enhanced parental involvement collaboration (epic)
DESCRIPTION
Enhanced Parental Involvement Collaboration (EPIC). San Francisco Department of Child Support Services Karen M. Roye, Director. Overview. Performance Challenges San Francisco’s Enhanced Parental Involvement Collaborative (EPIC) Project Results Lessons Learned Performance Outcomes. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Enhanced Parental Involvement Collaboration
(EPIC)
San Francisco Department of Child Support ServicesKaren M. Roye, Director
Overview
• Performance Challenges
• San Francisco’s Enhanced Parental Involvement Collaborative (EPIC)
• Project Results
• Lessons Learned
• Performance Outcomes
Performance Challenges
• High rate of Default Judgments and Presumed Income Orders
• Little to no interaction with NCPs on Default and Presumed Income cases
• Growing arrears debt for both welfare and non-welfare cases
• Increased locate activities by staff
EPIC - Project Goals
• Streamline establishment of orders procedures
• Reduce default judgments that result in high arrears orders due to unreasonable and unrealistic establishment of orders
• Provide better customer service allowing Non-custodial Parent (NCP) participation
Description
The EPIC Model provides an alternative to
traditional establishment of support orders by
addressing educational, cultural, financial and
institutional barriers encountered by Non-
custodial Parents (NCP) and includes the NCP in
the establishment process.
Comparative Analysis
• Existing Process• Is linear in concept and implementation (see flowchart)
with each step requiring a followed progression• Once each progression is completed the matter is
rarely revisited
• Strengths• The existing model is proficient
• Weaknesses• Little or no interaction with NCP• Requires the NCP to engage in a legal process after 30
days notice• Assumes the NCP has a basic understanding of the legal
process
Comparative Analysis, Cont.EPIC Process
As the EPIC alternative measures are implemented the process is simplified.
• Strengths• Includes more outreach strategies• Includes the NCP in the establishment processes• NCPs are given opportunities to develop
relationships with the child support professional• Less default Judgments
• Weaknesses• None identified
Traditional Establishment Model
IntakeSummons and
Complaint Filed
LocateStandard
“Come and Get It”Letter
ServiceIs Successful
Service of
Process
Service isUnsuccessful
Stipulation
Court Judgment
DefaultJudgment
ReassessLocate
Information
The Big Difference
Establishment Model – EPIC
Intake LocateSummons and
Complaint Filed
Simplified“Come and Get It”
Letter
Service of Process
ServiceIs Successful
Service isUnsuccessful
ReassessLocate
Information
Default Status Court Hearing
DefaultJudgment
Post DefaultContact Letter
Answer
Court Judgment
Stipulation
Alternative Measures of EPIC:Where Did NCP Respond?
• Alternative I: EPIC “COME AND GET IT” LETTER
• Standard Letter’s text was simplified• 3.6% Response to EPIC• 0% Response to Standard
• Alternative II: Pre-Service Outreach (Phone)• 78% Response to EPIC• No corresponding standard measure
Alternative Measures
• Alternative III: Service of Summons & Complaint with Friendly Flyer• 1.2% Response to EPIC• 32.3% Response to standard measure
• Alternative IV: Post-Service Outreach• 14.6% Response to EPIC• 3.4% Response to Standard
Alternative Measures
Two Final Steps to Avoid Default:
• Alternative V: Status Conference (“Default Calendar”)• 1.25% Response to EPIC• No corresponding standard measure
• Alternative VI: Post Default Letter• 0% Response to EPIC• 0% Response to standard measure
EPIC Team Resources (Project)Staff
• 2 Child Support Professionals with working supervisor and support clerk, trained by Court Family Law Facilitator, who was integral in every aspect of EPIC startup
Location
• EPIC Team separated from other Operational teams
Support & Outside Services
• EPIC staff interviews their own clients and sends their own services to a service provider
Other Highlights• Interviews- The average length of interviews of
EPIC participants is 45 minutes to an hour because of the direct contact involving personal service of process, explaining the process to the NCP, gathering income information, followed by resulting Stipulations and Answers
• Non-EPIC interviews average 25 to 30 minutes often with pressure to staff to get to the point of the interview as quickly as possible, dismissing the interviewee and moving on to the next customer
Other Highlights
NCPs choosing not to contact EPIC after service are given the opportunity to appear on the San Francisco Unified Family Courts Default Status Calendar
Lessons LearnedImplement the alternative that works - communication, communication, communication
• With the NCPs
• With the court
• With staff regarding organizational changes (separate EPIC Team, Dedicated Caseloads)
Lessons Learned…communication continued
• Use the telephone whenever possible to reach out to customers and to engage their participation
In Closing consider…
• Staffing Needs
• Training
• Customer Service
• Flexibility
• Performance
Performance Outcomes
Project Results as of March, 2006
• Total Service of Process – 899 • Personal Service - 523
• EPIC Cases (52%) – In house service• Non-EPIC Cases (48%) – process server
• Sub-Service of Process - 366• EPIC Cases (21%)• Non-EPIC Cases (79%)
• Default Rate • EPIC Cases (10%)• Non-EPIC Cases (65%)
Service of Process Comparison
53%
47%
21%
78%
0% 50% 100%
Subservice
PersonalService
EPIC
Non EPIC
Historic Default Rate in SF (FFYs)
51.5%
60.9%
52.7%
34.4%
14.10%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007** As of August
2007
EPIC Project 12-04 to 11-05
“Total” EPIC Approach, 07-06
Federal Performance Measures% of Open Cases with Support Orders
60.90% 60.10%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
Support Orders Obtained
Non EPIC
EPIC
Federal Performance Measures% of Current Support Collected
48.70%
62.26%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Non EPIC
EPIC
Original Study Cases, through June 2007
Federal Performance Measures% of Cases with Arrears Collected
52.77%
63.78%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Non-EPIC
EPIC
Original Study Cases, through June 2007
Related Documents
• For additional information contact Maria Kam, Administrative Assistant San Francisco Department of Child Support Services 415-356-2959 or visit website at sfgov.org
• Submit questions to:• Karen M. Roye, Director 415-356-2919