn’t. How do States interested in replicating similar collaborations make use of what has been demonstrated in deciding what is most appropriate for them? Chapters II and III provide some of the answers to that question. It would also be helpful to think carefully about the nature and characteristics of each of the three partner agencies. Speaking generally, what contribution can each of the partner agencies be expected to make to collaborations such as those described in this report? What strengths and what challenges do each of the partner organizations present for relationships built upon partnership?
The primary strengths of the child support enforcement program lie within the structure of the program itself. The child support program is unique among the three partners because it is a nationwide program administered in every State by a single State agency and operated by States through county, regional, or other local offices. Every jurisdiction in the United States is served by a child support office. When considering a national replication effort, this is an important consideration.
Second, States receive 66 percent of their child support enforcement program’s administrative costs from the Federal government. For example, if a child support program spends $100,000 in administrative costs, it receives a minimum of $66,000 back from the Federal government. Of the three partners in this demonstration project, child support is the only one with a funding mechanism in place that can generate new Federal dollars for a small investment of additional State dollars.
However, while child support enforcement has much to contribute to partnerships of this kind, it also presents challenges. As discussed earlier in this report, child support enforcement staff have little experience with the skills and knowledge so essential for effective collaboration. In order for child support enforcement staff to become more adept at collaborative work, staff will require some assistance, including training, information exchange, and personal, positive experiences in collaboration with other agencies. Child support staff generally have heavy caseloads with little emphasis on the unique needs of each family. This approach often means that supportive relationships are not developed between the worker and the client. Getting the job done may mean ignoring what a family wants or needs.
|
An FSW summed up her perception of child support's approach to working
with parents this way: "I think child support needs to be more friendly. WHat does that mean? It means they should return parents phone calls and be more compassionate. I think they should link more with child care workers. Maybe they could stop by every now and then and talk with parents, too. They need to learn how to listen to parents." |
Head Start has the institutional mandate to support collaborations. As part of a nationally funded program, all Head Start programs are expected to form collaborative relationships with other community agencies. These collaborations are regarded as essential to meeting the needs of children and families, work that is considered the responsibility of each and every Head Start staff person, even though it is the family service worker who carries the primary responsibility for helping each family set and reach personal goals. Often these goals include the achievement of greater financial self-sufficiency. Child support may be one way to achieve that goal for single-parent families. In addition, as a result of small caseloads, FSWs traditionally develop personal, ongoing relationships with parents, a fact, they told us, that makes it relatively easy for them to introduce sometimes "touchy" topics, such as child support.
| "Head Start serves families within the context of the community, and recognizes that many other agencies and groups work with the same facilities. The objective of 45 CFR 1304.41 is to ensure that grantee and delegate agencies collaborate with partners in their communities, in order to provide the highest level of services to children and families." This is an excerpt from the Guidance for the Head Start Program Performance Standards, regulations that govern the operation of all Head Start programs in the country. |
One of the challenges Head Start presents for this partnership lies in the fact that while it is part of a national effort, each Head Start program is expected to develop and operate in a manner that reflects the needs of the families enrolled. For example, some Head Start programs serve large numbers of two-parent families; other programs serve mostly single parents. The noncustodial parents are as poor or poorer than the moms and have little or no access to social services or to income support that would increase their ability to pay child support. This means that while collaborations with child support and child care can be required, the specifics of the relationships are likely to be determined by individual program context.
The structure of child care is, in some ways, similar to that of child support enforcement. The program is primarily federally funded and every State has a lead agency as well as an administrator for its child care subsidy program.
But unlike child support some communities have child care resource and referral agencies whose primary task is the dissemination of information about available services. Some States have networks of these local agencies. These organizations are a natural fit for collaborative projects.
Like Head Start staff, child care providers are accustomed to thinking about children and families holistically. They think of families as a unit and, in a quest to better serve their children, they have become quite adept at linking with other people and agencies in the community.
But unlike Head Start, child care organizations have many different sets of standards, and the quality and curriculum at local centers varies greatly. The structure of individual child care programs varies a great deal since churches, family child care providers, community-based programs, and others operate child care centers.
In summary, each of the partners brings unique strengths and challenges to this project. At their best, the agencies involved with these demonstration sites have learned to build upon each other’s strengths.
Two interrelated policy issues have the potential to influence the outcome of a collaborative effort between child support, Head Start, and child care.
For many years, the Federal government determined the quality of child support services by measuring how quickly case processes were completed. Recent legislative changes in the funding and incentive structure have shifted the focus of State performance to end results but the emphasis remains on the basic child-support-enforcement mission of locating absent parents, establishing paternity, establishing orders, and enforcing orders.
Child support offices are evaluated on specific widely accepted measures, such as collections per case, or the cost-effectiveness ratio of collections per administrative dollar expended. All of these measures exert pressure on child support programs to increase performance where it "counts"—on those measures that will meet Federal performance standards, result in an incentive payment from the Federal government, and/or increase cost effectiveness.
The steps and resources required to meet Federal performance standards, gain incentive funding, and increase cost effectiveness are the foundation of all child support enforcement programs across the country. Resources designated for collaboration efforts may appear to come at the expense of the "business" of child support. States and local child support jurisdictions must choose how to best utilize resources, and they often come under scrutiny over how those resources are put to use.
As a result, child support offices generally have to learn how to bring resources to bear on the basics of child support as well as how to engage in initiatives that have long-term value but, in the short term, may contribute little to improving agency performance on the above measures.
Current Head Start policy states that children determined to be income-eligible at the time of their enrollment remain eligible for one additional year. However, if the family’s income increases by an amount sufficient to exceed maximum eligibility standards, younger siblings may be ineligible for participation in Head Start.
Some Head Start staff with whom we spoke speculated that mothers with children currently in their programs might be able to keep their four-year-old child in Head Start but would need to find other care for their infants and toddlers who might otherwise have been eligible for Early Head Start enrollment.
| Child support payments are often sporadic, in part because the income of noncustodial parents is sporadic. Changes in income can put parents back at the end of the waiting line or put them in a position where they have to pay for child care. |
It is not uncommon for child care providers to base their fees on a sliding scale. In addition, families receiving child care subsidies must contribute to the cost of care on a sliding-fee scale. Additional funds in the form of child support payments potentially increase the amount clients would pay for child care. Depending on the structure of the child care fee scale, a mother could realize a reduced net benefit or even a net loss with the addition of child support income. One provider spoke of this as "giving money with one hand and taking it away with the other."
There is much to be learned from the early efforts of these five States about how to build partnerships for the purpose of increasing access to and use of child support services. Staffs of child support, Head Start, and child care programs have learned from each other and have begun to better understand one another. Joint projects have been planned and conducted, conferences have been held, and presentations have been made to a variety of audiences. Videos have been produced, public service announcements have been released, and resource and referral networks are now more reflective of child support issues.
Among the many lessons learned from these five States is the fact that change takes time. Time to reflect upon what has been effective is essential if more productive collaborative relationships are to be formed. Other lessons learned include the critical relationship between context and program design, and the importance of good planning.
There are lessons still to be learned and taught during the second half of these demonstration projects. We are confident that more lessons will be learned as the Office of Child Support Enforcement continues to promote working partnerships among programs for families and children.
Last updated 3/3/00