PROBLEM SOLVING COURTSPROBLEM SOLVING COURTS
Moderator: Dail Moore, Moderator: Dail Moore, Director, National Director, National Technical Assistance & Training Center, OCSETechnical Assistance & Training Center, OCSE
Speakers:Speakers: Judge Judge Kristin RuthKristin Ruth, Raleigh, NC, Raleigh, NC Judge Judge Scott RosenbergScott Rosenberg, Nashville, , Nashville,
TNTN Judge Judge Allan SchmalenbergerAllan Schmalenberger, ,
Dickenson, NDDickenson, ND
Child Support Enforcement & Child Support Enforcement & Problem-Solving CourtsProblem-Solving Courts
Integrated SolutionsIntegrated Solutions
Wake County Model Wake County Model
The GoalsThe Goals
Increased Child Support PaymentsIncreased Child Support Payments
andand
Reduced Jail OvercrowdingReduced Jail Overcrowding
Wake County Model
Integrated Solutions
Wake County Model
Integrated Solutions
The CycleThe Cycle Parent is ordered to pay child supportParent is ordered to pay child support Parent doesn’t payParent doesn’t pay Parent is issued a show causeParent is issued a show cause Parent is served and comes to courtParent is served and comes to court Parent is found in contemptParent is found in contempt Parent is ordered to pay a purge or go to jailParent is ordered to pay a purge or go to jail Parent pays the purge and parent is releasedParent pays the purge and parent is released Cycle repeats itself over againCycle repeats itself over again
Ruth, K. (2006) Breaking the cycle: Alternatives to incarceration lead to collections in Wake Ruth, K. (2006) Breaking the cycle: Alternatives to incarceration lead to collections in Wake Co., North Carolina. Co., North Carolina. Child Support Report, 38 (1) 2. Child Support Report, 38 (1) 2.
The Structure
Judge-Driven Hearings and
Service Integration
Vocational/
Counseling
Services
Electronic House Arrest
Custody Visitation/ Mediation
Wake County Model
Integrated Solutions
Wake County Model
Integrated Solutions
The Process
Accountability + Opportunity + Judge = Success
Wake County Model
Integrated Solutions
Wake County Model
Integrated Solutions
Electronic
House Arrest
With
Field
Supervision
Vocational/
Counseling
With
Visitation
Mediation
Status
Hearings
With
Performance
Reports
Increased
Compliance
> Payments
< Jail Days
< Failures
Procedure(s)
Wake County Model
Integrated Solutions
Wake County Model
Integrated Solutions
Show Cause
Finding
of
Willful
Contempt
Conditions
of
Judges
Order
Regular
Reviews
If participant violates conditions, arrest warrant may be issued
Typical Conditions: Used Alone or in Combination Depending on the Specifics of Each Case
Wake County Model
Integrated Solutions
Wake County Model
Integrated Solutions
• Electronic House Arrest: To Establish Daily Curfew
• Seek/Secure Employment
• “Working for Kids” Program
• Attend Substance Abuse Classes
• Address Mental Health Issues
• Address Educational Needs
Wake County Model
Integrated Solutions Wake County Model
Integrated Solutions
Impact: Contributes to Overall CSE Collections
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
Wake CSE Collections - 10 Year Annual Trendline
Wake County Model
Integrated Solutions Wake County Model
Integrated Solutions
Impact: Contributes to Overall CSE Purge Payments
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
Wake CSE "Purge" Collections - 4 Year Annual Trendline
Academic ResearchAcademic Research Meredith CollegeMeredith College
A Phase I study designed and led by A Phase I study designed and led by Dr. Rhonda Zingraff, Professor of Dr. Rhonda Zingraff, Professor of
Sociology at Meredith CollegeSociology at Meredith College
Child Support Sanctions Child Support Sanctions and Effects on Non-and Effects on Non-
custodial Parent custodial Parent ComplianceCompliance
By: Sheenagh Lopez & Jennifer McCoyBy: Sheenagh Lopez & Jennifer McCoy
Meredith CollegeMeredith College
Title IV-D of Social Security ActTitle IV-D of Social Security Act
Created the Child Support Created the Child Support Enforcement Program Enforcement Program
Provides establishment of paternity Provides establishment of paternity and the establishment, enforcement, and the establishment, enforcement, collection, and distribution of all collection, and distribution of all child support paymentschild support payments
Ashton, J. (2006) Child support dockets benefit from uprising problem solving Ashton, J. (2006) Child support dockets benefit from uprising problem solving court principle. court principle. Juvenile and Family Justice Today, 14 (4), 19-21.Juvenile and Family Justice Today, 14 (4), 19-21.
OCSE Case DefinitionOCSE Case Definition
A parent who is now, or eventually A parent who is now, or eventually may be, obligated under law for may be, obligated under law for the support of a child or children the support of a child or children receiving services under Title IV-D receiving services under Title IV-D program.program.
Ashton, J. (2006) Child support dockets benefit from uprising problem-Ashton, J. (2006) Child support dockets benefit from uprising problem-solving court principle. solving court principle. Juvenile and Family Justice Today, 14 (4), 19-Juvenile and Family Justice Today, 14 (4), 19-21.21.
Facts about Child SupportFacts about Child Support 2004:Estimated 1.2 million child support orders 2004:Estimated 1.2 million child support orders
in the U.S.in the U.S. Child support enforcement is not cost effective; Child support enforcement is not cost effective;
Net loss of $745 million per year (1996)Net loss of $745 million per year (1996) Mothers on welfare can only expect to receive Mothers on welfare can only expect to receive
$50 a month from child support payment- $50 a month from child support payment- remaining money goes to the state to cover remaining money goes to the state to cover cost of welfare programcost of welfare program
Only 20% of welfare mothers receive any child Only 20% of welfare mothers receive any child support at all.support at all.
Hays, S. (2003) Flat broke with children: Women in the age of welfare Hays, S. (2003) Flat broke with children: Women in the age of welfare reform. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.reform. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Child Support: Scope of NeedChild Support: Scope of Need
28% of all children under 18 live in 28% of all children under 18 live in single parent homessingle parent homes
85% live with mother85% live with mother Only 50% receive child support Only 50% receive child support
paymentspayments Only 25% get full amount of paymentOnly 25% get full amount of payment
I-Fen, L. (2000) Perceived fairness and compliance with child support I-Fen, L. (2000) Perceived fairness and compliance with child support obligations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(2) 388-398.obligations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(2) 388-398.
What do we know about child What do we know about child support payment compliance?support payment compliance?
Divorced vs. Non-MaritalDivorced vs. Non-Marital
Non-marital fathers are significantly more Non-marital fathers are significantly more likely to have 1 or more years of non-likely to have 1 or more years of non-payment than divorced fatherspayment than divorced fathers
In a given year non-marital fathers who In a given year non-marital fathers who are partial payers are significantly more are partial payers are significantly more likely to pay nothing the following year likely to pay nothing the following year than divorced fathersthan divorced fathers
Meyer, D. & Bartfeld, J. (1998) Patterns of child support compliance in Meyer, D. & Bartfeld, J. (1998) Patterns of child support compliance in Wisconsin. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(2) 309-318.Wisconsin. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(2) 309-318.
Variables Affecting ComplianceVariables Affecting Compliance
Father’s perception of fairness interacts with Father’s perception of fairness interacts with routine income withholding to significantly routine income withholding to significantly increase subsequent complianceincrease subsequent compliance
Income has a positive effect on complianceIncome has a positive effect on compliance
Fathers are less likely to comply with orders Fathers are less likely to comply with orders when ex-spouses are welfare recipientswhen ex-spouses are welfare recipients
I-Fen, L. (2000) Perceived fairness and compliance with child support I-Fen, L. (2000) Perceived fairness and compliance with child support obligations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(2) 388-398.obligations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(2) 388-398.
Problem-solving CourtProblem-solving Court
Problem-solving courts: dockets that bring Problem-solving courts: dockets that bring together community resources to address a together community resources to address a specific problem specific problem
2004: the Conference of Chief Justices and 2004: the Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators passed Conference of State Court Administrators passed Resolution 22 which supports the use of problem-Resolution 22 which supports the use of problem-solving court principles and methods in all courtssolving court principles and methods in all courts
Partnerships between courts, public agencies and Partnerships between courts, public agencies and community-based organizations facilitate the community-based organizations facilitate the delivery of servicesdelivery of services
Ashton, J. (2006) Child support dockets benefit from uprising problem-solving Ashton, J. (2006) Child support dockets benefit from uprising problem-solving court principle. court principle. Juvenile and Family Justice Today, 14 (4), 19-21.Juvenile and Family Justice Today, 14 (4), 19-21.
Wake County ModelWake County Model
Judge Kristin H. Ruth has implemented Judge Kristin H. Ruth has implemented the the problem solving courtproblem solving court model in model in application to child support enforcement application to child support enforcement with the use of:with the use of:
- Electronic House Arrest- Electronic House Arrest-“Working for Kids”-“Working for Kids”- Jail Incarceration- Jail Incarceration
Ruth, K. (2006) Breaking the cycle: Alternatives to incarceration lead to Ruth, K. (2006) Breaking the cycle: Alternatives to incarceration lead to collections in Wake County, North Carolina. collections in Wake County, North Carolina. Child Support Report, 38 (1) 2. Child Support Report, 38 (1) 2.
AbstractAbstract The sanctions this research focuses on is the use of The sanctions this research focuses on is the use of
Electronic House ArrestElectronic House Arrest and and Working For KidsWorking For Kids programs programs in increasing child support payment compliance. in increasing child support payment compliance.
The analysis of compliance focuses on payment The analysis of compliance focuses on payment histories of non-custodial parents placed in the histories of non-custodial parents placed in the programs six months prior and six months after the programs six months prior and six months after the sanction was implemented. sanction was implemented.
The data is examined to see if the child support The data is examined to see if the child support payment compliance sanctions have a significant effect payment compliance sanctions have a significant effect on compliance of non-custodial parents versus the on compliance of non-custodial parents versus the traditional use of jail incarceration as the primary or sole traditional use of jail incarceration as the primary or sole sanction. sanction.
These findings will form a foundation for further These findings will form a foundation for further research that can later be used to examine and research that can later be used to examine and compare the validity of sanctions ordered by Wake compare the validity of sanctions ordered by Wake County Child Support Enforcement. County Child Support Enforcement.
Comparisons of Payment Compliance Before & After Comparisons of Payment Compliance Before & After EHAEHA
Paired Samples Statistics
3.1637 226 1.93097 .12845
1.1460 226 1.41135 .09388
Allaftpay
Allpriorpay
Pair1
Mean N Std. DeviationStd. Error
Mean
Paired Samples Test
2.01770 2.09754 .13953 1.74275 2.29264 14.461 225 .000Allaftpay - AllpriorpayPair 1Mean Std. Deviation
Std. ErrorMean Lower Upper
95% ConfidenceInterval of the
Difference
Paired Differences
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Paired Samples Statistics
7.6711 225 5.22685 .34846
2.3867 225 2.91345 .19423
Allaftlevel
Allpriorlevel
Pair1
Mean N Std. DeviationStd. Error
Mean
Paired Samples Test
5.28444 5.49829 .36655 4.56211 6.00678 14.417 224 .000Allaftlevel - AllpriorlevelPair 1Mean Std. Deviation
Std. ErrorMean Lower Upper
95% ConfidenceInterval of the
Difference
Paired Differences
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Comparisons of Payment Compliance Before & After WFKComparisons of Payment Compliance Before & After WFK
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 allaftwkypay 3.0952 63 1.94865 .24551
allprtwkypay 2.0794 63 1.86912 .23549
Paired Differences
t df Sig. (2-tailed)MeanStd.
DeviationStd. Error
Mean
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 1
allaftwkypay - allprtwkypay
1.01587 2.07514 .26144 .49326 1.53849 3.886 62 .000
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 Allaftlevel 6.4118 17 4.66448 1.13130
Allpriorlevel 3.1176 17 3.14011 .76159
Paired Differences
t df Sig. (2-tailed)MeanStd.
DeviationStd. Error
Mean
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 1
Allaftlevel - Allpriorlevel
3.29412 3.93327 .95396 1.27182 5.31642 3.453 16 .003
Paired Samples Statistics
Paired Samples Test
Paired Samples Test
Paired Samples Statistics
Comparisons of Payment Compliance Before & After Comparisons of Payment Compliance Before & After JAILJAIL
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 allaftjpay 2.6963 349 2.00417 .10728
allprijpay 1.3037 349 1.56635 .08384
Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Std. DeviationStd. Error
Mean
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference Mean Std. DeviationStd. Error
Mean
Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
Pair 1
allaftjpay - allprijpay
1.39255 1.92475 .10303 1.18991 1.59519 13.516 348 .000
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 allaftjlevel 6.5235 340 5.11254 .27727
allprijlevel 2.7824 340 3.42552 .18578
Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Std. DeviationStd. Error
Mean
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference Mean Std. DeviationStd. Error
Mean
Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
Pair 1
allaftjlevel - allprijlevel
3.74118 5.04763 .27375 3.20272 4.27963 13.667 339 .000
Paired Samples Test
Paired Samples Statistics
Paired Samples Test
Paired Samples Statistics
Significance of Significance of change in payment compliancechange in payment compliance before and after before and after EHAEHA
Chart 1: EHA Summary Data
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st On EHA 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
Months Pre- and Post-EHA
Pay
men
t C
om
pli
ance
Any Pay Over 50% 100% Above 100%
Significance of Significance of change in payment compliancechange in payment compliance before and after before and after Working For KidsWorking For Kids
Chart 2: Working for Kids Summary Data
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st BeginWFK
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
Months Pre- and Post-WFK
Pay
men
t C
om
pli
ance
Any Pay Over 50% 100% Above 100%
Significance of Significance of change in payment compliancechange in payment compliance before and after before and after JAILJAIL
Chart 3: Jail Sentence Summary Data
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st Enter Jail 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
Months Pre- and Post-Jail Time
Pay
men
t C
om
pli
ance
Any Pay Over 50% 100% Above 100%
Conclusions of StudyConclusions of Study
Problem-solving court sanctions explored do Problem-solving court sanctions explored do impact payment compliance in terms of both impact payment compliance in terms of both consistency of making a payment and the level consistency of making a payment and the level of payment made.of payment made.
Decidedly low average payment compliance Decidedly low average payment compliance rises to medium levels with use of the rises to medium levels with use of the community sanctions.community sanctions.
The importance of employment, albeit not The importance of employment, albeit not surprising, is empirically confirmed, and the surprising, is empirically confirmed, and the capacity of these community sanctions to capacity of these community sanctions to modestly encourage employment is revealed.modestly encourage employment is revealed.
Conclusions of StudyConclusions of Study
Gains in payment compliance accomplished by Gains in payment compliance accomplished by court orders involving community sanctions (EHA court orders involving community sanctions (EHA and WFK) compare favorably to the gains and WFK) compare favorably to the gains observed following the Jail sanction. observed following the Jail sanction.
The EHA cases resemble the Jail cases in terms of The EHA cases resemble the Jail cases in terms of initial impact, but they exhibit a more stable initial impact, but they exhibit a more stable pattern of compliance over time and they tend to pattern of compliance over time and they tend to show greater gains in consistency and show greater gains in consistency and effectiveness as well.effectiveness as well.
Cases ordered to EHA or to Jail tend to be less Cases ordered to EHA or to Jail tend to be less compliant to begin with than those ordered to compliant to begin with than those ordered to WFK, suggesting distinctions most likely WFK, suggesting distinctions most likely recognized by Judge Ruth.recognized by Judge Ruth.
Conclusions of StudyConclusions of Study
WFK cases, while looking better on the front end, WFK cases, while looking better on the front end, do not display changes as immediately as those do not display changes as immediately as those facing more coercive controls. However, gradual facing more coercive controls. However, gradual changes achieved over time by WFK cases are changes achieved over time by WFK cases are consistently upward and notable in terms of consistently upward and notable in terms of payment consistency. payment consistency.
In contrast, the cases sentenced to Jail are In contrast, the cases sentenced to Jail are characterized by a dramatic two-month jump in characterized by a dramatic two-month jump in payment activity, followed by erratic and payment activity, followed by erratic and declining compliance thereafter.declining compliance thereafter.
Gains in employment are predictive of improve-Gains in employment are predictive of improve-ments in payment compliance; community-based ments in payment compliance; community-based sanctions seem to favor employment gains more sanctions seem to favor employment gains more than the threat and/or experience of than the threat and/or experience of incarceration.incarceration.
Implementing a Problem Implementing a Problem Solving CourtSolving Court
One Court’s ApproachOne Court’s Approach
Implementing a Problem Solving CourtImplementing a Problem Solving Court
Establishing the ProgramEstablishing the Program
Identifying the CasesIdentifying the Cases Setting up the StaffSetting up the Staff Identifying the PartnersIdentifying the Partners Source for CasesSource for Cases Developing the DocketDeveloping the Docket
Implementing a Problem Solving CourtImplementing a Problem Solving CourtIdentifying the CasesIdentifying the Cases
Case ProfilingCase Profiling
Wants to pay – can payWants to pay – can pay Doesn’t want to pay – can payDoesn’t want to pay – can pay Doesn’t want to pay – can’t payDoesn’t want to pay – can’t pay Wants to pay – can’t payWants to pay – can’t pay
Implementing a Problem Solving CourtImplementing a Problem Solving Court Identifying the Cases Identifying the Cases
Wants to pay – can’t payWants to pay – can’t pay
Identify the barriers.Identify the barriers.
No employment history / lack of skillsNo employment history / lack of skills Criminal BackgroundCriminal Background Underemployed / need higher paying Underemployed / need higher paying
jobjob DisabilityDisability
Implementing a Problem Solving CourtImplementing a Problem Solving Court Setting up the StaffSetting up the Staff
Probation / Intensive Enforcement Probation / Intensive Enforcement OfficerOfficer
Monitor the casesMonitor the cases File actions when necessaryFile actions when necessary Liaison between Court and Partner Liaison between Court and Partner
ProvidersProviders
Implementing a Problem Solving CourtImplementing a Problem Solving Court Identifying the PartnersIdentifying the Partners
Identified SourcesIdentified Sources Workforce Investment BoardWorkforce Investment Board Local AgenciesLocal Agencies
GoodwillGoodwill Center for Independent LivingCenter for Independent Living
Project ReturnProject Return Mental Health CooperativeMental Health Cooperative
Still SeekingStill Seeking Clinic to identify real disabilitiesClinic to identify real disabilities
Implementing a Problem Solving CourtImplementing a Problem Solving CourtSource for CasesSource for Cases
Identify cases on regular docketsIdentify cases on regular dockets Child Support Agency direct referralsChild Support Agency direct referrals Referral from Partner AgenciesReferral from Partner Agencies
Implementing a Problem Solving CourtImplementing a Problem Solving Court Developing the DocketDeveloping the Docket
Finding the available docket timeFinding the available docket time How to conduct the docketHow to conduct the docket Different dockets for different issuesDifferent dockets for different issues How often to scheduleHow often to schedule
How long will this last?How long will this last? Identifying general timeframes with Identifying general timeframes with
partnerspartners 1,2,3 strikes you’re out1,2,3 strikes you’re out
““Graduate Level” programs?Graduate Level” programs?
NORTH DAKOTA PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY INITIATIVE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF EMPLOYMENT
A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT AMONG THE NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
JOB SERVICE NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTHWEST DISTRICT COURT, NORTHEAST DISTRICT COURT,
AND NORTHEAST CENTRAL DISTRICT COURT
PRIDE
GOALS•Improving support for children by securing employment for noncustodial parents.
•Offering an additional option to the court when facing recalcitrant payers.
•Decreasing reliance on Economic Assistance programs.
SUCCESS WOULD BE MEASURED BY•Improved payments/reduction in nonpayment of child support.
•Changes in court enforcement actions.
•Decreased usage of Economic Assistance programs.
MISSING LINK
Monitoring compliance?
PROGRAM CASE MANAGER Secret to success Shelia
PRIDE ORDER
FAILURE TO COMPLY Immediate Order to Show Cause
PRIDEPARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY INITIATIVE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF EMPLOYMENT
QUICK FACTS
Combined Dickinson Region IV
Referrals 147 76 71
Customers Employed 109 52 57
Average PRIDE Months Before Employment 1.8 1.2 2.5
Median Hourly Wage After PRIDE Referral $8.00 $7.50 $8.75
Increase in Monthly Child Support Payment Per Customer 88.2% 88.9% 90.2%
Decrease in Contempt Hearings Per Month 3.1 4.9 1.4
Estimated Cost Avoidance in Food Stamp, TANF, and Medicaid $122,787 $31,789 $90,998
Total Project Costs (including staff) $199,584 $125,945 $73,639
Average Supportive Service Cost Per Customer $309 $362 $275
Combined Dickinson Region IV
18
109
20
11
52
13
7
57
7
0
50
100
150
200
Employed at Referral Newly Hired Pending Employment
EMPLOYMENT
147 Customers Enrolled in PRIDE
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMSFOOD STAMPS
Number of Food Stamp Benefit Case Months Prior to and After Referral to PRIDE
443 423309 286
866
595
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Combined Dickinson Region IV
Prior to PRIDE After PRIDE
31.3% Decrease
30.2% Decrease 32.4% Decrease
190
77
113128
52
76
0
50
100
150
200
250
Combined Dickinson Region IV
Prior to PRIDE After PRIDE
32.6% Decrease
32.5% Decrease
32.7% Decrease
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMSTANF
Number of TANF Benefit Case Months Prior toand After Referral to PRIDE
JUDICIARY IMPACT HEARINGS
5.7
2.6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Prior to PRIDE
After PRIDE
Average Monthly Contempt Hearings
CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS
$68 $72$61
$128$136
$116
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
Combined Dickinson Region IV
Prior to PRIDE After PRIDE
88.2% Increase
90.2% Increase
88.9% Increase
Average Child Support Payment Prior to andAfter Referral to PRIDE
NONPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT
32.6% 30.2%35.9%
14.1%17.0%
10.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Combined Dickinson Region IV
Prior to PRIDE After PRIDE
18.5% Decrease
13.2% Decrease
25.6% Decrease
Child Support Nonpayment Rates Prior to andFollowing Referral to PRIDE
IT WORKS!
Special ThanksMike Schwindt
North Dakota IV-D Director