Executive Summary

In this chapter

1 Study Design
2 Findings

Among its major policy provisions, recent federal welfare reform legislation sought to strengthen enforcement of child support for TANF recipients while concurrently helping to protect women who are victims of domestic violence. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 expands penalties for noncustodial parents who fail to pay support and for custodial parents who, without good cause, do not cooperate with the child support enforcement process. In addition, recognizing that domestic violence victims may not be able to comply with the new legislation’s cooperation requirements, PRWORA includes two provisions that, under certain circumstances, exempt victims of domestic violence from requirements for cooperating with enforcement: the IV-D good cause policy and the Family Violence Option (FVO).

Though the IV-D good cause policy existed prior to PRWORA, revisions made it a far more flexible policy. States can now determine how to define good cause, set standards of evidence for good cause, and decide whether public assistance or child support agencies will determine whether good cause exists. The FVO offers states the new option of identifying victims of domestic violence, referring them to community services, and waiving the requirement that they cooperate with child support enforcement and other aspects of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

This new state latitude and the federal lifetime limit on cash assistance provide agencies with the opportunity to address the needs and concerns of domestic violence victims, but also make it urgent that they do so. Under the five-year lifetime limit of support, recipients of public assistance face a greater need for expediency in their efforts to achieve self-sufficiency, of which financial stability is a key piece. Most women who are victims of domestic violence want to pursue child support. Cooperation with child support requirements, however, can increase the risk of harm for the victim of domestic violence by alerting her abuser to her location; allowing for physical contact during courtroom proceedings; and/or angering an abuser by automatic procedures such as wage withholding or a driver’s license suspension. If women who fear their abusers choose not to pursue child support, on the other hand, they impair their ability to become self-sufficient through the loss of resources for themselves and their children. For the majority of domestic violence victims who want this financial support, efforts to protect their safety throughout the collection process become extremely important.

The coordination of safety and child support receipt can be further complicated by the specifics of the family situation. The abusing partner or former partner may be the parent of all, some or none of the children for whom child support is being sought. There may also be more than one former partner with a history of abusive behavior. The collection of child support could illicit an abusive response by a child’s father, but it could also illicit an abusive response by a jealous current partner who is threatened by the financial independence child support (or employment) could provide. Systems must be developed that can take into account the specifics of each family in determining the best strategy for assuring both safety and child support.

The current legislation’s dual emphasis on what can be competing objectives of child support enforcement and protection of victims of domestic violence has intensified the need for states to develop a response system. The response system needed would improve the coordination of information and delivery of services between public assistance and child support agencies. This need is particularly acute for victims of domestic violence who seek to collect the financial resources from child support payments.

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR), in collaboration with the Urban Institute, has examined what local communities in Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, and Oregon have done to improve the coordination of this response system. This report, funded by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, focuses specifically on the strategies that the child support and public assistance agencies in these sites have taken to improve the interagency coordination of information and services for victims of domestic violence with regard to the child support collection process, both for domestic violence victims who want exemption from this process and those who want to collect child support safely. Sometimes this coordination of effort extends to others, such as court personnel or staff from local domestic violence service organizations. The study's primary goal is to offer guidance for policymakers and agency staff in other states as they design and implement interagency strategies to help victims pursue child support safely. Given its focused purpose, the study does not attempt to present a comprehensive analysis of child support enforcement policies, domestic violence issues, or the outcomes that resulted from the initiatives in our study sites.

1. Study Design

The study focused on communities in four states that have taken somewhat different approaches to providing services for domestic violence victims in the child support system. We studied IV-A (TANF) and IV-D (child support) agencies in Boston, Massachusetts; Hennepin County, Minnesota; Jackson County, Missouri; and Grants Pass-Josephine County and Medford-Jackson County, Oregon. Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Missouri are conducting pilot projects in those locations supported by Section 1115 funding from OCSE. Minnesota is implementing new FVO and IV-D good cause procedures for its pilot project in one county. Massachusetts and Missouri are implementing procedures for their pilots in one local jurisdiction, then spreading some of them statewide. Oregon is implementing new procedures statewide.

The study is based on information gathered from a variety of data sources. Project staff reviewed materials provided by the Office of Child Support Enforcement on the state demonstration projects and the family violence option. Staff also obtained documents from the state and project sites about their grant activities and the implementation of the family violence option. Documents reviewed included training materials, policy guidelines and procedural manuals. Staff verified their understanding of project activities with appropriate state and local county staff and where necessary asked state and site specific open-ended follow-up questions on such topics as the identification and assessment of domestic violence victims, referrals to community services, waivers to exempt clients from child support cooperation requirements, and safe pursuit of child support. Discussions were held with policy analysts from state child support and public assistance agencies; administrators, supervisors and line staff from local-level child support and public assistance agencies; and representatives from statewide domestic violence advocacy groups and local domestic service providers. Descriptions of state-wide and demonstration specific activities were sent back to each state/site to ensure that information was accurate and complete.

2. Findings

The four sites in our study are implementing strategies to strengthen coordination among IV-A and IV-D agencies to serve victims better. The following findings on interagency coordination emerged from our examination of the sites efforts:

Tapping the expertise of specialized staff can help address domestic violence concerns.

In response to the expanded roles and responsibilities for staff under PRWORA, IV-A and IV-D agencies increasingly need staff with special skills or training. The FVO requires that a person trained in domestic violence conduct needs assessments and develop safety plans for victims. However, performing this work requires a level of skill and sensitivity to domestic violence beyond what most caseworker training is designed to develop.

To comply with FVO provisions, the IV-A agencies in the study sites variously used three types of specialized staff to assist domestic violence victims. Specialized IV-A caseworkers who developed some expertise on domestic violence were able to devote the time needed to coordinating service delivery for victims. IV-D staff stationed at welfare agencies could help all public assistance recipients and provide special assistance to recipients with domestic violence issues by helping them pursue child support safely. External domestic violence experts from community agencies were located at IV-A agencies to offer caseworkers and clients access to their special training and expertise in domestic violence issues.

To ensure that host staff and clients benefit from the expertise of specialized staff, IV-A and IV-D agencies need to develop clear roles and responsibilities for them. The IV-A agencies we examined are considering two strategies to increase specialized staff's integration into their host agency's offices:

Developing Partnership Agreements. Some IV-A agencies are considering developing partnership agreements with community service providers before domestic violence counselors are out-stationed. The agreements would describe in detail the process for the agencies' interaction, including the roles and responsibilities of counselors and the steps to take when procedural or supervisory issues arise.
Formalizing Interaction in Agency Processes. Other agencies are attempting to establish an effective working relationship between domestic violence counselors and IV-A caseworkers by formally including counselors in agency processes. They require domestic violence counselors to sign all good cause waiver requests or safety plans to ensure that IV-A caseworkers share information with them.

Supporting local cross-training efforts can deepen understanding among agencies.

IV-A and IV-D staff receive training on their own agency's procedures but may not know how other agencies work. This lack of understanding may reduce the effectiveness of interagency coordination and detract from an agency’s ability to deal with the special problems faced by domestic violence victims in the child support process.

Cross-training is one approach that study sites have used to increase IV-A agencies’, IV-D agencies’, and community-based domestic violence service providers’ knowledge of each other. Agencies offer formal presentations of policies and procedures or information on the dynamics of domestic violence. The sessions sometimes train staff from more than one agency and sometimes feature training by the staff of one agency for the staff of another. The study sites have also taken several other, more informal approaches to cross-training. Strategies include the following:

Brown Bag Discussions and Agency Tours.> A domestic violence service provider in Missouri hosts lunchtime discussions and agency tours for local IV-A agency staff to inform them about service provision in their community.
Buddy Visits to Other Agencies. Some IV-A and IV-D agencies in Minnesota pair one worker from each agency and encourage them to visit each other's workplace to establish contacts with staff at partner organizations and learn about their responsibilities.
Presentations at All-Staff Meetings. IV-A agencies invite representatives of IV-D agencies to all-staff meetings (or vice versa) to discuss their approach to service provision or introduce their agency's most recent procedural changes.

Cross-training provides several benefits, including learning firsthand about the policies and procedures of other agencies and organizations; understanding better the rationale behind approaches to case handling; and building partnerships that provide comprehensive services and support for clients.

Tying information systems together can help protect client safety.

To serve clients effectively, IV-A and IV-D caseworkers must be aware of each other's actions, especially when the client is a domestic violence victim. For example, if a IV-A caseworker does not promptly inform a IV-D worker that a client received a good cause exemption and that her child support case should be closed, the IV-D worker will continue to take action on the case. In extreme situations, breakdown in communication between IV-A and IV-D staff can result in inadvertent leaks of personal information on domestic violence victims to their batterers.

In response to these concerns, several of the study sites have taken steps to improve interagency communication links using information systems. Strategies include the following:

Establishing Shared Computer Screens and Common Codes. Creating screens that can be viewed by workers at IV-D and IV-A agencies expedites the transmittal of information. To help staff interpret these screens, some agencies are developing common codes for classifying a case's status.
Maintaining Case Notes Electronically. Recording all case notes in automated information systems rather than on paper helps to document case activity thoroughly and facilitates rapid sharing of case notes among public assistance and child support workers.
Developing a System of Immediate Messaging. This is a computer-based approach that notifies a worker that a case needs special handling. If workers activate the alert option on their computer, messages are received immediately and automatically appear on their screens.
Allowing for Manual Disabling of Automatic Computer-Based Child Support Enforcement Procedures. This approach allows child support staff to manually shut off certain collection procedures for domestic violence victims who want to safely pursue child support. Such special precautions may be needed in order to avoid further abuse.

Ensuring broad local participation strengthens planning for policy and procedures.

Committees that plan for policy usually include representatives of state-level agencies but may not include representatives from local-level agencies. As a result, state policy may not always address local-level concerns. Therefore, it is important to include a local perspective in planning for policy, so that operational concerns can be addressed.

In response to this issue, study sites have sought to include staff from local IV-A and IV-D agencies in policy planning. Local staff participate directly in committees for policy and procedural development or they review policies once they have been drafted. The involvement of these staff can generate practical suggestions on how procedures can be implemented more smoothly. For instance, local staff can make sure procedural language is intelligible to other local staff and alert policymakers to staffing issues or other potential implementation challenges.

In addition, some study sites have included representatives from local domestic violence service providers in planning for policy on domestic violence. These representatives can make important contributions because of their vast knowledge of domestic violence issues and of the local communities in which they are located. Although many domestic violence service providers want to participate in state planning efforts, some, especially those from smaller organizations, lack the funding to do so. Offering the modest funding needed to enable providers to participate promotes fuller collaboration.