1. Enhanced Parental Involvement Collaboration (EPIC) San Francisco Department of Child Support Services Karen M. Roye, Director

2. Overview Performance Challenges San Francisco’s Enhanced Parental Involvement Collaborative (EPIC) Project Results Lessons Learned Performance Outcomes

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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

8. Traditional Establishment Model Intake Summons and Complaint Filed Locate Standard “Come and Get It” Letter Service Is Successful Service of Process Service is Unsuccessful Stipulation Court Judgment Default Judgment Reassess Locate Information

9. The Big Difference

10. Establishment Model – EPIC IntakeLocate Summons and Complaint Filed Simplified “Come and Get It” Letter Service of Process Service Is Successful Service is Unsuccessful Reassess Locate Information Default Status Court Hearing Default Judgment Post Default Contact Letter Answer Court Judgment Stipulation

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. Lessons Learned Implement the alternative that works - communication, communication, communication With the NCPs With the court With staff regarding organizational changes (separate EPIC Team, Dedicated Caseloads)

18. Lessons Learned …communication continued Use the telephone whenever possible to reach out to customers and to engage their participation

19. In Closing consider… Staffing Needs Training Customer Service Flexibility Performance

20. Performance Outcomes

21. 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%)

22. Service of Process Comparison

23. Historic Default Rate in SF (FFYs) * As of August 2007 EPIC Project 12-04 to 11-05 “Total” EPIC Approach, 07-06

24. Federal Performance Measures % of Open Cases with Support Orders

25. Federal Performance Measures % of Current Support Collected Original Study Cases, through June 2007

26. Federal Performance Measures % of Cases with Arrears Collected Original Study Cases, through June 2007

27. 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