By: Sandra Vanderhyde, Muskegon Deputy Circuit Court Administrator

I had the great privilege of attending and presenting at the 53rd Annual Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association (ERICSA) Annual Training Conference and Exposition, which took place May 1-5in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. There were approximately 500people in attendance, from 41 states and 23 different tribes. Due to the rough location – ocean side views and perfect weather (can you sense my sarcasm?) – the energy was high and the attendance at some of the breakout sessions was low.

The topics presented included “Genetic Testing,” “Using Social Security Data,” “Increase Collections,” “Improve Performance,” “Remodeling the Child Support Program,” “Criminal Justice Reform,” and “Bedside Manner for Attorneys.” The Intergovernmental staff enjoyed various topics such as “UIFSA 2008 – Becoming Uniform Once Again,” “Intergovernmental Technology – Bridging the Communication Gap,” and “Advanced UIFSA Scenarios.” The best part, however, was the networking and connections made with the other states. Staff was finally able to put  faces with  names.

I attended several great breakout sessions, and the most intriguing was “Using Data for Better Case Outcomes: How the Numbers Work for Me.” The first presenter in this session was Ed Lehmann, the Director of Philadelphia County Domestic Relations. He talked about the predictive analytics proactive case management strategy implemented in Pennsylvania in 2008. The predictive analytics forecast the likelihood of the defendant to pay child support, identify actions that can be taken to prevent a case from falling into delinquency, identify defendants who would most benefit from early interventions to reduce the likelihood a case will fall into delinquency, and improve efficiency and effectiveness of early intervention case management efforts. The Pennsylvania predictive analytics solution includes a Performance Improvement Module (PIM) case management application, a payment score calculator application to calculate a predictive analytics score, setting realistic orders, and proactive early intervention and case management.

Next in the “Data for Better Outcomes” presentation, the Florida IV-D Director, Ann Coffin, discussed using data science and behavioral science to better understand and engage parents who owe support. Ms. Coffin described how they analyze demographic information of the parents who owe support. Florida uses predictive analytics in daily compliance activity initiation, contempt actions, and for alternative tools. The 11 remedies available to them and selected based on the outcome of the predictive model are very similar to the remedies we have available in Michigan. The remedies are: 1) past due notices, 2) appointment letters, 3) disability notices, 4) driver license suspensions, 5) business or professional license suspensions and recreational suspensions, 6) contempt, 7) credit reporting, 8) personal property liens, 9) interstate initiating, 10) criminal referrals, and 11) case reviews. The Florida Child Support Program is constantly analyzing its return on investment for each of these activities by dividing the total collections received due to the activity by the total cost incurred. Its next project is to use the predictive model to analyze cases on the likelihood of upward or downward modification if a review for modification actions is initiated.

The final presenter of the “Using Data for Better Case Outcomes” session was from Vermont attorney Boolie Sluka from Vermont. Ms. Sluka discussed the use of behavioral economics to improve outcomes. This philosophy involves making small changes in wording and in the approach used to increase participation, such as adding the child’s name to bills to redirect emotional response. Vermont is  currently conducting a pilot program to analyze whether the show rates and success rates of their court case management conferences can be improved. To do this, they are using new letters for parents to prevent information overload. The pilot program is using behavioral economics informed settlement conferences as the initial meeting. Unfortunately, the pilot is too new to provide meaningful data on its impact.

Maybe it was because of the pouring rain at the time of the presentation or maybe it was because the current trend is toward problem-solving courts, but I am pleased to report that the most well-attended breakout session I witnessed was the one in which I was honored to present, called “From Choppy Seas to a Day at the Beach: Problem Solving Alternatives to Civil Contempt.” I presented with Magistrate Nicholas Palos, from New York; Tanguler Gray, the Georgia IV-D director; and the Honorable Chan Caudell, also from Georgia. The New York, Georgia, and Michigan programs go against the traditional approach of using adversarial proceedings to coerce compliance. Instead, the child support problem-solving court looks at why the parent is not paying, and how barriers to payments can be lessened or removed. We presented on the following six characteristics of problem-solving courts: 1) enhanced information, 2) community engagement, 3) collaboration, 4) individualized justice, 5) accountability, and 6) focus on outcomes.

A Georgia problem-solving court is aimed at creating self-sufficiency and is called the Parental Accountability Court (PAC). The PAC model seeks to remove underlying issues that cause noncustodial parents to become chronic nonpayers of child support. Through judicial oversight, PAC assists transitioning NCPs with barriers to self-sufficiency through parent accountability, employment and education. They offer to their participants substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, coaching and mentoring, volunteer work opportunities, literacy training, job assistance, and clinical assessment services and referrals. Since 2012, the program participants have paid an estimated $2.8 million dollars in support, which, in return, has saved the state more than $10 million in incarceration costs.

In Kings County Family Court in Brooklyn, New York, Support Magistrate Palos runs the Child Support Intensive Supervision Program (CSISP). In this program, after an initial screening determination and admittance into the program, there are frequent court appearances and a service plan. The frequency of future court appearances depends on subsequent cooperation and progress. The court may impose sanctions for failure to comply with referrals, such as essays and community service. Graduation from the program requires six months of current support. There is no maximum time as long as the individual is cooperating in the program. The lessons learned through the operation of the CSISP program is that multiple providers in each service category are needed; the courts must make expectations clear to each participant; more frequent court appearances contribute to higher payment rates; high default orders result in little to no payments; there is a lack of financial literacy in the population the program is serving; and the court must navigate the unreasonable expectations of both parents; such as unemployed individuals with no skills expecting to find jobs which pay more than entry level salaries.

Finally, there was the Michigan program, the Muskegon County Specialty Establishment and Enforcement Docket (SEED). Like the other programs, the SEED program addresses the barriers that prevent parents from being actively involved in their child’s/children’s lives and from financially supporting their children. After an initial screening, parties are ordered into the program at the establishment phase with a reduced child support obligation. Then an assessment is done with the noncustodial parent that results in an individualized case service plan being created that identifies the participant’s barriers and the plan to overcome them. A Family Court Officer is assigned to each case to act as case manager. There are monthly review hearings held to monitor child support payments, parenting time, compliance with the case service plan, and to issue incentives or sanctions, when necessary. Participants can graduate from the program when they have successfully completed their case service plan, which can take anywhere from 12 to 24 months. The key aspects of the SEED program are the individualized case services plans, the Swift and Sure Sanctions, the use of incentives, supports, and technology, and most recently, the use of groups with participants with common needs such as a life skills group and a male empowerment group. While the program has faced problems discovering new barriers post-assessment, it has also seen many successes, including increases in parenting time, child support, employment, education, the building of a support system for participants, and improved relationships with the custodial parent.

As a first time ERICSA conference attendee, I found it inspiring to be with people who lived miles away from me that shared similar beliefs and attitudes about child support. While I was convinced that I was walking into a conference where the program I was presenting would be light-years ahead of anything like it, I found that the concept of the SEED program has several programs in existence with similar philosophies, despite being a newer trend. Now I have connections in several states with which I can communicate and collaborate to improve the program. It was satisfying to see how eager the other attendees were to learn more about how we can create programs and address this previously-neglected population. For anyone considering attending a conference at the national level, I highly recommend the ERICSA Conference to expand your knowledge base and networking.