Read Microsoft Word - Client Survey-Final Report to FSSA 022805.doc text version

Electronic Disbursement of Indiana's Child Support Maureen A. Pirog Rudy Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs Indiana University and Craig L. Johnson Associate Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs Indiana University

February 28, 2005 FINAL REPORT: TO THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES (DCS) CHILD SUPPORT BUREAU

Earlier versions of this report were presented at the annual meetings of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Atlanta, Georgia (November 2004) and the National Conference on Digital Government Research sponsored by the NSF, Boston, Massachusetts (May 2003). The authors would like to acknowledge the considerable research assistance of Sharon Kioko, Stacie Harting Marsh, Beth Neary, Helen Richardson, Karol Stewart, Jennifer Stavros-Turner and Edward D. Vargas in providing valuable assistance in all phases of this project and paper preparation. We would also like to acknowledge the Indiana University Center for Survey Research that fielded the customer satisfaction survey described in this manuscript. Finally, the authors would like to thank the Indiana Child Support Bureau and the US Office of Child Support Enforcement for their generous support of this research. All opinions and errors, however, should be solely attributed to the authors.

Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. i Client Survey....................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 E-Government Innovations In Child Support ..................................................................... 3 The Indiana Hoosier Works For Child Support Project...................................................... 6 1. The State Of Indiana And The Three Pilot Counties ................................................. 8 2. Project Implementation............................................................................................ 10 Data ................................................................................................................................... 14 1. State Administrative Data ........................................................................................ 14 2. Client Survey Data................................................................................................... 16 Results............................................................................................................................... 18 Performance Output Survey.............................................................................................. 34 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 34 Performance Output Survey Results................................................................................. 36 The Child Support Distribution And Disbursement System............................................. 38 1. Total Child Support Disbursement Costs ................................................................ 41 2. Breakdown Of County Level Child Support Disbursement Costs .......................... 44 2.1. Total County Child Support Costs ..................................................................... 44 2.2. Distribution Costs For Initial Warrants ............................................................ 45 2.3. Returned Warrant Costs .................................................................................... 47 2.4. Stop-Payment Costs ........................................................................................... 48 2.4. Reconciliation Costs .......................................................................................... 49 3. Breakdown Of State Level Child Support Disbursement Costs ............................... 50 3.1 Total State-Level Child Support Costs................................................................ 50 3.2 Total DCS Child Support Disbursement Costs................................................... 51 3.3 Other State-Level Costs ...................................................................................... 52 4. Undistributed Payments ............................................................................................ 53 Process Evaluation Survey ............................................................................................... 55 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 55 5. Background On Survey Instrument........................................................................... 56 6. Effectiveness Of Project Managers........................................................................... 58 6.1 Planning.............................................................................................................. 58 6.2 Design Stage ....................................................................................................... 59 6.3 Development Stage.............................................................................................. 60 6.4 Testing Stage....................................................................................................... 60 6.5 Implementation Stage.......................................................................................... 61 7. Project Team Collaboration ...................................................................................... 62

8. Involving The Custodial Parent In The Project ........................................................ 63 9. Overall Satisfaction With New Payment Systems.................................................... 65 10. Specific Suggestions For Future Projects............................................................... 68 Appendix A: Technological Innovations In Child Support Enforcement ....................... 70 Appendix B: Client Satisfaction Survey And Textdirectd Questionnaire ....................... 98 Appendix C: Disposition Of Cases That The CSR Attempted To Interview ................ 161 Appendix D: Timeline Of Evaluation Activities ........................................................... 163 Appendix E: Performance Evaluation Survey, Tables 9 ­ 20 Including Vanderburgh County............................................................................................................................. 168 Appendix F: Electronic Disbursement Of Child Support Study Performance Output Survey Current System ................................................................................................... 175 Appendix G: Electronic Disbursement Of Child Support Study Performance Output Survey Current System Tabulated Responses ................................................................ 187 Appendix H: Electronic Disbursement Of Child Support Study Performance Output Survey New System........................................................................................................ 190 Appendix I: Electronic Disbursement Of Child Support Study Performance Output Survey New System Tabulated Responses ..................................................................... 202 Appendix J: Electronic Disbursement Of Child Support Study Process Evaluation Survey ......................................................................................................................................... 204 Appendix K: Electronic Disbursement Of Child Support Study Process Evaluation Survey Tabulated Responses .......................................................................................... 233 Appendix L: Pricing Components, State Of Indiana Direct Debit Card Services Pricing Components, State Of Indiana Direct Debit Card Services............................................ 239 Appendix M: Implementing The Electronic Disbursement Of Child Support Payments ­ NSF Digital Governnace Conference (Dg.O2003)......................................................... 243

Tables and Figures Client Survey Figure 1: Table 1: Figure 2: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Map of Indiana Pilot Counties....................................................8 Overview of Indiana and the Three Pilot Counties.............................9 Hoosier Works Cards..............................................................12 HW DD & CDA Demographic Breakdown by Custodial Parent............17 Characteristics of All Individuals and Survey Respondents Selecting Direct Deposit and the HW Debit Card........................................19 Survey Respondents' Characteristics..........................................22 Overall, how satisfied are you with the new electronic method of Distributing child support? ......................................................24 Comparisons of Electronic Child Support Distribution Compared to Distribution by US Mail..........................................................25 Significance of Variables for Direct Deposit and Hoosier Works Debit Card.........................................................................28 Unadjusted Ordinary Least Squares Regression Results....................30

Performance Output Survey Exhibit 1: Figure 3: Figure 4: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Table 12: General Overview of the State of Indiana Child Support Payment Process System.....................................................................39 Electronic Funds vs. Manual Incoming Child Support Payments ($)......40 Electronic Funds vs. Manual Incoming Child Support Payments (%).....40 Annual Cost of Disbursing Child Support for Pilot Counties...............43 Annual Costs for Disbursing Child Support in Indiana Counties..........43 Total County Child Support Annual Disbursement Costs in Pilot Counties............................................................................44 Annual Distribution Costs of New Warrants..................................45

Table 13: Table 14: Table 15: Table 16: Table 17: Table 18: Table 19: Table 20: Figure 5: Figure 6:

Annual Personnel Costs for Distribution of New Warrants..................46 Annual Direct Non-Personnel Warrant Costs..................................47 Annual Returned Warrant Costs.................................................48 Annual Stop payment Costs.......................................................49 Annual Reconciliation Costs.....................................................49 Total Annual Costs of Child Support Disbursement for Indiana Counties and Pilot Counties......................................................50 Total Annual Personnel and Non-personnel Costs of Child Support Disbursement in Indiana Counties..............................................52 Total Annual Returned and Reissued Warrant Costs.........................52 DCS Undistributed Child Support Payments, 2003 and 2004...............53 Undistributed Child Support as a percent of Total Incoming Child Support Payments.................................................................54

Process Evaluation Survey Table 21: Description of Project Stages....................................................57

Executive Summary In February of 2003, Indiana implemented an E-government innovation to convert the current paper-check child support disbursement system to an automated, electronic system in its child support enforcement (CSE) program. Unlike other states which are implementing similar initiatives, Indiana is one of the first to include a rigorous evaluation component, to examine the implementation issues, client satisfaction and program performance resulting from this new innovation. Goals of the new electronic disbursement system include: (1) Increasing client satisfaction through fast tracking child support payments; (2) decreasing administrative and/or operational costs, and; (3) moving unbanked Hoosiers into the formal banking system with the new Hoosier Works debit card. The data for this study include State administrative data from the ISETS and DOR databases, as well as data from a client satisfaction survey of 600 Hoosiers which was administered in the fall of 2004, to examine the effects of this E-Government initiative on citizens whose child support was distributed by the State of Indiana and three pilot counties: Allen, Marion and Vanderburgh. Based on our client survey, we found that the citizens of Indiana, on average, were more satisfied with the new electronic distribution mechanisms than the old system of paper checks received by the US postal service. Whether an individual chose to receive their child support by direct deposit or on a new Hoosier Works debit card for child support was the most important determinant of overall client satisfaction--more so than personal characteristics, housing insecurity, domestic violence victimization, or whether or not the respondent had been confused by a new option to deposit income tax

i

refunds on the debit card. The choice of the debit card versus direct deposit was also a more important determinant of client satisfaction than the source of the distributions: the State of Indiana versus one of three pilot counties. Individuals who selected direct deposit, the majority of individuals involved in the demonstration, had higher overall satisfaction and higher satisfaction on all dimensions measured (e.g., reliability, expensiveness). While satisfaction was higher with the debit card than the old paper check system, clients felt it was slower and more expensive and the increment in satisfaction was much smaller than individuals who had selected direct deposit. We attribute these differences to higher fees incurred by individuals selecting the debit card and customer service problems with the State's vendor, Citicorp/JP Morgan. Finally, we were concerned about the effects of the transition to electronic distribution of child support to some vulnerable subgroups of the population. We thought that individuals experiencing housing insecurity might have fewer problems with electronic disbursement as paper checks would not be delayed or lost in the postal system. Further, we felt that victims of domestic violence might prefer electronic disbursement ­ perhaps placing more distance between them and their abusers as they would not need to return home to retrieve child support checks. We did not find any atypical positive or negative effects for these subgroups of the population. We did find, however, that the move to electronic disbursement of child support was very effective at bringing unbanked Hoosiers into the formal banking system--mostly through the creation of new bank accounts.

ii

We also conducted pre and post performance and evaluation surveys with State and county child support staff and other key stakeholders in this project. At the outset of this project, we felt that the new electronic disbursement system should result in significant benefits to all stakeholders; (1) reduced costs; (2) improved business processes, and; (3) an improvement in overall satisfaction by the child support staff. The new electronic disbursement systems did lower costs. Based on the information provided by survey respondents, we estimate that DCS saves approximately $70,742, or 4 percent, annually from the new electronic system. We estimate that annual savings is even greater at the pilot counties, $331,815 or 41 percent, compared to preelectronic system annual costs. Most of the savings is a direct result of the significant decrease in the number of warrants issued after the implementation of the new system. Additionally, most respondents reported that the direct deposit system has improved their internal business processes. On the other hand, at this point, business processes associated with the Hoosier Works debit card (CDA) have not unanimously improved. At both the county and state levels of the child support disbursement system, respondents report that business processes have worsened significantly. Much of the discontent is due to the perceived poor customer service on the part of the State's vendor, Citicorp/JP Morgan. Views of the whole electronic disbursement system vary across the two systems. For the direct deposit system, the satisfaction levels are very high across the board. Most government employees report that they are very satisfied with the new direct deposit system. They also report that participants have had few problems and recognize the greater convenience. Respondent impressions of the Hoosier Works debit card (or

iii

Commercial Debit Account-CDA) are another matter. No one reported that they are highly satisfied and several employees reported that they are dissatisfied with the Hoosier Works debit card. In conclusion, the new electronic child support distribution system has provided substantial benefits. The new system has saved the state government and pilot counties money. The direct deposit system is viewed as improving business processes and most project participants are generally satisfied with the implementation process and the final direct deposit system. On the other hand, there is substantial dissatisfaction with the Hoosier Works debit card (CDA) system, both in terms of the implementation process and the final system.

iv

Client Survey Introduction This paper examines implementation issues and the preliminary findings about client satisfaction and program performance resulting from the implementation of an Egovernment innovation in Indiana's child support enforcement (CSE) program. This demonstration project, funded by the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement and the State of Indiana, converts the current paper-check child support disbursement system to an automated, electronic system. The State is depositing child support directly into the bank accounts of custodial parents or, for those who prefer, issuing new HW debit cards with a Master Card logo onto which the child support is deposited. Under the new disbursement system, custodial parents are no longer able to receive child support checks through the US mail. While several other states are experimenting with similar initiatives, the Indiana demonstration project has been designed and funded to include a rigorous evaluation component. The push to adopt electronic technologies by state CSE programs is not unique. It is generally believed that E-government innovations have the potential to lower the costs of providing information to the public, increase the quality and accessibility of government services, and reduce operational costs.1 Governments at all levels have been shifting information and services online and allowing for automated financial transactions in order to achieve greater efficiency, especially as population and program demands have been escalating. In the social services arena, E-government innovations have been

"E-Gov Slowly Gaining Acceptance, but Must Mature." Information Management Journal. Jul/Aug 2004, Vol. 38 Issue 4, pg 16. Accessed 10/8/04. http://bert.lib.indiana.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthTyp e=cookie,ip,url,uid&db=aph&an=13791688.

1

1

particularly prominent in food stamp, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and refugee benefit programs.2 This impetus for greater automation in the CSE program actually dates back to the passage of the Family Support Act of 1988 in which Congress directed state CSE programs to computerize systems for locating non-custodial parents, establishing paternity, and managing collection and disbursement activities.3 There was further impetus in this direction with the passage of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) which called for improvements in collection databases and practices such as automatic wage withholding and delinquent obligors' asset location and updated disbursement procedures.4 Both legislative acts tied funding and penalties to the timely implementation of automated systems, supplying states with ample incentives to comply. From the 1980s onwards, the federal government has been reimbursing approved expenditures on child support information systems at an elevated rate of 80-90 percent.5 Because the CSE program is a state-operated but federally supervised program, the nature and speed of technological progress has been mixed across states and child support jurisdictions. Furthermore, there has not been enough sharing of the experiences

Patterson, Darby. 2001. "State of the Digital State." Government Technology. Accessed 7/30/04. http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.print.php?id=4971 3 Newcombe, Tod. 2001. "Family Values: After millions of dollars and years of effort, the federal government and states appear to be winning the war against deadbeat parents. Technology has proven pivotal in the struggle." Government Technology. Accessed 6/17/04. http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.print.php?id=3563. 4 Crowley, Jocelyn. 2003. The Politics of Child Support in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 5 US House of Representatives, Committeee on Ways and Means, "Child Support Enforcement Program." Section 8: 2004 Green Book. Pg. 8-54. Accessed 6/21/04. http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Documents.asp?section=813.

2

2

of states with the implementation of new technologies or rigorous evaluation of implemented projects--a problem shared broadly by many E-government projects. This paper provides an overview of a new, paperless, electronic child support disbursement system. We describe the Indiana project and place it in the broader context of E-government innovations taking place across the country. Next, we describe our findings and policy recommendations. E-Government Innovations in Child Support The US Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) supervises states' child support programs and provides about two-thirds of the administrative funds for the programs.6 Second in size only to K-12 public education, the CSE program is a very large child-oriented program, serving 60 percent of the 11.5 million single-parent families (about 6.9 million families) in 20017 and 17.6 million children in FY2003.8 To date, new electronic technologies have been instrumental in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the CSE system. Possibly the most effective enforcement policy has been the automatic withholding of child support from non-custodial parents' wages, which accounted for

Ashby, Cornelia M. 2004. "Better Data and More Information on Undistributed Collections Are Needed: GAO Reports, GAO-04-377." United States General Accounting Office. Accessed 9/22/2004. http://web.lexis-nexis.com. 7 US House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, "Child Support Enforcement Program." Section 8: 2004 Green Book. Pg. 3-4.Accessed 10/8/04http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/greenbook2003/Section8.pdf 8 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families Office of Child Support Enforcement. "Child Support Enforcement FY 2003 Preliminary Data Report." June 2004. Accessed 10/8/04. http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2004/reports/preliminary_data/#fig1

6

3

65% of 2002's total child support collections.9 In response to PRWORA, states now maintain automated directories of new hires, allowing them to identify when a noncustodial parent has gained employment, and initiate payroll withholding immediately.10 Another critical step in enforcement has been the intergovernmental linking of databases to improve collections. This is happening within and between states and between states and the federal government. For example, the National Directory of New Hires allows states to search for the Social Security Numbers of non-custodial parents against a national database of new hires.11 Illinois recently successfully linked its child support database with the US Postal Service in order to update client addresses to combat the problem of lost or returned checks.12 Washington State increased its child support collections by $50 million by linking the child support database with the Department of Motor Vehicles database, automatically suspending drivers' licenses of those who had fallen behind in their support payments.13 Many states have also developed websites and other online services for the public. New Mexico's child support agency, for example, has linked its mainframe database to its website, enabling users to apply for child support services, check the status of

US House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, "Child Support Enforcement Program." Section 8: 2004 Green Book. Pg. 8-51. Accessed 6/21/04. http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Documents.asp?section=813. 10 Crowley, Jocelyn. 2003. The Politics of Child Support in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 11 US House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, "Child Support Enforcement Program." Section 8: 2004 Green Book. Accessed 6/21/04. http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Documents/asp?section=813. 12 US Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families Office of Child Support Enforcement, Compendium of State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support enforcement 2001. Accessed 7/1/04. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/prgrams/cse/pol/IM/2004/im-04-03b.doc. 13 Newcombe, Tod. 2001. "Family Values: After millions of dollars and years of effort, the federal government and states appear to be winning the war against deadbeat parents. Technology has proven pivotal in the struggle." Government Technology. Accessed 6/17/04. http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.print.php?id=8377.

9

4

payments, view payment history, update addresses, submit leads for locating noncustodial parents, set up direct deposit and submit electronic payments, all through the state website.14 Electronic distribution of funds has lowered administrative costs and increased child support distributions, and the use of these technologies is becoming more broadly adopted. A report generated by the General Accounting Office found that by 2004, 37 state CSE programs had begun offering direct deposit and 9 deposit funds onto stateissued debit cards.15 Both Iowa and Texas produced estimates of cost savings associated with switching to electronic funds transfers, $35,000 per month in Iowa and $300,000 per month in Texas.16 Undistributed collections present a sizable challenge: CSE reported $657 million in child support collections that were delayed or never distributed by state agencies in 2002.17 By catching files that are incomplete and decreasing the number of payments made to wrong addresses, electronic transfers have improved child support distributions. States are also taking advantage of new technologies to make case management more efficient. Washington, for example, creates electronic images of all case documents. This provides staff across the state with immediate access to information and reduces the

14

US Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families Office of Child Support Enforcement, Compendium of State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support enforcement 2001. Accessed 7/1/04. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/prgrams/cse/pol/IM/2004/im-04-03b.doc. 15 Ashby, Cornelia M. 2004. "Better Data and More Information on Undistributed Collection Are Needed: GAO Reports. GAO-04-377." United States General Accounting Office. Accessed 6/21/04. http://web.lexis-nexis.com. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid.

5

number of missing documents.18 Additional data imaging and analysis techniques are being employed in South Dakota, Illinois, Indiana, New York, Texas and New Mexico. Automated review processes are being experimented with in Alaska, Maine, Oklahoma and Vermont which attempt to update child support orders automatically based on financial records of non-custodial parents and cost of living adjustments.19 CSE agencies have already successfully incorporated many technological advances into their operations, greatly enhancing their service to clients. E-government innovations have been critically important in helping to identify non-custodial parents, collect child support, and serve a growing number of clients more efficiently. Child support agencies have shown great flexibility and provided fertile ground for Egovernment experimentation and growth. For a more extensive review of E-government innovations in the child support program, see Appendix A. The Indiana Hoosier Works for Child Support Project In February of 2003, the Secretary of the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) convened a press conference to announce their plan to eliminate paper checks for all child support recipients. The plan was to roll-out the project in three phases: (1) implementing direct deposit for all support payment made by the State and three pilot counties; (2) implementing deposits onto a new HW debit card for child support recipients who were either unbanked or who did not want child support directly deposited

18

US Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families Office of Child Support Enforcement, Compendium of State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement 2003. Accessed 7/1/04. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol//IM/2004/im-04-03b.doc. 19 "Automated Cost-of-Living Adjustments of Child Support Orders in Three States: Final Report." 2001. Office of Child Support Enforcement. Accessed 7/1/04. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/reports/cola/pr01.html.

6

into a bank account, and; (3) statewide adoption of both options and the elimination of paper checks for all child support recipients. Through several mailings, the Indiana Child Support Bureau encouraged payees to select direct deposit. Payees refusing this option received a Hoosier Works child support debit card. The Indiana child support staff anticipated a variety of positive outcomes from this project. First, custodial parents would receive child support payments sooner, no longer waiting two to five days for postal delivery. Second, recipients who did not currently have bank accounts would benefit by not having to pay check cashing fees, as well as being brought into the banking industry. A third benefit, flexibility, would allow clients to receive their child support payments when out of town or experiencing housing insecurity. Fourth, women and children who are victims of domestic violence might have greater freedom and safety given the portability and security precautions built into the debit card. Fifth, the new electronic transfer system would significantly reduce check writing and mailing costs and likely decrease the large amount of undistributed child support payments. Finally, child support recipients might have a greater sense of security because checks could not be lost in the mail and/or they would not have to carry large sums of cash, if unbanked. Citicorp/JP Morgan is the financial vendor implementing direct deposit and the new Hoosier Works card for child support. The information technology interface was to be implemented by the global consulting and technology services company, Covansys.

7

InfoWorld, a major technology industry publication, ranked this child support processing system as one of the country's top 100 technology solutions.20 1. The State of Indiana and the Three Pilot Counties The location of our three pilot counties is shown on the map below and some basic descriptive data on the State of Indiana and our pilot counties are given in Table 1.

20

Indiana Department of Child Services News Release, February 26, 2003.

8

Table 1: Overview of Indiana and the Three Pilot Counties

People QuickFacts Population, 2000 Population, percent change, 1990 to 2000 Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2000 Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2000 Persons over 18 years old, percent, 2000 Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2000 Female persons, percent, 2000 White persons, percent, 2000 (a) Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 (a) Asian persons, percent, 2000 (a) Persons reporting some other race, percent, 2000 (a) Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2000 Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2000 (b) White persons, not of Hispanic/Latino origin, percent, 2000 Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct age 5+, 2000 Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 Homeownership rate, 2000 Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 Persons per household, 2000 Median household money income, 1999 Per capita money income, 1999 Persons below poverty, percent, 1999 Indiana 6,080,485 9.70% 7.00% 25.90% 74.10% 12.40% 51.00% 87.50% 8.40% 1.00% 1.60% 1.20% 3.50% 85.80% 55.00% 3.10% 6.40% 82.10% 19.40% 71.40% $94,300 2.53 $41,567 $20,397 9.50% Allen County 331,849 10.30% 7.70% 27.70% 72.30% 11.40% 51.10% 83.10% 11.30% 1.40% 2.00% 1.80% 4.20% 81.30% 52.70% 4.00% 7.50% 85.70% 22.70% 71.00% $88,700 2.53 $42,671 $21,544 9.10% Marion County 860,454 7.90% 7.40% 25.80% 74.20% 11.10% 51.70% 70.50% 24.20% 1.40% 2.00% 1.60% 3.90% 68.90% 47.20% 4.60% 7.30% 81.60% 25.40% 59.30% $99,000 2.39 $40,421 $21,789 11.40% Vanderburgh County 171,922 4.20% 6.20% 23.10% 76.90% 15.30% 52.60% 89.30% 8.20% 0.80% 0.40% 1.10% 1.00% 88.70% 54.30% 1.60% 3.80% 83.10% 19.30% 66.80% $82,400 2.33 $36,823 $20,655 11.20%

Geography QuickFacts Land area, 2000 (square miles) Persons per square mile, 2000

Indiana 35,867 169.5

Allen County 657 504.9

Marion County 396 2,171.50

Vanderburgh County 235 732.9 EvansvilleHenderson, IN-KY MSA

Metropolitan Area (a) Includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18000.html http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18/18003.html http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18/18163.html http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18/18097.html

Fort Wayne, IN MSA

Indianapolis, IN MSA

9

As can be seen in Table 1, the State and the three pilot counties have growing populations. The three pilot counties are, however, much more urban than the state as a whole with population density two to ten times greater than the state average. The high density counties were purposely selected for the demonstration simply because they capture a much higher fraction of the State's IV-D caseload. With the exception of Vanderburgh County, the other counties have a higher percentage of minorities and foreign born residents and residents who do not speak English at home than found in Indiana in general. The home ownership rate is less in the three pilot counties, particularly Marion County, than the 71.4 percent found statewide. Per capita income is a bit higher in the pilot counties compared to the state but the poverty rate is also higher in Marion and Vanderburgh counties ­ suggesting more income inequality in these counties. 2. Project Implementation In September 2002, Indiana announced its receipt of the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) 1115 grant. Though the project was expected to be completed within the federal grant period of 18 months, a variety of factors resulted in delays of about 10 months. First, it took longer than anticipated to negotiate a favorable contract with Citicorp/JP Morgan. Particularly troublesome were the fees that Citicorp/JP Morgan wanted to charge child support recipients for withdrawing funds from the card. Ultimately, child support recipients receive one free withdrawal. Thus, if all funds are

10

withdrawn at once, recipients will not pay any fees. All subsequent withdrawals cost $1.50 each if used within the All Point network, meaning that no additional bank surcharges are added. No charges are incurred when cards are used at point-of-sales locations such as retail and grocery stores. The project also experienced some delay because of a significant increase in the security and monitoring of the contracting acquisition process at DCS over the project period. These changes resulted in uncommonly long delays in modifying all contracts pertinent to this project. A variety of implementation issues also resulted in project delays. For example, Lake County had initially agreed to participate in the pilot phase of the project and later reneged stating they were not prepared to participate at the present time. This meant a new pilot county had to be identified and agree to participate in this project. Timely updating of custodial parents' addresses by both Citicorp/JP Morgan and DCS caused problems as well. Straightening out the protocols for remedying the problem added more time to the full-scale implementation of the project. Unexpectedly, it took DCS staff months to revise and develop evaluation design documents with Covansys, the technical support contractor. In addition to normal administrative glitches, two implementation decisions required some modification to the study design. First, despite our request for a new design, the EBT project insisted on using a design very similar to the Hoosier Works cards pictured below. The first is an electronic benefits transfer card for government programs such as TANF, Supplemental

11

Security Income and Food Stamps that have eligibility requirements and sometimes expenditure limitations. The second Hoosier Works card is for unique non-cash government programs such as child care. The third is a direct debit card for unrestricted cash programs such as child support and eventually unemployment insurance (UI), and tax refunds.

As can be seen, all three cards have a very similar appearance. All cards have a magnetic stripe, use Point-of-Sale (POS) technology and are PIN protected. However the three cards have different restrictions on usage and on accounts, different account processing, and different payment "audiences." We were concerned that the Hoosier Works card for child support would be used at the grocery store instead of the Hoosier Works cards for Food Stamps. Other similar mistakes could be made by child support recipients with two or three Hoosier Works cards. The child support debit card is distinguished by the Master Card logo on the front of the card while the childcare card is a gold color whereas the other two cards are blue. Thus, a question was added to the client survey to determine the extent of confusion on the part of multiple card holders.

12

A second modification to the study plan was required when child support HW debit card holders were given the option of depositing their income tax refunds on the debit card. EBT project, in collaboration with Citicorp/JP Morgan, were anxious to put other unrestricted payments (IRS tax refunds and UI) on the Hoosier Works child support debit card. Disregarding instructions from the Child Support Director and the Indiana University project director, the EBT project staff gave the IRS the green-light to offer this option on Indiana income tax forms. There was considerable concern that this would compromise the study findings related to client satisfaction. In particular, the only technical support phone number on the debit card belonged to the Child Support Bureau whose staff was unprepared to answer income tax refund questions. As it turned out, offering the IRS tax refund payment option on the HW debit card for child support was a source of confusion to Hoosiers. A total of 340 Hoosiers selected this refund payment option. Funds were added to our evaluation to modify the client survey with a battery of new questions for individuals who had IRS refunds deposited on their cards and to expand the original sample.21 As we later learned, however, the vast majority of individuals requesting this tax refund payment option either did not have any Hoosier Works card or had a Hoosier Works card for Food Stamps or another program unrelated to child support. Also, some Hoosiers who were not owed a tax refund chose this option. As best as can be determined from Indiana Department of Revenue (DOR) and Indiana Support Enforcement Tracking System (ISETS) data, only 17 of 1,773

21

The Indiana Department of Revenue data were suspect and all interviewees were asked a question about whether or not they had their tax refunds deposited onto their cards. The client survey sample was expanded by 100 in an attempt to over-sample this group. This figure was selected before we had cleaned the DOR data and eliminated a couple hundred observations (people who asked for a refund in this manner but who did not have a Hoosier Works card or who were not owed a refund).

13

Hoosier Works child support debit card holders in our sampling frame actually chose this option. While most of the administrative problems encountered resulted in project delays, others did not, yet are still worth noting. In particular, in direct violation of their contract with DCS, Citicorp/JP Morgan cancelled Hoosier Works cards when child support had not been paid for three months or when the debit card had a negative balance. Small negative balances can be encountered when cardholders use their debit cards at gas stations. Gas station attendants approve a gas purchase of an unknown amount as long as there is a positive balance on the debit card. Thus, if gas purchases exceed the amount on the debit card, there is a negative balance. Given the complexity of implementing this project, some administrative problems were to be expected. In every case, the Child Support Bureau staff acknowledged the problem and made an effort to immediately seek a remedy. Data The data for this study include State administrative data from the ISETS and DOR databases as well as data from a client satisfaction survey. 1. State Administrative Data The sampling frame for the client satisfaction survey was based on ISETS information. Individuals who met the criteria for inclusion in the study included (1) individuals who were owed child support distributed through the State Child Support Bureau or Allen, Marion or Vandeburgh counties and had received child support via direct deposit or the debit card for at least three months, and; (2) had received at least

14

three separate child support payments since January 5, 2004. The latter criterion was intended to insure that respondents to the client satisfaction survey had actual experience with either the debit card or direct deposit. Data were received on child support cases so that there were multiple records if a custodial parent had more than one case in our sampling area. Those individuals with more than one case were consolidated into a single record. If selected for participation in the survey, the IU Center for Survey Research followed a careful protocol in selecting the case to be queried. Once individuals eligible for inclusion in the client survey were identified by DCS, the data were transferred to Indiana University.22 Contact information for possible survey respondents was transferred as well as actual support receipt over the initial three month interval. Up to seven addresses over the past two years were transferred so that we could inspect each address change to determine if support recipients were experiencing housing insecurity (HI), defined as five or more real address changes in the past two years. The domestic violence (DV) marker was also transferred as well as DOR data regarding the use of the debit card for income tax purposes (TAX). We felt that individuals experiencing domestic violence, housing insecurity, and/or confusion over tax refunds may have goods reasons to be more or less satisfied with this E-government innovation. Many custodial parents have multiple child support cases, meaning each child support case has a different non-custodial parent. These cases may be disbursed from the same county, from separate counties, or may have a combination of cases disbursed from counties and from the state. Within our sample we found 325 custodial parents who have

The counties transferred three data files each with a focus on housing insecurity, domestic violence, and a third with contact and child support receipt data. The State transferred six data files--the same three files as received from the counties but broken into files for the Hoosier Works card and Direct Deposit.

22

15

a combination of cases disbursed from a pilot county and from the state. In order to ensure a sufficient sampling of cases from the individual counties, we grouped those custodial parents with cases disbursed from both a pilot county and the state within the pilot county sample. 2. Client Survey Data

The Indiana Center for Survey Research conducted the client satisfaction survey, an instrument with 122 open and close ended questions. The client satisfaction survey can be found in Appendix B. The sampling strategy was simple: collect 300 completed interviews each for individuals with direct deposit and the debit card. Within each of these two strata, we divided the sample equally among each of the three pilot counties and the State. Further, we tried to interview 50 respondents each who were domestic violence victims (DV) or housing insecure (HI). We also wanted to sample 100 individuals who had received IRS tax refunds on their Hoosier Works card (IRS). The actual distribution of individuals across the sampling cells and within these three over sampled categories (DV, HI and IRS) did not permit the execution of the original sampling plan. For example, only 17 individuals were identified by the DOR as having a tax refund on their HW debit card. Based on State address change data, only 12 individuals were identified as experiencing housing insecurity. Only 16 Hoosier Works card holders had a State DV flag. The actual distribution of custodial parents who met the criteria for inclusion in the client survey is given in Table 2 below.

16

Table 2: Hoosier Works Debit Card & Direct Deposit Demographic Breakdown By Custodial Parent

Total (State & all 3 Pilot Counties) Total CP's DD & Debit Card Housing Insecure Domestic Violence Direct Deposit Housing Insecure Domestic Violence HW Debit Card Housing Insecure Domestic Violence IRS Refund 8714 12 68 100.00% 0.14% 0.78% 6547 4 34 State Marion County Allen County Vanderburgh County 591 1 17 6.78% 0.17% 2.88%

75.13% 0.06% 0.52%

782 4 0

8.97% 0.51% 0.00%

794 3 17

9.11% 0.38% 2.14%

6941 12 52

79.65% 0.14% 0.60%

4878 4 21

74.51% 0.06% 0.32%

752 4 0

96.16% 0.51% 0.00%

748 3 15

94.21% 0.38% 1.89%

563 1 16

95.26% 0.17% 2.71%

1773 0 16 17

20.35% 0.00% 0.18% 0.20%

1669 0 13 17

25.49% 0.00% 0.20% 0.26%

30 0 0 0

3.84% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

46 0 2 0

5.79% 0.00% 0.25% 0.00%

28 0 1 0

4.74% 0.00% 0.17% 0.00%

A very high proportion of custodial parents in our sampling frame (over 75 percent) receive their child support directly from the State. This percentage is expected to increase over time as all child support received through automatic wage withholding is distributed by the State. Additionally, other factors are also influencing the final distribution of interviewees. The Center for Survey Research indicated that DCS did not list a working phone number for 15.41 percent of all possible interviewees. Further, of the 2,348 support recipients whom the Center for Survey Research tried to interview, 1,278 or 54.4 percent could not be found or had phone problems including a phone that was always busy, never answered, or answered only by a machine. An additional 76 individuals indicated that they had not received child support or the Center for Survey Research found that their file had been duplicated in the DCS records. Contact data for those with 17

Hoosier Works cards was less reliable than that for individuals who received their child support by direct deposit. However, the majority of those individuals reached by phone agreed to complete a survey (600 respondents out of 994 eligible contacts). A detailed disposition of the cases that the Center for Survey Research attempted to interview can be found in Appendix C. Results Six hundred client surveys were completed. Given the high percentage of potential survey respondents with inaccurate or incomplete contact information, the extent to which respondents actually represent the population should be addressed. Using ISETS data, the characteristics of individuals who responded to the survey are compared to those who met our sampling criteria. Selected characteristics for everyone in the sampling frame as well as those selecting direct deposit and the debit card are found in Table 3.

18

Table 3: Characteristics of All Individuals and Survey Respondents Selecting Direct Deposit and the HW Debit Card

Sample Frame: Both DD and HW Totals: Race: White Black Hispanic Other Unknown County Distribution: Allen County Marion County Vanderburgh County Distributed From: State County Only State and a County Survey Variables: Domestic Violence Housing Insecure IRS Tax Refund Number of Cases per Custodial Parent: 1 2 3 4 5 Case Type: AFDC/TANF Medicaid Only NADC/NTANF Gender: Male Female Unknown Average Time with DD or HW 432 10986 39 3.77% 95.89% 0.34% 340 8272 32 12.45 months 3.93% 95.70% 0.37% 17 290 2 5.50% 93.85% 0.65% 92 2714 7 9 months 3.27% 96.48% 0.25%

Sample Frame: DD Only 8644

Survey Rs: DD Only 309

Sample Frame: HW Only 2813

Survey Rs: HW Only 291

11457

8546 2332 184 55 340

74.59% 20.35% 1.61% 0.48% 2.97%

6535 1644 132 46 287

75.60% 19.02% 1.53% 0.53% 3.32%

231 54 1 2

74.76% 17.48% 0.32% 0.65% 6.80%

2011 688 52 9 53

71.49% 24.46% 1.85% 0.32% 1.88%

219 62 6 0 4

75.26% 21.31% 2.06% 0.00% 1.37%

21

893 893 705

7.79% 7.79% 6.15%

819 845 678

9.47% 9.78% 7.84%

74 79 77

32.17% 34.35% 33.48%

74 48 27

2.63% 1.71% 0.96%

10 6 13

34.48% 20.69% 44.83%

8637 2491 329

75.39% 21.74% 2.87%

6026 2342 276

69.71% 27.09% 3.19%

79

25.57% 65.70% 8.74%

2611 149 53

92.82% 5.30% 1.88%

262 19 10

90.03% 6.53% 3.44%

203 27

82 18 30

0.72% 0.16% 0.26%

60 18 8

0.69% 0.21% 0.09%

17*** 3* 3

5.50% 0.97% 0.98%

22 0 22

0.78% 0.00% 0.78%

4*** 0* 4

1.37% 0.00% 1.37%

10320 1008 108 16 5

90.08% 8.80% 0.94% 0.14% 0.04%

7827 724 72 16 5

90.55% 8.38% 0.83% 0.19% 0.06%

280 24 2 2 1

90.61% 7.77% 0.65% 0.65% 0.32%

2493 284 36 0 0

88.62% 10.10% 1.28% 0.00% 0.00%

266 22 3 0 0

91.41% 7.56% 1.03% 0.00% 0.00%

23 2075 9340

0.20% 18.11% 81.52%

6 1374 7249

0.07% 15.90% 83.86%

0

0.00% 14.24% 85.76%

17 701 2091

0.60% 24.92% 74.33%

4

1.37% 27.84% 70.79%

44

81

265

206

9 282 0

3.09% 96.91% 0.00%

Note: Two tailed t-test for comparison of means: ***p<.01; **p<.05; *p<.10; Chi-square for tables p<.05; p<.10

p<.01;

19

Among those individuals in the sampling frame, 2,813 individuals or 24.6 percent selected the Hoosier Works (HW) debit card with the large majority selecting direct deposit. The State intentionally encouraged child support recipients to select direct deposit as it is the least expensive electronic distribution option. Because the State implemented the direct deposit option before embarking on the debit card option, those using direct deposit had more experience with the new distribution mechanism than interviewees who had selected the HW debit card, 12.45 versus 9 months. Thus, the State had more time to work out implementation issues with the direct deposit option compared to problems arising with the HW debit card. Of those who met the criteria for inclusion in our sampling frame, 75.4 percent had previously received their child support checks mailed from the State office. This proportion was even higher for debit card holders. The State of Indiana's Child Support Bureau was responsible for distributing child support on nearly 93 percent of the debit cards issued. Less than one percent of both the direct deposit and debit card holders had a domestic violence flag in their records (0.72 percent overall). Housing insecurity was more pronounced among those selecting direct deposit as a payment option. Further, as our data indicate, several individuals who had selected direct deposit asked for a tax refund on their HW debit cards (which they did not actually have). The premature offering of this tax refund option in conjunction with three very similar HW cards, clearly led to considerable confusion. Among those selecting direct deposit or the debit card, those with the debit card were slightly more likely to have more than one case. There was a higher proportion of welfare and Medicaid­only cases selecting the debit card option. This was consistent

20

with our initial presumption that lower income households would be more inclined to select the debit card option compared to direct deposit. Also, based on state administrative data and ignoring those categories where we intentionally over sampled, our survey respondents looked very similar to those in the sampling frame. The data in Table 3 are from state administrative records. More information on the differences between those selecting direct deposit and the debit card were obtained from survey respondents. These data are presented in Table 4.

21

Table 4: Survey Respondents' Characteristics

Direct Deposit Banking Status Banked Unbanked 295*** 14*** 95.47% 4.53% 211*** 79*** 72.76% 27.24% Hoosier Works

Domestic Violence (self reported) Yes No Yes No

Have you ever been a victim of domestic violence? 88 215 1 87 29.04% 70.96% 1.14% 98.86% 91 194 1 90 31.93% 68.07% 1.10% 98.90%

Are you currently a victim of domestic violence?

Housing Insecure (self reported) Yes No State Assistance TANF/AFDC Yes No Food Stamps Yes No Household Income Less than $9,999 $10,000-$19,999 $20,000-$29,999 $30,000-$39,999 Over $40,000 Education 0-11 years 12 years Some college College degree or higher Refused to Answer 23

1 87

1.14% 98.86%

1 90

1.10% 98.90%

4* 305*

1.29% 98.71%

11* 278*

3.81% 96.19%

48*** 261***

15.53% 84.47%

96*** 193***

33.22% 66.78%

20 70 58 44 79

7.38% 25.83% 21.40% 16.24% 29.15%

28 96 63 38 42

10.49% 35.96% 23.60% 14.23% 15.73%

7.44% 35.28% 27.51% 29.13% 0.65%

44

15.17% 50.69% 23.10% 11.03% 0.00%

109 85 90 2

147 67 32 0

Note: Two tailed t-test for differences in means: ***p<.01; **p<.05; *p<.10; Chi-square p<.05; p<.10

p<.01;

22

Debit card holders were much more likely to be unbanked at the time they made the choice of direct deposit or debit card. Of the 14 individuals who had been unbanked and selected direct deposit, twelve opened new banking accounts. Two individuals, however, indicated that they were unbanked when they chose direct deposit and never opened a bank account. Our survey was not sufficiently detailed to determine whose account was being used for these direct deposits of child support, although we are presuming it was an account set up for the respondents' children. Self-reports of domestic violence were much higher in the survey data compared to what we found in the State administrative data; about 30 percent of respondents indicated that they had once been a victim of domestic violence although less than one percent of respondents reported that they were currently victims of domestic violence. Debit card holders were about twice as likely to use Food Stamps. Debit card holders are also more likely to have less education and income than individuals who selected direct deposit. As we initially suspected, having three very similar looking HW cards is creating some confusion for individuals with multiple cards. In our client survey, 97 respondents or about one-third of all debit cardholders whom we interviewed had multiple HW cards. Among this group, about 18 percent had accidentally used the wrong card on at least one occasion to make a purchase. On the other hand, we were concerned that the premature offering of IRS tax refunds on the HW card for child support would compromise the results from the client satisfaction survey. We attempted to survey all individuals who had both child support and a tax refund deposited on their HW debit card. Cross-matching the DOR tax refund

23

data with our client survey, we were only able to interview 4 of the 17 individuals who presumably had both types of payments on their HW debit cards. When queried, one indicated that the tax refund had been deposited on their card. Another respondent indicated that they did not know this was an option while the remaining two respondents were not sure if their tax refund had been received in this fashion. Because so few of those offered this option were aware of it and took it, and further because a minority of the small number in this category were actually interviewed, it is highly unlikely that the general findings about the debit card will be biased by respondents having had this option. Results from the comprehensive satisfaction variable are shown in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Overall, how satisfied are you with the new electronic method of distributing child support? Variable

Total Respondents Very Satisfied 201 70 22 14

Direct Deposit

307 65.47% 22.80% 7.17% 4.56%

Hoosier Works Debit Card

290 98 91 48 53

33.79% 31.38% 16.55% 18.28%

Satisfaction

Somewhat Satisfied Not Too Satisfied Not at All Satisfied

For the satisfaction variable: 2=very satisfied, 1=somewhat satisfied, -1=not too satisfied and 2=not at all satisfied. Note: Chi-square p<.01; p<.05; p<.10

Eighty-eight percent of individuals with direct deposit were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the new electronic distribution method. About 65 percent of those with HW debit cards fell into the very or somewhat satisfied categories. More than three times as many of those with debit cards were "not at all satisfied" compared to respondents who had selected the direct deposit option. This may be due to; (1) some additional implementation problems that were encountered just by debit card holders

24

(e.g., lost and inappropriately cancelled cards); (2) the perception on the part of debit card holders that they are costly relative to cashing paper checks (result shown below), and/or (3) the differing characteristics of those selecting the option to receive their child support on a debit card (as shown in Tables 3 and 4). Survey respondents were asked more detailed measures relating to their satisfaction with the two new electronic distribution methods compared to the receipt of paper checks from the US mail. There results are shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Comparisons of Electronic Child Support Distribution Compared to Distribution by US Mail Hoosier Works Debit Variable Direct Deposit Card

Total Respondents More Reliable 163 111 32

307 53.27% 36.27% 10.46% 62.75% 30.72% 6.54% 8.31% 62.46% 29.24% 76.14% 11.11% 12.75% 35.74% 44.26% 20.00% 8.14% 64.71% 27.12% 109 97 81

290 37.98% 33.80% 28.22% 47.24% 38.62% 14.14% 71.88% 17.01% 11.11% 51.90% 16.26% 31.83% 27.53% 43.21% 29.27% 14.95% 67.62% 17.44%

Reliability

About the Same Less Reliable More Secure

192 94 20 25

137 112 41

Security

About the Same Less Secure More Expensive

207 49 32

Expensiveness

About the Same Less Expensive More Convenient

188 88

233 34 39

150 47 92

Convenience

About the Same Less Convenient More Quickly

109 135 61 25

79

Quickness

About the Same Less Quickly More Difficult

124 84 42

Difficulty

About the Same Less Difficult

198 83

190 49

For the other measures in this table, 1= more (reliable, secure, expensive, convenient, quick, or difficult), 0=about the same, and -1=less (reliable, secure, expensive, convenient, quick or difficult). Note: Chi-square p<.01; p<.05; p<.10

25

Overall, in comparison to paper checks, the majority of survey respondents found the new electronic distribution mechanisms to be at least, if not more, reliable, secure, convenient, faster, and easier to use. A small minority of respondents using direct deposit felt it was more expensive to use in comparison to cashing paper checks. However, the large majority of those with the HW debit card felt it was a more expensive way to receive their child support. Thus, with the exception of the fees incurred by the debit card holders, the majority of child support recipients were at least as happy with the new distribution mechanisms. The large picture, however, obscures some important differences between client satisfaction for those choosing direct deposit versus the debit card. About 90 percent of respondents with direct deposit versus 72 percent of those with debit cards felt that the new distribution methods were as reliable, if not more reliable, than child support receipt using paper checks. However, it is interesting that more than a quarter of those with a debit card felt that it was less reliable than paper checks. This partially explains the lower global satisfaction scores of debit card holders with this new distribution method. Once the kinks in the implementation of the debit cards are ironed out, it is quite possible that these ratings would improve. Among debit card holders, 86 percent felt their money was "at least as secure" or "more secure" than when checks had been sent by mail. This figure was even higher for those with direct deposit, about 94 percent. However, more than twice as many of those selecting the debit card over direct deposit felt their funds were less secure compared to the postal service.

26

Expense was a huge area of difference between the debit card holders and those with direct deposit. About 72 percent of debit card holders felt that the new electronic distribution system was more expensive. This stands in stark contrast to the eight percent of those electing direct deposit. This finding was a bit surprising, particularly as it was initially felt that the debit card could be less expensive, particularly for the unbanked who might otherwise use higher priced check cashing or payday loan outlets. We explored this issue in our survey. Of the 94 individuals who had been unbanked when they made the choice of direct deposit or the debit card, 51 usually had cashed checks at the local supermarket, 25 used a bank where they did not have an account, 10 used a cash checking or payday outlet, 3 used a restaurant, bar or another kind of store, 2 used their workplace, and 3 used other options. Given that unbanked respondents seldom used relatively high priced options for cashing their child support checks, it is understandable how the new fees imposed by Citicorp/JP Morgan for the debit card might be higher. It should be noted, however, that from the very beginning of this project, the fees imposed on child support recipients were a serious concern for DCS in contracting with Citicorp/JP Morgan. The State CSE staff negotiated long and hard for lower fees for child support recipients. Citicorp/JP Morgan, a for-profit venture, understandably negotiated in favor of more and higher fees. It is quite possible that as electronic distribution is rolled out to the rest of the state, that DCS will consider renegotiating with Citicorp/JP Morgan, delaying new "add-ons" to the unrestricted debit card until more favorable terms can be reached, and/or changing vendors. Most survey respondents felt that the electronic receipt of child support was "as convenient" or "more convenient" than receiving a check in the mail. However, 12.75

27

and 31.83 percent of those with direct deposit and the debit card, respectively, felt is was less convenient. It is clear that DCS had some mailing problems early in the project and that other problems with Citicorp/JP Morgan could have resulted in delays and errors in the receipt of child support by some custodial parents. It is quite possible that those who feel electronic distribution is less convenient will revise their assessments when the kinks are ironed out of the new distribution system. Last, the large majority of survey respondents feel that they receive their child support with either the same speed or quicker than under the old distribution system. Again, however, a higher proportion of those who selected the debit card are less satisfied. Twenty-nine percent of debit card holders, compared to 20 percent of those with direct deposit, feel it takes longer to get their child support electronically.

Table 7: Significance of Variable for Direct Deposit and Hoosier Works Debit Card Hoosier Works Debit Variable Direct Deposit Card Satisfaction Reliability Security Expensiveness Convenience Quickness

1.375*** 0.428*** 0.562*** 0.634*** 0.157***

0.459

***''' ***''

0.098 0.331 0.608 0.201

***''' ***''' ***''' ***

-0.209***

-0.017

*** -0.19 Difficulty -0.025 For the satisfaction variable: 2=very satisfied, 1=somewhat satisfied, -1=not too satisfied and 2=not at all satisfied. For the other measures in this table, 1= more (reliable, secure, expensive, convenient, quick, or difficult), 0=about the same, and -1=less (reliable, secure, expensive, convenient, quick or difficult). Note:Two tailed t-test HW-DD: ***p<.01, **p<.05, *p<.10; HW-0: '''p<.01, ''p<.05, 'p<.10; DD-0; p<.01, p<.05; p<.10;

***

Table 7 provides a good "big picture" view of the Indiana's two E-government innovations. On all of the various outcome measures except for expensiveness and difficulty, positive values indicate how strongly respondents felt about the new electronic child support systems vis-à-vis paper checks and the US mail. Child support recipients,

28

on average, were more satisfied with direct deposit than with paper checks on all satisfaction dimensions measured and all of these differences are statistically significant. For the debit card, respondents were more satisfied, and; felt the card was more reliable, secure and convenient. However, respondents also felt the card was more expensive and slower than cashing paper checks and these differences are also statistically significant. When comparing the mean satisfaction scores across all categories between debit card holders and those using direct deposit, those selecting direct deposit always had more positive feelings about the way in which they received their child support. The differences in the satisfaction categories measured between the two groups were always statistically significant. These descriptive statistics, however, fail to account for the fact that the individuals selecting direct deposit and the debit card are somewhat different from each other. In general, it appears that those selecting the debit card were somewhat less advantaged than those selecting direct deposit. That is, they had less education, income and a higher probability of receiving public assistance. Thus, the lower satisfaction scores of those selecting the debit card could be attributed to: (1) implementation and cost factors associated with the debit card, (2) the differing characteristics of the individuals selecting among the two new child support distribution options, or (3) both. To explore this issue, we estimated a series of Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regressions to estimate the effect of selecting the direct deposit option (relative to the debit card), net of the effects of the known differences between the two groups.23 These regression results are presented in Table 8.

23

We also estimated Heckman two stage selectivity models to control for the "unmeasured" differences between those selecting direct deposit and the debit card. From out estimates, we were unable to conclude

29

Table 8: Ordinary Least Squares Regression Results

Dependent Variables Independent Variables

Intercept Black Other Races Average Income Female Domestic Violence Housing Insecurity TANF Allen Marion Vanderburgh State&County Direct Deposit HH Dropout HH GED Graduate Some College

Satisfied

0.4566* 0.4870*** 0.4874* 0.0010 -0.1587 0.1387 0.5130 0.0004 -0.2122 -0.0269 0.1199 -0.1895 0.9646*** 0.0121 0.0352 -0.1393

Reliable

0.1963 0.0769 0.0551 -0.0003 -0.0207 0.0717 0.0557 0.1236 -0.0773 -0.1124 0.0135 -0.1595 0.3513*** -0.1782 -0.0903 -0.1240

Security

0.4532*** 0.0922 -0.0211 0.0003 -0.0746 0.0121 -0.0874 0.0906 -0.1157 -0.0428 -0.0204 0.0272 0.2532*** -0.1901* -0.0541 -0.1000

Expense

0.6803*** -0.1562** -0.0624 0.0028* 0.0387 0.0325 -0.3566* -0.0699 0.0970 0.0290 -0.2105** -0.1830 -0.8948*** -0.3762*** -0.0894 -0.0629

Convenient

0.3806* 0.3594*** 0.1604 0.0000 -0.1821 0.1196 0.0159 -0.0614 -0.1984 0.0670 0.1653 -0.1016 0.4023*** -0.0943 -0.0635 -0.1845*

Quickness

0.3948** 0.0894 0.0434 0.0013 -0.3131* 0.0193 0.0482 0.1063 -0.3114** -0.1256 0.0030 -0.1568 0.2342*** -0.1864 -0.1863** -0.2198**

Difficulty

0.0877 -0.1666** -0.1110 0.0008 -0.1079 -0.0112 -0.2088 -0.0314 0.0787 0.0090 -0.0636 0.0897 -0.1885*** -0.0370 -0.0070 0.0368

NOBS R2 Adjusted R2

532 .1430 .1180

528 .0578 .0302

531 .0454 .0176

525 .3678 .3492

530 .1136 .0877

528 .0557 .0280

522 .0436 .0152

For the satisfaction variable: 2=very satisfied, 1=somewhat satisfied, -1=not too satisfied and -2=not at all satisfied. For the other measures in this table, 1= more (reliable, secure, expensive, convenient, quick, or difficult), 0=about the same, and -1=less (reliable, secure, expensive, convenient, quick or difficult). Note: ***p<.01; **p<.05; *p<.10

The regression coefficients compare client satisfaction of those selecting direct deposit versus those choosing the debit card after controlling for the differing characteristics of the two groups. In every equation, even after controlling for individual characteristics, child support recipients who selected direct deposit were more satisfied and felt that direct deposit was more reliable, secure, convenient, and quick compared to those who selected the debit card. Furthermore, those selecting direct deposit felt it was less expensive and less difficult to use compared to individuals selecting the debit card even after controlling for differences in the characteristics of the two populations. These differences were always statistically significant. In fact, the choice of the debit card

that these unmeasured characteristics were important as the inverse Mills ratio never approached statistical significance at the .10 level.

30

versus the direct deposit was the variable that was the most robust variable across all equation and was typically the most substantively important variable in the regressions. Thus, our regression results simply confirm our findings from our descriptive statistics-- electronic distribution of child support is popular among child support recipients but those selecting direct deposit had the most favorable views. Our results have a number of implications for Indiana as well as other state contemplating a move to electronic child support distribution. On average, child support recipients prefer to receive their child support electronically. Direct deposit should be the preferred distribution mechanism (as it was in Indiana). It is less expensive per transaction than the debit card for the state and child support recipients. The differences in satisfaction between direct deposit and the debit card are real differences that cannot be attributed to the differing characteristics of those selecting the debit card. However, the lower income and education of those selecting the debit card should stress the importance of training child support recipients on the use of the card and the importance of good customer service on the part of the financial vendor.

We were concerned that electronic distribution could lead to higher or lower satisfaction among some vulnerable subgroups of the population: public assistance recipients, those experiencing housing insecurity and those

31

experiencing domestic violence. None of these factors were substantively important determinants of customer satisfaction, broadly defined. Debit cards for child support should have a unique and distinctive design. Because Indiana has three very similar cards, a nontrivial percent of those holding multiple cards had made mistakes in how they used their cards.

Because of the lower costs associated with electronic transfers of funds, it is tempting to put lots of unrestricted funds (taxes, unemployment compensation, etc.) on a single debit card. Incremental addition of funds should not be rushed and a clear and unambiguous source of customer service must be identified for each source of funds--preferably all of them on the debit card. In other words, the only customer service on the Indiana debit card for child support was that of the State child support bureau. Staff employed by the child support bureau are not qualified to address income tax refund issues or other problems related to other programs. One of the benefits of moving to electronic distribution of child support is that many Hoosiers were brought into the formal banking system. A total of 93 survey respondents (15.5 percent) had been unbanked prior to receiving the choice of direct deposit or the debit card. All but 14 of these individuals chose the debit card option, giving them an account, albeit for limited use, at a financial institution. Twelve of the remaining 14 opened a new bank account, bringing them more formally into the banking system. Only two survey respondents chose

32

to deposit child support into another person's bank account (presumably their child's account).

33

Performance Output Survey Introduction The new electronic disbursement system will largely replace the current paperbased check system with the dual electronic system of direct bank deposits for custodial parents with bank accounts and the "Hoosier Works" card, a commercial debit card with a MasterCard logo for custodial parents without an active bank account. The initial and primary focus of the evaluation was the Hoosier Works card. However, because the direct bank deposits system was implemented in Marion County and DCS shortly before the Hoosier Works card and was to be expanded to the pilot counties, we have included it in our evaluation. Our study covers the period from January 2003-December 2004. The debit card became effectively operational in January 2004 on the state level. For the purpose of our study the period from January 2003-2004 is the pre-implementation period at the state level, and January 2004-December 2004 is the post-implementation period. In the pilot counties, the debit card was operational in April 2004, so April 2004-December 2004 is the post-implementation period for the pilot counties. The evaluation methodology measures the qualitative and quantitative benefits derived from the new electronic system. The new electronic system is expected to significantly: reduce costs (county and state administrative costs, supply and material costs (i.e., writing checks, stuffing envelopes, postage and stationary)); improve business processes;

34

enhance client satisfaction. The evaluation plan has both project impact and process components. First, we employed a pre-test, post-test methodology to evaluate changes in program performance, using both qualitative and quantitative measures collected from the state and the pilot counties. Quantitative measures include data on administrative costs and program performance data for changes in undistributed child support, and the number of returned warrants for invalid addresses. Qualitative administrative performance measures focus on problems and strengths of both disbursement systems and administrators' impressions of programmatic success. The evaluation involves pre-implementation and post-implementation mail surveys and site visits (or telephone interviews) with each pilot county to collect administrative data and conduct semi-structured interviews with county clerks and staff responsible for distributing child support. We collected administrative data on factors such as costs, returned warrants, undistributed collections, and fees paid by obligors to cover disbursement costs. Additionally, we conducted several interviews with county clerks and staff members directly responsible for distributing child support. Beyond collection of financial information, interviews also address the problems and strengths of the current child support distribution system. State employees responsible for implementing and running both the old and new child support distribution systems are part of the staff interviews. In addition, we administered a post-project implementation mail survey to assess the level of effective collaboration between the various parties responsible for implementing the project. The next section discusses the changes in performance outputs based on the results of the

35

Performance Output Survey. Then the final section continues the evaluation with a discussion of the results from the Process Evaluation Survey.

Performance Output Survey Results This section of the report summarizes cost and workload information gathered from the Performance Output Surveys. See Appendices F-I for the actual Performance Output Surveys and tabulated responses. We conducted pre-implementation and postimplementation Performance Output Surveys. The pre-implementation Performance Output Survey gathered information, mostly cost and workload data, on the basic components of the paper-based child support disbursement system at DCS and in the pilot counties prior to the implementation of the new electronic disbursement system. The survey was sent to administrative and operational staff directly involved in disbursing child support payments in Indiana, both at the state-level and the three pilot counties: Allen, Marion and Vanderburgh. The results from the pre-implementation Performance Output Survey established a pre-test baseline of the current processes and costs incurred in the old disbursement system. For the pre-implementation survey, we received sufficient raw data in the responses from DCS, Allen County and Marion County to develop pre-test baseline estimates. Vanderburgh County did not fill out the entire pre-implementation survey so we used data from the other counties to develop baseline information for Vanderburgh in the Electronic Disbursement of Indiana's Child Support ­ Report on the Performance Output Survey of the Current System, June 2, 2004. We then sent out a post-implementation Survey to DCS and the pilot counties to gather post-implementation data to compare to the pre-test baseline. The goal was to be

36

able to compare the pre-implementation results to the post-implementation survey results to determine the net effect of the new electronic disbursement system. This report incorporates data from the pre-implementation Performance Output Survey, initially distributed in April of 2003 with data was collected through the end of February 2004; the post-implementation Surveys was distributed in August 2004 with data collected through February 14, 2005.24 We distributed the Process Evaluation Survey in August 2004 and we received the final response in February 2005. While our sample size of surveys was never sufficient for us to draw statistical inferences, we received a sufficient level of responses on the Process Evaluation Survey to be able to report substantive results based on all three pilot counties and DCS. On the Performance Output Survey, we received sufficient information from DCS and all of the pilot counties except Vanderburgh. Vanderburgh County did not return the post-implementation survey and, as already mentioned, did not completely fill out the pre-implementation survey. Therefore, we have omitted Vanderburgh County from the body of report that discusses the results of the Performance Output Survey. For information purposes only, we have used the limited data available to derive estimates for Vanderburgh County and have placed these estimates in tables in Appendix E. We do not believe, however, that these estimates are as reliable as the figures for Allen and Marion counties. We collected information along the continuum of processing child support payments to custodial parents: distributing child support payments;

24

We are especially grateful to Allen County officials for their timely, detailed and comprehensive responses.

37

processing returned warrants; issuing stop payment orders; and, reconciling records. Based on the information provided by survey respondents, we estimate that DCS will save approximately $70,742, or 4 percent, annually from the new electronic system. In the two pilot counties, we estimate annual savings at $331,815 or 41 percent of preelectronic system annual costs. Most of the savings is a direct result of the significant decrease in number of warrants (paper checks) issued in the new system, and from some personnel and non-personnel cost savings. The Child Support Distribution and Disbursement System A general overview of the State of Indiana child support payment process is illustrated in Exhibit 1. Payments are received by the state or county government from the non-custodial parent (payor) directly by either check or money order, or indirectly by electronic funds transfers from automatic income withholding arrangements and interstate programs, for example.

38

Exhibit 1 General Overview of the State of Indiana Child Support Payment Process

Payment received by State or County government from noncustodial parent (payor)

Internal account processing and distribution of payment to custodial parent and children (payee)

CURRENT PAPERBASED SYSTEM

NEW ELECTRONIC SYSTEM

Check disbursed to custodial parent

Direct Deposit to custodial parent bank account

Funds loaded onto commercial debit "Hoosier Works" card

Figure's 3 and 4 provide an illustration of the trend in incoming payments at DCS over the study period. From January 2003-December 2004 incoming payments rose substantially from $11 million in January 2003 to $17.5 million in December 2003, and all the way to $22 million by December 2004 - doubling from January 2003-December 2004.25 Despite the availability of transmitting payments by electronic funds bank transfers and directly over the internet, non-custodial parent (NCP) payments received manually have grown substantially, at an accelerating pace since January 2004. In comparison, the dollar amount of payments received electronically has been flat, and has actually dropped as a percentage of all incoming child support payments.

25

We do not have complete information on the number of manual payments so we do not know if there was a parallel increase in the number of payments. However, we do know that payments made electronically either by EFT or over the internet almost tripled, from 46,352 (January 2003) to 124,464 (December 2004).

39

Figure 3: Electronic Funds vs. Manual Incoming Child Support Payments ($)

EFT vs. Manual Incoming Child Support $25,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 $15,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00 $0.00 S-03 M-03 M-03 M-04 M-04 N-03 S-04

A-04

Manual Dollar Amount

EFT Dollar Amount

Source: Indiana DCS

Figure 4: Electronic Funds vs. Manual Incoming Child Support Payments (%)

EFT and Manual Incoming Child Support

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% M-03 A-03 M-03 A-03 D-03 M-04 A-04 M-04 N-03 N-04 D-04 S-03 O-03 S-04 J-03 J-03 J-03 J-04 J-04 J-04 O-04 F-03 F-04

Manual Dollar Amount

EFT Dollar Amount

Source: Indiana DCS

N-04

J-03

J-03

J-04

J-04

40

Payments are processed internally by distributing funds to the appropriate accounts. The distribution process is manually conducted by employees keying information into the Indiana Support Enforcement Tracking System ­ ISETS; the basic computer system for the Indiana child support program. Next, at the state level an electronic disbursement file is sent to the auditor. The auditor prints the warrants and returns them to the Child Support Bureau, which issues the warrant to the custodial parent and children (payees). At the county level, the clerks' office disburses the warrant. The accounts are then reconciled on a regular basis, and adjustments are made, if necessary. In the old system, child support payments are disbursed only through a papercheck based system from the state government and/or local (elected) county clerks' offices. (As of the beginning of the project, only Marion County was able to disburse payments directly into the custodial parent's bank accounts (deposits).) In the new electronic system, payments to the custodial parent and children (payees) will be made by direct deposit into the custodial parents bank account, or for unbanked payees, funds will be loaded onto the commercial debit card by the private vendor. It is important to note that the electronic system does not completely replace the paper-based system; rather it adds an important new component and additional capacity to the child support payment system. 1. Total Child Support Disbursement Costs Child support disbursements are made by the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) and child support divisions at the county level. We estimate that DCS spent $1,723,272 during 2003 to disburse child support payments to custodial parents

41

(see Table 9). The total cost estimate is based on the number of warrants issued multiplied by the per unit warrant issuance cost. We believe that the cost per warrant measure is the most useful way of viewing the data since in the post-implementation analysis we can estimate the cost savings directly from the change in warrants processed through the new electronic disbursement process. The total annual cost figure consists of reported personnel and direct nonpersonnel costs. We estimate that DCS's pre-implementation cost per warrant was $1.37. For the $1.37 per warrant cost figure, $0.67 comes from personnel and $0.46 comes from direct non-personnel costs. The remainder of the $1.37 per warrant cost figure comes from $0.08 for processing returned warrants and $0.17 in reissuing warrants costs. It should be noted that we believe this figure is a minimum estimate. We believe that the information reported by the State of Indiana on the direct non-personnel cost of issuing warrants (warrant stock, equipment maintenance, mailing, etc.,) materially understates the actual expenditures incurred. For the two pilot counties only, we estimate that DCS spent approximately $407,652 (see Table 10). We also estimate that the pilot counties spent approximately $797,815 annually in disbursing child support payments in 2003. Taking into consideration the costs incurred by the two pilot counties and DCS costs for all of Indiana's 92 counties, the total annual cost of disbursement was $2,521,088. After the implementation of the electronic system, total costs decreased by $402,287, or 15.96 percent. DCS costs went down slightly, $70,742 or 4 percent. The costs of disbursing child support payments in the pilot counties dropped substantially, 41 percent. The reduction in the counties is due to a large reduction in the number of

42

warrants processed, 55 percent from 731,313 to 327,684 and marginally lower labor costs throughout the process of disbursing child support payments.

Table 9 ­ Annual Costs for Disbursing Child Support in Indiana Counties A. Pre-Implementation DCS for all 92 counties $1,723,272.98 Pilot counties $797,815.90 Total Annual Cost of Disbursement, Pilot Counties and for DCS's 92 counties B. Post-Implementation DCS for all 92 counties Pilot counties Total Annual Cost of Disbursement, Pilot Counties and for DCS's 92 counties C. Cost Savings DCS for all 92 counties, $ DCS for all 92 counties, % Pilot counties, $ Pilot Counties, % Cost Savings, Pilot Counties and for DCS's 92 counties, $ Cost Savings, Pilot Counties and for DCS's 92 counties, % $2,521,088.88

$1,652,800.60 $466,000.32 $2,118,800.92

$70,472.38 4.09% $331,815.58 41.59% $402,287.96 15.96%

Table 10: Annual Costs of Disbursing Child Support for Pilot counties Pilot County DCS Pilot County Total A. Pre-Implementation Allen $141,714.02 $299,948.31 $441,662.33 Marion $265,938.40 $497,867.59 $763,805.99 TOTAL $407,652.43 $797,815.90 $1,205,468.33 B. Post-Implementation Allen Marion TOTAL C. Annual Cost Savings Annual Cost Savings, $ Cost Savings, percent

$136,512.33 $267,363.40 $403,875.73

$124,224.35 $341,775.97 $466,000.32

$260,736.68 $609,139.37 $869,876.05

$3,776.70 0.93%

$331,815.58 41.59%

$335,592.28 27.84%

43

2. Breakdown of County Level Child Support Disbursement Costs 2.1. Total County Child Support Costs In Allen and Marion counties the estimated pre-implementation total cost of disbursing child support payments is $797,815, with per warrant costs estimated at $1.29 and $1.00, respectively (see Table 11). Please note the substantial economies of scale in child support disbursement costs in the pilot counties. The total child support disbursement cost figure includes the costs of distribution, processing returned warrants, issuing stop payment orders and reconciling records.

Table 11: Total County Child Support Annual Disbursement Costs in Pilot Counties Warrants disbursed per year 233,313 498,000 Total Unit Cost of Disbursement $1.29 $1.00 Total Annual Cost $299,948.31 $497,867.59 $797,815.90

Pilot County A. Pre-Implementation Allen Marion Total B. Post-Implementation Allen Marion

85,905 241,779

$1.45 $1.41

$124,224.35 $341,775.97 $466,000.32 Percent Reduction in Cost -70.69% -218.96%

Warrant Reduction C. Annual Cost Savings Allen Marion -63% -51%

Percent Change in Unit Cost 12.10% 41.36%

$Reduction in Costs $175,723.96 $156,091.63

In the post-implementation period warrants disbursed decreased sharply for both Allen (63 percent) and Marion (51 percent) counties. Total annual costs also went down substantially, 70.69 percent in Allen and 218.96 percent in Marion. Unit costs in each

44

county increased, slightly in Allen and significantly in Marion, indicating a modest lag in reducing labor costs in response to the reduction in warrants. 2.2. Distribution Costs for Initial Warrants The total cost for distributing initial child support warrants in the pre-implementation period in the two pilot counties is in Table 12 below. The total cost of disbursement consists of personnel and non-personnel costs. The unit cost of distributing new child support payments averaged $1.14 for Allen County and $0.90 for Marion County.

Table 12: Annual Distribution Costs for New Warrants Total unit cost per warrant $1.14 $0.90 Warrants disbursed per year 233,313 498,000 Cost of processing warrants per year $266,616.75 $450,129.75 $716,746.50 $114,548.86 $322,562.07 $437,110.93

Pilot County Pre-Implementation Allen Marion Post Implementation Allen Marion

$1.33 $1.33

85,905 241,779

After the electronic system was implemented the total cost of processing warrants decreased by 57 percent in Allen and 28 percent in Marion because of fewer warrants. The higher total unit cost per warrant after implementation shown in Table 12 indicates that the reduction in warrants has outpaced the reduction in personnel and non-personnel costs.

45

Table 13: Annual Personnel Costs for Distribution of New Warrants Total unit cost per warrant $0.81 $0.57 Warrants disbursed per year 233,313 498,000 Cost of processing warrants per year $189,623.46 $285,789.75 $475,413.21 $86,200.21 $242,775.00 $328,975.21

Pilot County Pre-Implementation Allen Marion Post Implementation Allen Marion

$1.00 $1.00

85,905 241,779

Personnel costs are in Table 13. Annual personnel costs are derived in terms of personnel hours and average wage. After implementation, total personnel costs in Allen and Marion counties declined substantially, 54 percent in Allen and 27 percent in Marion. The reduction in cost is a result of fewer labor hours required to disburse warrants, down from 45 hours to 24 hours in Allen and from 105 hours to 82 hours in Marion. The decrease in direct non-personnel costs is substantial, 59 percent, and is attributable solely to the reduction in warrants. Table 14 provides figures for direct non-personnel costs. Only Allen County provided complete information on unit costs per warrant. We have used Allen County's figures to provide estimates for Marion. Please note that the resulting figures for Marion imply zero economies of scale for Marion (Marion County processes more warrants than Allen County). Table 14 shows a significant reduction in direct non-personnel costs from fewer warrants processed.

46

Table 14: Annual Direct Non-Personnel Warrant Costs

Total unit cost per warrant $0.33 $0.33 Warrants disbursed per year 233,313 498,000 Cost of processing warrants per year $76,993.29 $164,340.00 $241,333.29 $28,348.65 $79,787.07 $108,135.72

Pilot County Pre-Implementation Allen Marion Post Implementation Allen Marion

$0.33 $0.33

85,905 241,779

2.3.Returned Warrant Costs The total cost of processing returned warrants is in Table 15 below. Returned warrant costs are incurred when child support checks are mailed to an incorrect address. The child support division therefore has to reissue checks after establishing the correct mailing address. We expect that an indirect benefit from the electronic disbursement project will be a reduction in the costs associated with returned warrants. After the implementation of the new electronic system, the costs of processing returned warrants declined by 34 percent. The reduction in total cost is due to the 38 percent reduction in returned warrants. However, the increase in unit cost for Allen County indicates the potential for additional labor adjustments to occur since the county is processing fewer returned warrants. While the personnel hours per day devoted to processing returned warrants did decline, -17 percent, from one to .83, it was not commensurate with the reduction in returned warrants (-44 percent). Marion County saw a decrease in the number of returned warrants, the total annual cost of processing warrants, and in the cost per warrant. The reduction in the per

47

unit costs per warrant from $2.33 to $2.01 is a result of the reduction in personnel hours per day devoted to processing returned warrants from 3.5 to 2.0.

Table 15: Annual Returned Warrant Costs Unit cost of returned Warrant $1.93 $2.33 Warrants returned per year 2,241 3,795 Total cost of processing returned warrants per year $4,325.13 $8,842.35 $13,167.48 $3,656.36 $5,004.90 $8,661.26

Pilot County Pre-Implementation Allen Marion Post Implementation Allen Marion

$2.94 $2.01

1,245 2,490

2.4. Stop-payment Costs Stop-payment costs are incurred when the Child Support Division establishes that warrants have been issued in error. After the implementation of the new electronic system, stop payments are less of a problem than they were before, especially in Marion County. Marion County reports almost a 60 percent reduction in stop payments (the reduction in Allen County is more modest). The cost per stop payment order also decreased in Marion County from $25.59 to $5.00. In Allen County, there was an increase from $7.75 to $10.00. Moreover, while the ratio of stop payments to warrants disbursed decreased in Marion County (from .175 percent to .151 percent), it increased in Allen (from .128 percent to .242 percent).

48

Table 16: Annual Stop Payment Costs Cost per stop payment $7.75 $25.59 Stop payments per year 299 872 Cost of processing stop payments per year $2,317.25 $22,314.48 $24,631.73

Pilot County Pre-Implementation Allen Marion Post Implementation Allen Marion

$10.00 $5.00

208 364

$2,080.00 $1,820.00 $3,900.00

2.4. Reconciliation Costs Reconciliation costs are incurred when the Child Support Division reconciles their financial institution statements with their accounting records. The total cost of reconciling child support disbursements is in Table 17. Reconciliation costs have been substantially reduced with the electronic system, from $39,006 to $16,328, a decrease of 58 percent. Total personnel hours were reduced in both Allen and Marion counties, dramatically in Allen County from 4.75 to 0.83 personnel hours per day.

Table 17: Reconciliation Costs

Pilot County Pre-Implementation Allen Marion Post Implementation Allen Marion

Total personnel hours per day 4.75 5.63

Average Wage $21.16 $9.98

Annual Cost $25,026.99 $13,990.66 $39,017.65 $3,939.13 $12,389.00 $16,328.13

0.83 4.5

$19.06 $11.06

49

3. Breakdown of State Level Child Support Disbursement Costs 3.1 Total State-Level Child Support Costs DCS disbursed 1,260,735 warrants to custodial parents in 2003 at an average cost of $1.37 per warrant and a total cost of $1,723,272 (Table 18). DCS disbursed

approximately 103,677 and 194,559 on behalf of pilot counties Allen and Marion at a cost of $141,714 and $265, 938, respectively (which is roughly 23 percent of total statelevel costs). The total costs of state-level child support disbursement figures includes the initial costs of disbursing new child support payments, and costs of processing and reissuing returned warrants. DCS officials report that the state does not issue stop-payment orders. After implementation, total annual costs decreased by 4 percent to $1,652,800. The reduction is due to the decrease in warrants, a 9.79 percent decrease across all counties.26 While the average cost per warrant increased marginally because of increasing personnel costs, the reduction in warrants was large enough to offset the increase.

Table 18: Total Annual Costs of Child Support Disbursement for Indiana Counties and Pilot Counties Average cost per warrant Pre-Implementation All Counties Pilot county Allen Marion TOTAL $1.37 Warrants per year 1,260,735 Total cost $1,723,272.98

$1.37 $1.37

103,677 194,559

$141,714.02 $265,938.40 $407,652.43

26

Please note there is a slight increase in annual costs for Marion County. This is because the percentage decrease in warrants (-5.44 percent) was slightly less than the percentage increase in average costs (5.8 percent). We believe that the negligible decrease in warrants in Marion County is due to the increase in the number of custodial parents, roughly a 37 percent increase, and the marginal increase in personnel hours.

50

Table 18 continued Average cost per warrant Post Implementation All Counties Pilot county Allen Marion TOTAL $1.45 Warrants per year 1,137,331 Total cost $1,652,800.60

$1.45 $1.45

93,937 183,979

$136,512.33 $267,363.40 $403,875.73 Percent Reduction in Cost

Percent Change in Unit Cost C. Annual Cost Savings All Counties Allen Marion 6.32% 6.32% 6.32%

Warrant Reduction

$Reduction in Costs

-9.79% -9.39% -5.44%

$70,472.38 $5,201.69 -$1,425.00

-4.09% -3.67% 0.54%

3.2 Total DCS Child Support Disbursement Costs Table 19 shows the average cost of disbursing initial child support payments as an average for the entire state and for each of the pilot counties. Before implementation, the average cost of disbursing child support payments consists of a $0.46 unit cost for issuing warrants as estimated by the Indiana State Auditors office and an estimated $0.68 in personnel costs for disbursing child support payments as reported by the DCS. Post implementation annual costs decreased because the number of warrants decreased. We received no new information on post-implementation average nonpersonnel costs so that number did not change.27 We did receive new information on personnel costs and that figure increased slightly because reported personnel hours increased.

27

We have no reason to believe that average non-personnel costs increased or decreased postimplementation.

51

Table 19: Total Annual Personnel and Non-personnel costs of Child Support Disbursement in Indiana Counties Non personnel and personnel costs per warrant issued Pre-Implementation Average non-personnel costs Average personnel costs TOTAL Post Implementation Average non-personnel costs Average personnel costs TOTAL $0.46 $0.67 $1.13 Annual non personnel and personnel costs $579,938.10 $839,946.72 $1,419,884.82

Warrants issued 1,260,735 1,260,735

$0.46 $0.75 $1.21

1,137,331 1,137,331

$523,172.26 $847,596.00 $1,370,768.26

3.3 Other State-Level Costs Table 20 shows returned and reissued warrant costs. The total cost of processing returned warrants and reissuing warrants decreased over the project period because the cost of processing each returned warrant decreased from $3.79 to $2.04. The actual number of returned and reissued warrants actually increased. The cost of reissuing warrants remained at $10.49 per warrant.

Table 20: Total Annual Returned and Reissued Warrant Costs Warrants returned / reissued per year 24,900 19,920

Cost per warrant returned / reissued Pre-Implementation Cost per returned warrant Cost per reissued warrant $3.79 $10.49

Cost of processing returned / reissued warrants per year $94,371.00 $208,960.80 $303,331.80

Post Implementation Cost per returned warrant Cost per reissued warrant

$2.04 $10.49

28,137 21,414

$57,399.48 $224,632.86 $282,032.34

52

Finally, unlike our pilot county's DCS does not issue stop payment orders, and therefore, does not incur stop payment order costs; and reconciliation costs are included in the personnel costs of issuing warrants by the DCS. 4. Undistributed Payments For a variety of reasons, many incoming child support payments remain undistributed (UDS) well beyond the 48-hour period that non-custodial parent payments are required to be disbursed to custodial parents. We hypothesized at the beginning of the grant writing process that an indirect benefit of this project may be the reduction in UDS. Figure 5 shows the total amount of state-level UDS in the years 2003 and 2004. Contrary to our expectations, UDS has increased substantially from 2003 to 2004. In addition, Figure 6 shows that UDS as a percentage of total incoming payments has also increased over the project period. The result is the conclusion that the new electronic system had no impact on UDS.

Figure 5: DCS Undistributed Child Support Payments, 2003 and 2004

Total $ UDS, (94.9% increase in UDS) $14,000,000.00 $12,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $8,000,000.00 $6,000,000.00 $4,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $0.00 2003 2004 $6,116,096.56 $11,920,176.37

Source: Indiana DCS

53

Figure 6: Undistributed Child Support as a percent of Total Incoming Child Support Payments

UDS as a Percent of Total Payments 7.00% 6.00% 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% M-03 M-03 M-04 M-04 S-03 A-03 A-03 A-04 N-03 A-04 S-04 N-04 J-03 J-03 J-03 J-04 J-04 D-03 J-04 D-04 F-03 O-03 F-04 O-04 2.68%

6.14%

Source: Indiana DCS

54

Process Evaluation Survey Introduction This section of the report evaluates the process of implementing the new electronic disbursement systems by focusing on the results of the Process Evaluation Survey. The survey instrument was sent to all of the key project participants in Allen, Marion, Vanderburgh counties and the DCS that were directly involved in the process of creating and implementing the new electronic disbursement system. The survey was designed so that all governmental employees involved in the project could fill out the entire survey, or individuals could fill out only the parts of the survey that dealt with their operational areas. We received at least one completed survey from each county and DCS. The purpose of the Process Evaluation Survey was to gather information to evaluate the process of implementing the new child support electronic disbursement systems. The survey asked separate questions for the direct deposit system and the Hoosier Works debit card (commercial debit account (CDA)). The questions were designed to evaluate the level of effective collaboration among project participants and the level of stakeholder involvement in all aspects of the electronic child support disbursement project. Views of the whole electronic disbursement system vary across the two systems. For the direct deposit system, the satisfaction levels are very high across the board. Most government employees report that they are very satisfied with the new direct deposit system. They also report that participants have had few problems and recognize the greater convenience. In addition, one county reports that as more custodial parents sign

55

up for direct deposit its direct operating costs will continue to drop. Moreover, most respondents reported that the direct deposit system has improved their internal business processes. Respondent impressions of the debit card (CDA) are another matter. No one reported that they were highly satisfied and several reported that they are unsatisfied to very unsatisfied with the debit card. In addition, two employees report, one in a county and the other at DCS that business processes have worsened significantly. Much of the discontent is due to poor customer service. The customer service provided by the vendor is perceived as especially poor, but DCS staff (i.e., KIDS line staff) is also viewed as unable to answer questions. This is consistent with the complaint coming from the counties that they were not adequately trained to answer custodial parent questions on the new debit card, despite an DCS training session, several meetings at DCS with county officials, and at least one on-site meeting with DCS officials at each pilot county. While substantial efforts were made to involve everybody involved in the project in the planning and design stages, it appears that several people responsible for implementing the system feel their input was not sought during the planning and design process, and that they did not receive adequate training, especially in handling questions from custodial parents. 5. Background on Survey Instrument The survey instrument is shown in Appendix J and the responses are shown in Appendix K. The survey consists of Likert Scale questions asking respondents to, for example, rank the level of collaboration among various participants from 1 (very effective) to 5 (very ineffective), with an answer for no involvement (8). The survey also provided substantial

56

room after each question for additional comments and asked respondents to elaborate on the numerical answers. The survey has similar questions for both new electronic disbursement systems. The survey broke the project into distinct 5 stages: planning, design, development, testing, and implementation. A description of each stage is shown in Table 21 below.

Table 21: Description of Project Stages Planning The basic assessment of the paper check disbursement system takes place, along with the identification of the requirements and an analysis of the feasibility of the new electronic system for child support including a preliminary assessment of costs and benefits; and, a basic definition of the functional requirements of the new system. Design Development The finalization of the functional requirements of the direct deposit system and their translation into a general design. Most of the computer programming takes place in this stage of the project, basic program information is documented, and unit testing occurs. Testing System test plans and procedures are documented, and the new system is sufficiently developed to be put through a sequence of acceptance tests to ensure that it functions as expected. Implementation Involves installing the new system, training staff, vendors and custodial parents to use and administer the new system, and the actual use of the new system by custodial parents.

The Process Evaluation Survey was designed to gather information in several substantive areas. This section provides summary information from the survey responses in each of the following areas: · Effectiveness of Project Managers · · Project Team Collaboration

Involving the Custodial Parent in the Project

57

·

Overall Satisfaction with the New Payment Systems · Specific Suggestions for Future Projects

6. Effectiveness of Project Managers We began by asking questions about the effectiveness of project managers over the 5 project stages. Within each project stage, we asked separate questions on the two new methods of receiving child support payments, direct deposit to the bank accounts of child support recipients and the electronic transfer of child support to the new Hoosier Works debit card. 6.1 Planning We asked respondents to evaluate the effectiveness of project managers during the "planning" stage of the new electronic disbursement system. During the timeframe of this project, planning for the new direct deposit system was minimal because two direct deposit modules were already in place and functional at the state level and in Marion County. But additional planning was required and undertaken to adapt these modules for Vanderburgh and Allen. DCS employees responded that planning was viewed as being somewhat effective to very effective, even though some situations were not addressed. Two counties responded that the planning was somewhat effective. But one county reported that the planning stage was difficult because "not everyone on the project understood the basic terminology of the ISETS program." The other county reported that "this stage was given adequate effort." The third county responded that they had no involvement in the planning stage.

58

Two counties responded that they thought program managers were somewhat effective in planning the debit card initiative. DCS employees responded that the planning process was somewhat to very effective, noting that "several meetings were conducted with appropriate staff to determine" how the system would work; and that the "project manager worked to make sure the CDA option was not too costly to the custodial parents." Despite these efforts, one county observed that there was a lot of uncertainty over the fees (See the final pricing structure in Appendix L.). This indicates that a potential stumbling block was revealed in the planning process and was successfully resolved, a sign of effective project planning. 6.2 Design Stage The design stage involves finalizing the functional requirements of the direct deposit system and translating them into a general design. Two counties responded that they were not involved in the design process. One county responded that project managers were somewhat effective, but expressed the concern that the new bookkeeping functions required by the new direct deposit system were not adequately addressed. Ultimately their bookkeepers "had to wait until the project went live to see how they were affected." DCS, however, points out that during the design stage collaborative effort on the direct deposit system was limited by the level of resources allocated to the system and by its functionality at the time. The direct deposit system was already in place before the CDA pilot began, and the current project manager(s) had not been involved in bringing the initial system online.

59

DCS employees were directly involved in the design stage of the CDA system, and were perceived as being somewhat effective to very effective. Despite these high rankings, one county stated that "a lot of people were upset," during this phase of the project. Apparently, the problem centered on the unwillingness of DCS to work with any bank other than Bank One. The county argued that many of their custodial parents did not have access to a Bank One ATM. The county felt that "it is not fair for a custodial parent to have to use child support money for fees just because an Indianapolis bank doesn't have a branch in the (city). Since the card was implemented, they can use an all point machine, but we don't have many of those either." 6.3 Development Stage Next, we asked participants to evaluate the effectiveness of project managers during the "development" stage of the project. DCS reports that in this stage efforts were made to account for all contingencies for the direct deposit system. One county reports that it received the same information provided custodial parents and the county thought the information was "very useful and informative." This stage was perceived as being either somewhat effective or very effective. DCS reports that "project managers received test plans and had other Child Support Bureau employees review" the plans. DCS also "met with programmers to go over the test results. Found issues that needed to be reworked and made sure problems are fixed." 6.4 Testing Stage Next, we asked participants to evaluate the effectiveness of project managers during the "testing" phase of the project. DCS reports that the "project manager reviewed

60

all programming line by line; the system was tested based on multiple scenarios."28 Those involved in the testing phase considered it to be from somewhat effective to very effective. One county commented that "if our office received any inquires from custodial parents in regards to this program we simply directed them to the clerks office. 6.5 Implementation Stage Finally, we asked respondents to evaluate the effectiveness of project managers during the "implementation" stage of the project. There was substantial variation in the responses to the question of effectiveness of implementing the direct deposit system. DCS viewed the implementation as either somewhat effective or very effective. According to DCS, "every participant was mailed at least two notices about the forthcoming change to electronic disbursement. All clerks and IV-D prosecutors were also notified of each bit of information provided to the participant." Nevertheless, according to another DCS employee involved in the CDA, it "got off to a slow start. Only explanation to custodial parents was the letter and insert by the vendor. Inquiring workers at CSB had a lot of questions that came from custodial parents regarding the CDA card." One county also viewed project implementation as very effective, and another viewed it as somewhat effective, stating that "based upon usage of system, I would say it was successful." In another county implementation was viewed as somewhat ineffective. This county stated that "no instructions ­ i.e., hardcopy ­ were distributed at implementation nor to date have we received any documentation to support what we have been told via phone transmission."

28

Another DCS employee reports that testing "was already done previously. No need to retest with CDA pilot."

61

Perceptions on the implementation of the Hoosier Works card were wide ranging from very effective to very ineffective. From one DCS employees perspective the implementation went as planned. It was reported that "after reviewing notification the participant was put on direct deposit within approximately two weeks after notifying the State/County, CDA was implemented at a later date." Two counties were more negative on the implementation experience. In one county, for example, it was stated that "the implementation did not work properly ­ participants received confusing and/or conflicting information from the state. Since this portion of the program was to assist the state more than the local level, I believe all questions, concerns and issues should remain at the state level." Custodial parents in another county had problems with the vendor. "We had the problem...about people being charged fees and had to pay them whether they liked it or not because they couldn't get a bank account for direct deposit. The customer service people at the card company weren't very nice." 7. Project Team Collaboration In the next section we asked a series of questions about collaboration. First, we focused on collaboration at the state level and then on collaboration within the pilot counties and between the state agencies and the pilot counties. We asked questions about overall collaboration as well as collaboration between the technical and program/policy units, and between the technical and financial administrative units. Overall, the level of collaboration was viewed as more effective within governmental units than across governmental units. Also, DCS employees reported collaboration as more effective than pilot county employees did. One county that viewed

62

collaboration as neither effective nor ineffective reported that "it seemed that the help desk staff was not aware of many of the initiatives. Communication was lacking." In another county, an important stakeholder responded stated that "other than a preliminary survey, no one contacted me about this project." Finally in another county, an employee responded that "collaboration efforts are getting better." Except for one county, collaboration within the county government system for delivering child support was viewed as effective. Despite the counties responses, DCS reports that there was substantial collaboration. Specifically, "there were weekly meetings for the first year and a quarter, then bi-weekly, then as needed. There was communication among staff several times a day." Moreover, DCS reports that "we made considerable outreach to the pilot counties with visits to the counties, meetings here at state and conference calls and training." There were also questions asked in the survey about collaboration between the government and the private vendors. For the direct deposit portion of the project, overall collaboration with Covansys and National City Bank was viewed as effective and generally satisfying. On the Hoosier Works debit card, however, the current vendor, JP Morgan, is viewed by one respondent as "not responsive to the questions our CP's have and are reported as being rude. Will not give their name or ID when asked. Also, JP Morgan is depositing money early and this causes many questions." 8. Involving the Custodial Parent in the Project Next we turned to questions about the activities conducted for custodial parents to make them aware of the new electronic disbursement systems and to ease their transition

63

into using the systems. Specifically, we asked what was done over each stage of the project to ascertain the requirements (needs, constraints, etc.) of custodial parents. We also asked what was done to anticipate the potential problems that might be encountered by custodial parents receiving child support by the new system. And, what activities were undertaken, if any, to educate custodial parents on how to use and understand the new payment processes. The counties report that they were not involved in any efforts to bring the custodial parent into the process during the planning and design stages of the new electronic disbursement system, "everything was done at the state level." During the development and testing phases one county "had a custodial parent test the direct deposit and it did not work the first two times." In the implementation phase we have information from two counties that took very different approaches to involving custodial parents into the project. One county took a proactive approach and the other took a passive approach. The proactive county sent official notices (by check stub) to offer the new program to custodial parents. "Staff was instructed as to how the program worked and forms were created to be handed, mailed or distributed to banks, credit unions and the individual for sign up." In addition, this county anticipated potential problems and tried to plan for them. The other county took a more passive approach. In their words, "the implementation stage happened at the state level. We didn't have anything to train custodial parents with. Everything was wait and see." Regarding anticipating potential problems, this county responded that "we didn't prepare for any problems because you can't prepare for the unexpected." We had no idea what problems to expect. We were

64

told everything was going to work just fine, but that wasn't the case. We could only handle the problems on a case by case situation." In response to the question of what activities did you undertake, if any, to educate custodial parents on how to use and understand the new payment system, they responded, "we would try to explain to them as best as we could, but we never saw how the card was going to work in real life so we couldn't help out a whole lot. We just tried to go over the letter with them so they would better understand." The county that took the passive approach "didn't hold any education activities for our county because we were still in the dark (on) how everything was going to work. We didn't feel knowledgeable enough to educate someone else when we didn't feel real educated about the project." In the county that took a more proactive approach to educate custodial parents, they report that "most questions could be answered by staff. Those questioning seemed to grasp the concepts well." Finally, it should be noted that no respondent ­ from DCS or the pilot counties ­ provided any detailed information listing the educational activities undertaken, the duration and frequency of the activities, and the personnel and non-personnel costs associated with educating custodial parents. 9. Overall Satisfaction with New Payment Systems The next to last section of the Process Evaluation Survey dealt with the overall satisfaction of the new system, including questions on the level of improvement in operating unit internal business processes. Overall satisfaction with the direct deposit system is high. All respondents are either satisfied or very satisfied. An DCS respondent reports that the "majority of participants on direct deposit have few problems, a lot of

65

convenience and no lost or stolen warrants." A county employee reinforces the impression of a high degree of satisfaction with the system by stating that "as the project continues to grow, our supply needs and postage expense continue to drop." In terms of improving internal business processes, only one county believes that the direct deposit system substantially improved internal business processes, stating that "staff has increased speed in posting of payments, adjustments and modifications." Most other respondents report no significant change, or somewhat improved business processes. But one county believes that their business processes have "somewhat worsened." They report that "it is harder to keep up with the bank changes of all of the parents. There are a lot more steps when a direct deposit comes back from the bank then when it was a check." Overall satisfaction with the debit card is split, but substantially lower than for the direct deposit system. No person responded that they were very satisfied. Though two respondents at DCS and one at the county level said they were somewhat satisfied. On the other hand, one person responded that they were somewhat dissatisfied and two persons responded that they were very dissatisfied. This very low level of satisfaction was shared at DCS and at the county level. Most complaints with the system are due to a perceived lack of coordination by the state with the counties, and the poor customer service especially from the vendor. The following statements provide an informative picture of the discontent with the Hoosier Works debit card: "I feel the counties and parents were forced on a system unwillingly. We were told this is our only choice and to live with it. The parents don't feel it is fair they have to

66

use their child support money to pay fees. When they received a check there were no fees. The credit card company (now JP Morgan) is very rude. When someone moves, JP Morgan is telling the custodial parent their card has been reported lost or stolen when they are holding their card in their hand. It takes four days from the post date to get their money when a check only took three days." County employee survey question response.

"There are always problems. Customer service problems, address problems, and over all account problems." DCS employee survey question response.

On the question of whether the Hoosier Works card has improved internal business processes, the respondents are also split. Some people reported that business processes are somewhat improved, with one county responding that their business processes have been "very much improved." This is the same county that reported substantial improvement from the direct deposit system as well. Other respondents reported that their business processes have significantly worsened, complaining that "since the money is sent from an outside company we have no control over the processing of the money which makes it very difficult to help parents. When the money was sent out from the county we were able to track payment better. Another respondent that reported their business processes' worsening significantly confirmed the confusion in the customer service system. "When there's a problem,"

67

according to the respondent, "we have to email our contact person, they mail their contact person and we wait for a response so we can respond." 10. Specific Suggestions for Future Projects The final section asked participants to provide specific suggestions on how the planning, design, development, testing, and implementation phases of future child support electronic disbursement projects, or similar e-government projects, can be improved in the future. The survey respondents provided some helpful suggestions. Several suggestions focused on improving customer service throughout the planning, design and implementation stages. "I would plan on using a financial institution that has an in state customer service center instead of in India because it is difficult to understand some of the representatives. It (the customer service center) also needs to be more customer service friendly." Another respondent suggested that DCS "should have made sure KIDS line (CSB Inquiry) staff were more prepared to answer questions. Also, should have made sure vendor's customer service reps could answer questions accurately." It is also suggested that in future projects operational staff responsible for implementation be more included in the planning and design process. For example, one person recommended to "include the staff that will do the work in the planning." Another respondent stated to "continue to include the local level in all aspects of the objective being obtained. We may have more insight on how things will or won't work." Finally, it was suggested that future projects should be more scaleable. "Future child support electronic disbursement projects will require a new format and plan of action. There is no ability to expand the entire current process to a statewide system."

68

In the design stage it was suggested that the system should be designed to be very user friendly, even if some other things are sacrificed. Specifically, "frustration occurs when the design is complicated. Move toward a windows type format so information can easily be retrieved and formatted for other users. In addition, the designers "should have added a notes screen to CDA screen," and they "should have planned to send notification to vendor when CDA was closed because CP sent back info to send money to their checking/savings account." Moreover, the lack of a user friendly design coupled with "no instructions" in one respondents view has resulted in substantial frustration with the system. "The frustration of absolutely no instructions irritates to no end. We realize at the local level that a single answer does not work for everything. Yet if we were given written instructions on how the system is to work, data entry etc., we may be able to solve problems here versus having to call the help desk. The help desk needs to be more helpful - Trained in these processes and more communicative."

69

APPENDIX A: TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS IN CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

70

Technological Innovations in Child Support Enforcement: A General Overview and State Highlights

Helen Robinson SPEA MPA Candidate

This manuscript was produced under the supervision of Dr. Maureen Pirog in fulfillment of V580, Research in Public Affairs. July 30, 2004

71

Summary The child support enforcement program in the United States currently utilizes a variety of information technology-related tools and automated systems to manage an ever-increasing caseload. The federal government and state agencies have taken great strides in recent years to develop innovative solutions to creating a more efficient and effective system, including: the electronic payment and distribution of support, automated updating of support orders, on-line service provision to those paying and receiving support, data analysis, and automated enforcement measures. This paper provides background information on the development of federal requirements for the use of automated systems by the states, highlights some of the most innovative state programs, and discusses the child support enforcement program within the general "e-government" framework. Background The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), within the US Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families, administers the federal child support program. While state governments collect and disburse payments for clients, the OCSE plays a critical role in the process by funding about 2/3rds of the administrative costs of the program, establishing policies for the states to follow, and providing technical assistance to and monitoring of the progress of state agencies.1 In recent years, the federal government has increased the level and complexity of requirements that state programs must meet, but states have retained some autonomy in deciding how to meet the proscribed goals.2 One particular area in which federal requirements have grown is in the use of information technology and automated

Ashby, Cornelia M. 2004. "Better Data and More Information on Undistributed Collections Are Needed: GAO Reports, GAO-04-377." United States General Accounting Office. Accessed 6/21/2004. http://web.lexisnexis.com. 2 Crowley, Jocelyn. 2003. The Politics of Child Support in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1

72

systems to improve program results. As with many other areas of government services, the federal government has increasingly viewed automation as being "a critical tool in addressing the rapidly growing caseloads and increasing costs" in the child support enforcement program.3 The sheer size of the program, and its potential to continue to grow, has convinced Congress of the importance of encouraging the use of automated systems to increase efficiency and effectiveness within the area of child support enforcement.4 Federal requirements regarding the use of technology to improve child support collection began with the Family Support Act of 1988, in which Congress mandated that every state build child support enforcement programs that utilized information systems to help locate noncustodial parents, to establish paternity and to collect and disburse support payments.5 The federal government required the systems to be in place by an extended deadline of 1997. At the time that the deadline passed, eight states (including Indiana) did not have systems ready and were assessed fines.6 According to a General Accounting Office (GAO) report in 1997, problems and delay in the implementation of the new systems arose from the OCSE's failure to set specific systems requirements for states to follow, as well as from the fact that "many states attempted to transfer systems that were incomplete and/or otherwise incompatible" from other states for their own

Willemssen, Joel C. 1997. "Child Support Enforcement: Leadership Essential to Implementing Effective Automated Systems." Testimony on behalf of the US General Accounting Office to the Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. GAO/T-AIMD-97-162. Pg. 2. Accessed 6/21/04. http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ai97162t.pdf 4 Sorensen, Elaine and Helen Oliver. 2002. Child Support Reforms in PRWORA: Initial Impacts. The Urban Institute. Accessed 7/1/04. http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410421 5 Newcombe, Tod. 2001. "Family Values: After millions of dollars and years of effort, the federal government and states appear to be winning the war against deadbeat parents. Technology has proven pivotal in the struggle." Government Technology. Accessed 6/17/04. http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.print.php?id=3563 6 Ibid.

3

73

use.7 (In 1986, OCSE established a policy requiring states using federal matching funds to transfer existing automated systems from other states rather than develop new ones8.) Despite these start-up problems, the benefits reported by states that successfully implemented systems included an improved ability to locate noncustodial parents through the use of automated systems to interface with other state and federal databases, improved tracking of paternity establishment efforts and enforcement actions, an increase in payments collected, and a decrease in the amount of time it took to process those payments.9 Many states, though, underestimated the costs and time required for developing the new systems, and the report discusses the need for a "nationwide perspective in which trends could be assessed and best practices and lessons learned could be shared" before state systems could reach their full potential. 10 In addition to establishing requirements, the federal government provided a majority of the funding for the new state technology initiatives. From the 1980s until 2001, the federal government covered 80-90 percent of approved expenditures by the states to develop or improve their information systems.11 According to the US House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means' policy Green Book, "Congress decided to pay this enhanced match rate because data management, the construction of large data bases containing information on location, income,

Willemssen, Joel C. 1997. "Child Support Enforcement: Leadership Essential to Implementing Effective Automated Systems." Testimony on behalf of the US General Accounting Office to the Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. GAO/T-AIMD-97-162. Pg. 4. Accessed 6/21/04. http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ai97162t.pdf 8 US House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, "Child Support Enforcement Program." Section 8: 2004 Green Book: Accessed 6/21/04. http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Documents.asp?section=813 9 Willemssen, Joel C. 1997. "Child Support Enforcement: Leadership Essential to Implementing Effective Automated Systems." Testimony on behalf of the US General Accounting Office to the Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. GAO/T-AIMD-97-162. Accessed 6/21/04. http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ai97162t.pdf 10 Ibid. Pg. 5. 11 US House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, "Child Support Enforcement Program." Section 8: 2004 Green Book: Accessed 6/21/04. http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Documents.asp?section=813

7

74

and assets of child support obligors, and computer access to and manipulation of such large data bases were seen as the keys to a cost effective child support system."12 New Requirements under PRWORA The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), which overhauled the Aid to Families and Dependent Children program, included additional requirements for the use of technology in the child support enforcement program. Child support enforcement policy has been linked to the issue of "welfare reform" programs since the 1970s, when child support collections were intended to reimburse the state for welfare expenditures to single mothers (although non-welfare families now represent the majority of clients in the program.)13 PRWORA required the use of technological innovations to improve collections, including initiating new databases and processes at the federal level while also requiring states to utilize streamlined, automated systems to locate noncustodial parents, search for their financial assets and more efficiently disburse payments. Compliance with the measures was a requirement for states to receive full funding through the new Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants. In order to streamline processes across localities and among states, PRWORA required states to centralize their enforcement efforts and to "use automated procedures, electronic processes, and computer-driven technology to the maximum extent feasible".14 Under the Act, states were required to have statewide automated data processing and information retrieval systems that performed a variety of functions "including controlling and accounting for the use

12 13

Ibid. Pg. 8-55. Crowley, Jocelyn. 2003. The Politics of Child Support in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 14 US House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, "Child Support Enforcement Program." Section 8: 2004 Green Book. Pg. 8-51. Accessed 6/21/04. http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Documents.asp?section=813

75

of Federal, State and local funds and maintaining the data necessary to meet Federal reporting requirements" by October 2000.15 These systems must contain automated records for each child support case within the state in which government services are being provided and for each child support order established or modified after October 1, 1998.16 States are also required to operate a centralized "collection and disbursement unit" to provide employers and noncustodial parents with one location to send payments regardless of which locality within the state they resided in, and which can send child support payments to custodial parents within 2 business days after receipt.17 The centralized disbursement unit could either replace local units entirely or be created by linking local units through an automated information network.18 The systems were also required to have automated procedures to monitor missed payments and to initiate enforcement procedures. One enforcement measure, the automatic withholding of ordered child support from the paychecks of noncustodial parents, represented 65% of total child support collections in 2002.19 To further improve the states' abilities to withhold payments through this highly effective method, PRWORA required the states to create automated directories that allow them to track when noncustodial parents become employed at new jobs. Employers are required by law to forward W-4 forms to the state when a new employee is hired.20 By a deadline of October 1, 1997, PRWORA required states to establish an automated directory of this information for the purposes of conducting comparisons of the Social Security Numbers of noncustodial parents

15 16

Ibid. Pg. 8-54. Ibid. 17 Ibid. Pg. 8-14. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Crowley, Jocelyn. 2003. The Politics of Child Support in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

76

with new hires.21 Also, a national directory of new hires and a federal case registry were created for interstate use. A 2002 Texas study showed that the National Directory of New Hires data is "valuable, timely and, if used effectively, can produce dramatic results in a short time" in helping states to improve collections.22 In order to improve the states' abilities to locate the financial assets of noncustodial parents, PRWORA also included a requirement that states enter into agreements with financial institutions conducting business within their State to conduct quarterly data matches. These automated matches can lead to the discovery of previously undeclared assets that can be frozen or seized for child support arrears.23 In addition, the states can conduct data matches with multistate financial institutions via the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS). The FPLS is a data management system that contains records from several federal sources, including the Selective Service System, the IRS, and the Social Security Administration.24 The federal government runs regular data matches through this system to help states establish parentage, enforce support, and locate parents and assets. Current Federal Funding

21

US House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, "Child Support Enforcement Program." Section 8: 2004 Green Book: Accessed 6/21/04. http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Documents.asp?section=813 22 "Accuracy of Data Maintained by the National Directory of New Hires and the Effectiveness of Security Procedures: Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance." 2002. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, The Office of Child Support Enforcement. Accessed 7/1/04: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/reports/ndnh_data_accuracy.html 23 US House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, "Child Support Enforcement Program." Section 8: 2004 Green Book: Accessed 6/21/04. http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Documents.asp?section=813 24 Crowley, Jocelyn. 2003. The Politics of Child Support in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

77

As of March 2003, 21 jurisdictions were certified as meeting the PRWORA automated systems requirements (including Indiana) and 30 jurisdictions had a review scheduled.25 To assist the states in meeting the new requirements, PRWORA set aside 1 percent of the federal share of government-retained child support collections for technical assistance to states (including assistance related to automated systems) and research or demonstration projects that could improve methods across states.26 In addition, 2 percent of the federal share of retained child support collections is set aside for the operation of the Federal Parent Locator Service.27 Beginning in October 2001, federal funding for child support enforcement automated systems development and improvement has been available at a 66 percent matching rate for states.28 The Effectiveness of Automation The overall progress of the states in improving child support collections since the enactment of PRWORA is mixed. While the program continues to collect increasingly larger amounts of money over the years, the overall rate of collections is not increasing due to the growing number of families being served and various demographic trends within the clientele.29 In addition, in the year 2000, states collectively lost money in operating the program.30 There are indicators, though, that automation and the use of technology can improve the performance of child support programs. For example, a 1996 study by Pirog and Brown found that computerization can reduce calculation errors when CSE staff are determining award

25

US House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, "Child Support Enforcement Program." Section 8: 2004 Green Book: Accessed 6/21/04. http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Documents.asp?section=813 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Kilaen, Skye. 2003. "Child Support Enforcement: Results, Challenges, and Policy Issues." LBJ Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. XV, pp.65-75. 30 Ibid.

78

amounts based on state guidelines.31 In addition, a study conducted by Sorensen and Oliver found that automated systems implemented prior to the PRWORA changes increased the chances that children with orders would receive support.32 This study also found that the new hire directories (which utilize automated systems) were one of the most effective factors in improving enforcement under the PWRORA changes.33 Finally, in a 2000 study of six centralized state disbursement units, the US Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General found that the one of the most important factors in improving collections was the use of electronic payment and automatic withdrawal of funds from the accounts of employers or noncustodial parents.34 Another advantage of implementing automated systems like electronic funds transfers to receive and distribute payments, is that they can reduce administrative costs to states. The electronic distribution of funds "reduces many processing costs and requires limited manual intervention"35. In Iowa, officials predicted a savings to the state and federal government of about $35,000 a month by utilizing electronic funds transfers, and officials in Texas reported a savings of $1.34 per transaction by using direct deposit instead of mailing checks (a savings of over $300,000 a month.)36 In addition, in 2000, Texas created an automated method of issuing refunds to noncustodial parents who had overpaid, which saved staff time and allowed them to

31

Pirog, Maureen A., and Patricia R. Brown. 1996. "Accuracy and Ambiguity in the Application of State Child Support Guidelines." Family Relations. 45(1): 3-10. Accessed 7/1/04. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=9603150870&db=afh 32 Sorensen, Elaine and Helen Oliver. 2002. Child Support Reforms in PRWORA: Initial Impacts. The Urban Institute. Accessed 7/1/04. http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410421 33 Ibid. 34 Brown, June Gibbs, Inspector General. 2000. "Child Support Enforcement State Disbursement Units: Sharing the Implementation Experiences of Six States." US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General; OEI-06-00-00041. Accessed 6/21/04. http://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-06-00-00041.pdf 35 Ashby, Cornelia M. 2004. "Better Data and More Information on Undistributed Collections Are Needed: GAO Reports, GAO-04-377." United States General Accounting Office. Accessed 6/21/2004. http://web.lexis-nexis.com 36 Ibid.

79

send the refunds more quickly.37 A priority funding area for OCSE in 2002 was to "increase the rate of cases with collections through better use of automation" and OCSE actively encouraged the use of electronic funds transfer to meet this goal.38 The National Automated Clearinghouse Association (NACHA), a trade association that promotes electronic payments, established a Task Force on Electronic Child Support Payments in 2002 to assist OCSE by developing a publication for state agency employees and private employers to use when implementing and using electronic payment systems.39 Some evidence also demonstrates that new automated systems are addressing the significant problem of undistributed child support collections. In 2002, OCSE reported that $657 million in child support collections were delayed or never distributed by state agencies.40 OCSE began targeting grants to demonstration projects aimed at reducing undistributed collections (Indiana received two grants in 2002.)41 A 2004 GAO report on undistributed collections found that the "increased use of electronic processes for receiving and distributing funds reduced the amount of undistributed collections because fewer collections had missing or inaccurate information".42 According to the report, 37 states reported using direct deposit to distribute child support payments to custodial parents, and 9 states reported making deposits to state-issued debit cards. By utilizing these methods, undistributed collections due to checks being mailed to invalid addresses or to lost checks were reduced.43

37 38

Ibid. Ibid. Pg. 11. 39 Report available at http://ecsp.nacha.org/ 40 Ashby, Cornelia M. 2004. "Better Data and More Information on Undistributed Collections Are Needed: GAO Reports, GAO-04-377." United States General Accounting Office. Accessed 6/21/2004. http://web.lexis-nexis.com 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. Pg. 3. 43 Ibid.

80

A report issued in 2002 by Policy Studies, Inc. for OCSE, based on the experiences of 11 states with the largest child support caseloads, provides recommendations in the areas of undistributed collections and the processing of interstate payments (for when the custodial and noncustodial parents reside in different states).44 This report recommends that states use electronic funds transactions to transmit payments between states and develop automated reports to track undistributed collections. The report also found that automation of the process of locating custodial parents and increased automation of the process to prepare and send refunds to noncustodial parents increases staff productivity. (In this report, Texas was cited as a model state for best practices in managing undistributed collections.) The report further suggests creating Internet applications for communication among state agencies and the development of a national web site for the public to search for undistributed collections owed to them.45 Another area in which automated systems are being explored is the updating of child support orders. Under PRWORA, states must review orders every three years when there is a request of either parent or the state agency, with the option of using cost of living adjustments to automatically alter order amounts or the option of identifying orders eligible for review and adjustment based on financial records. Four states (Alaska, Maine, Oklahoma and Vermont) have received grants from OCSE to experiment with automated review of orders, by matching current child support orders against computerized state tax or wage data to determine if an adjustment is warranted.46 The Challenges of Automation

44

"Managing Undistributed Collections and Improving Interstate Payment Disbursement: Final Report." 2002. Prepared by Policy Studies, Inc. for USDHHS, ACF, OCSE. Accessed 7/13/04. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/reports/managing_udc.doc 45 Ibid. 46 "Automated Cost-of-Living Adjustments of Child Support Orders in Three States: Final Report." 2001. Office of Child Support Enforcement. Accessed 7/1/2004. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/reports/cola/pr01.html

81

The use of automated systems introduces new management issues that must be addressed by OCSE and the state agencies. A 2002 OCSE report outlines the importance of verifying the accuracy of data used in automated systems to ensure effectiveness. It also stresses the need to maintain a security plan that protects the confidentiality of data, restricts access to the data to authorized staff, and includes periodic risk assessments of state-run data systems.47 Some states have experienced start up problems when implementing new automated systems. Switching from local disbursement units to consolidated payment centers resulted in late checks for clients in some states, and many state mainframe systems are outdated, making it difficult to overlay web features on the existing databases.48 In addition, there can be problems interfacing with other government agencies. In the 2004 GAO report mentioned above, Florida officials stated that 50 percent of its $28 million in undistributed collections was due to difficulty in determining what percentage of those collections was owed to the government for the reimbursement of welfare expenditures. This was caused by both "data inaccuracies due to the conversion of cases from the former statewide system to the state agency's new automated system" and "difficulties exchanging information between the automated systems of the child support agency processing the payments and the TANF agency".49 In the report, 28 of 51 state agencies surveyed reported problems exchanging automated information with TANF agencies.50

47

"Accuracy of Data Maintained by the National Directory of New Hires and the Effectiveness of Security Procedures: Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance." 2002. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, The Office of Child Support Enforcement. Accessed 7/1/04: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/reports/ndnh_data_accuracy.html 48 Newcombe, Tod. 2001. "Family Values: After millions of dollars and years of effort, the federal government and states appear to be winning the war against deadbeat parents. Technology has proven pivotal in the struggle." Government Technology. Accessed 6/17/04. http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.print.php?id=3563 49 Ashby, Cornelia M. 2004. "Better Data and More Information on Undistributed Collections Are Needed: GAO Reports, GAO-04-377." United States General Accounting Office. Pg. 7. Accessed 6/21/2004. http://web.lexisnexis.com 50 Ashby, Cornelia M. 2004. "Better Data and More Information on Undistributed Collections Are Needed: GAO Reports, GAO-04-377." United States General Accounting Office. Accessed 6/21/2004. http://web.lexis-nexis.com

82

In order to address these challenges, greater assistance from the federal government may be necessary. A 2003 overview of state progress in child support enforcement found that a greater investment is needed in technology for states to successfully implement the best automated systems, and that the federal government must continue to assist the states in building the necessary technological infrastructure.51 State Highlights The OCSE publishes an annual report of state agency `best practices', in order to provide guidance to other states regarding effective innovations. The reports from the last three years contain many references to technological innovations in a variety of areas that can be placed under the general categories of: e-payments and electronic funds transfers, linking to other entities via the Internet, providing on-line services, data imaging and analysis, and automated adjustment and enforcement mechanisms. The following are examples of some of the states' technological innovations in these areas, which have led to decreased costs of service delivery, greater convenience for clients, and improved collections. E-payment and Electronic Funds Transfers A unique feature in the state of Iowa's program is that it mandated the use of electronic child support payments in 2003. If clients do not have checking accounts to receive payments through direct deposit, then they must use a state-issued debit card that can be used to make purchases or withdraw cash. Clients receive one free ATM withdrawal a month with the card, and they no longer are faced with paying check cashing fees. About 45,000 custodial parents

51

. Kilaen, Skye. 2003. "Child Support Enforcement: Results, Challenges, and Policy Issues." LBJ Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. XV, pp.65-75.

83

receive benefits through the cards, and Iowa reports a savings of over $400,000 a year in postage and staff time saved tracking down lost or stolen checks.52 In Idaho, clients have the option of having child support payments direct deposited into their checking or savings accounts or to a debit card that is issued by the state, which is the same debit card used to issue food stamps. The payments are direct deposited within 48 hours of receipt, and a quarterly notice is sent to the custodial parent detailing the deposit history. With this system, vendors charge an $.85 fee per use of the card, but payments are no longer lost in the mail. In addition, direct deposit clients no longer have to wait for banks to open to cash checks.53 Following this trend, in 2002, Illinois reached a goal of 30% of its total payments being processed electronically.54 In Colorado, 35% of payments are made through direct deposit and about 5% are made through state-issued debit cards. The Colorado debit cards can be applied for over the internet and can be used anywhere VISA is accepted, which helps clients without private checking accounts operate in the mainstream commercial world.55 In addition to electronically depositing support payments for custodial parents, some state systems allow those making the payments to use electronic methods. For example, in Florida, noncustodial parents and employers may make child support payments with either credit cards or electronic checks online.56 In Rhode Island, noncustodial parents may make payments through

"Iowa Mandates Electronic Child Support Payments." 24 December 2003. ATM Marketplace.com, Accessed 6/7/04. www.atmmarketplace.com/news_printable.htm?id=17802 53 US Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families Office of Child Support Enforcement, Compendium of State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement 2002. Accessed 7/1/04. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/best/ 54 US Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families Office of Child Support Enforcement, Compendium of State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement 2003. Accessed 7/1/04. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/IM/2004/im-04-03b.doc 55 Ibid. 56 "MyFloridaCounty.com Adds Child-Support Payment Services." December 4, 2002. Government Technology. Accessed 6/17/04. [http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.php?id=32306]

52

84

any Western Union, for a service fee, and the funds are then electronically transferred to the state.57 Linking to other Entities via the Internet Some state systems have begun electronically linking their databases with other government agencies to improve collections. Washington State, which achieved the first federally certified state automated system, increased collections by $50 million in 2001 by electronically linking to other state agencies to pursue enforcement initiatives. For example, the child support agency linked with the department of motor vehicles to automatically move to suspend the drivers' licenses of noncustodial parents with arrears.58 As another example, Kentucky electronically links its past-due cases with the state revenue department's computerized files for the purposes of seizing assets and placing liens against property - a program which cost about $200,000 to implement.59 In addition, to decrease the problem of lost checks, Illinois links its files with US Postal Service technology to automatically update addresses of custodial parents.60 Other state systems have found methods for linking their databases with private companies. In Massachusetts, state law requires insurance companies to register on a secure web site and enter the social security number of all claimants before paying out claims. The SSN is automatically matched against the database of noncustodial parents, and if unpaid child support

"Rhode Island Makes Child Support Payments More Convenient." October 29, 2002. Government Technology. Accessed 6/17/04. [http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.php?id=28198] 58 Newcombe, Tod. 2001. "Family Values: After millions of dollars and years of effort, the federal government and states appear to be winning the war against deadbeat parents. Technology has proven pivotal in the struggle." Government Technology. Accessed 6/17/04. http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.print.php?id=3563 59 "Automated Effort Speeds Child Support Payments." February 18, 2004. Government Technology. Accessed 6/17/04. www.govtech.net/news/story.print.php?id=89377 60 US Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families Office of Child Support Enforcement, Compendium of State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement 2003. Accessed 7/1/04. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/IM/2004/im-04-03b.doc

57

85

is owed, an on-line notice is generated that requires the insurance company to send the amount owed to the department of revenue.61 Also, the state of Texas entered into a contract with a company to electronically interface with over 2,000 private employers' payroll records in order to more quickly start or update income withholding measures.62 Texas also has an automated process for issuing new wage withholding orders to employers when circumstances of cases change.63 Providing On-line Services Many state agencies have recognized the benefits of developing web sites and online services that save staff time and provide more convenient services to clients. The New Mexico child support agency has a user-friendly web site, which is linked to its mainframe database, to offer many services to clients. Clients can apply for child support services, inquire about the status of payments, view payment history, provide address updates, provide leads for locating noncustodial parents, have payments automatically deposited into their accounts, and make electronic payments all on-line. Unlike call centers, the site is available 24 hours a day and frees up staff time.64 There is a clear privacy policy regarding who can register for access to case information, and the state has launched a marketing campaign to drive more users to the site.65

US Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families Office of Child Support Enforcement, Compendium of State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement 2001. Accessed 7/1/04. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2001/best/ 62 US Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families Office of Child Support Enforcement, Compendium of State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement 2003. Accessed 7/1/04. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/IM/2004/im-04-03b.doc 63 Ashby, Cornelia M. 2004. "Better Data and More Information on Undistributed Collections Are Needed: GAO Reports, GAO-04-377." United States General Accounting Office. Accessed 6/21/2004. http://web.lexis-nexis.com 64 US Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families Office of Child Support Enforcement, Compendium of State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement 2001. Accessed 7/1/04. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2001/best/ 65 Newcombe, Tod. 2002. "Electronic Empowerment: Growing child support caseloads and fewer resources has led some states to begin using the Internet for service delivery and case management." Government Technology. Accessed 6/17/04. http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.print.php?id=8079

61

86

Virginia also offers an interactive web application that provides for the direct deposit of child support payments, answers to routine questions, real time information on payments, and court dates. In addition the system creates reports for staff that categorizes the causes of undistributed collections66 One local agency in Pennsylvania has a web site that lists outstanding warrants for delinquent noncustodial parents and allows the public to make anonymous email tips regarding their whereabouts. In addition, it provides legal forms online for clients.67 To ease the process of income withholding, Iowa offers employers a web site through which they can complete online forms and report new hires.68 In Michigan, the state can automatically debit a company's bank account for employee income withholding through its web site, which saves the employers' time and money.69 In Washington, employers may also pay their employees' withheld income on-line, with the option of paying multiple cases at one time, and the payments are processed in the same day (there is a demonstration site for this service at: www.childsupportpayment.dshs.wa.gov ).70 Data Imaging and Analysis In addition to improving services for clients, many state agencies are also utilizing new technologies to improve the internal processes of managing child support cases. These new

US Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families Office of Child Support Enforcement, Compendium of State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement 2002. Accessed 7/1/04. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/best/ 67 US Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families Office of Child Support Enforcement, Compendium of State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement 2003. Accessed 7/1/04. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/IM/2004/im-04-03b.doc 68 US Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families Office of Child Support Enforcement, Compendium of State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement 2002. Accessed 7/1/04. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/best/ 69 Newcombe, Tod. 2002. "Electronic Empowerment: Growing child support caseloads and fewer resources has led some states to begin using the Internet for service delivery and case management." Government Technology. Accessed 6/17/04. http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.print.php?id=8079 70 " Washington DSHS Child Support Web Site Wins Digital Award." February 7, 2003. Government Technology. Accessed 6/17/04. www.govtech.net/news/story.print/php?id=40098

66

87

methods include creating electronic files, producing automated reports and conducting data analysis. South Dakota operates a "Windows" system that captures scanned images of payments and related documents to allow staff to process payments more efficiently than with bulky paper files.71 In Washington, all case correspondence is imaged, so that documents can be accessed more quickly and can be made available statewide. The system also leads to fewer missing documents.72 In addition, the Washington system contains software that produces e-reports to measure staff productivity and the success of new measures.73 Illinois operates an intranet for staff to view changes in policies and to access process maps and decision trees, which outline what steps should be taken in specific situations to achieve desired outcomes.74 Also, New York's system creates automatic reports of cases that do not include medical support provisions for children, so that staff can pursue obtaining medical support orders.75 The Texas system provides staff with statistical analysis of data via the intranet that allows them to create profiles, reports and work lists.76 New Mexico utilizes data analysis to monitor employer compliance with new hire reporting. An automated system produces in depth reports using quarterly wage data provided

Jones, Miriam. October 2003. "South Dakota Upgrades Child Support Payment System." Government Technology. Accessed 6/17/04. http://www.govtech.net/news/story.print/php?id=73178 72 US Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families Office of Child Support Enforcement, Compendium of State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement 2003. Accessed 7/1/04. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/IM/2004/im-04-03b.doc 73 Ibid. 74 US Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families Office of Child Support Enforcement, Compendium of State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement 2002. Accessed 7/1/04. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/best/ 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid.

71

88

by the State Employment Security Agency and Department of Labor to identify employers who are not reporting new hires.77 New technologies are also being used to assist in interstate cases. In order to assist other states in locating parents within West Virginia, that state operates an interstate paternity database on a secure web site so that other states can quickly access birth indexes to make paternity determinations.78 Also, Ohio operates a central paternity registry that has automated 11 years worth of vital statistics birth certificate information and made it available online.79 Automated Adjustment and Enforcement Mechanisms To help streamline the work of agency staff, some states are utilizing automated systems to implement enforcement measures and to adjust support orders. Colorado has implemented a system that provides a "one stop shop" for staff to see the big picture of the paying behavior of obligors and the status of enforcement actions over time. Staff can view all orders and enforcement actions on one screen, with payments displayed in real time. The system lists enforcement remedies for each particular case, and it automatically provides reports on overdue payments to consumer reporting agencies. The system also automatically recalculates monthly amounts due and compares them with the available income of obligors.80 In addition, Virginia is testing a program that calculates child support orders based on state guidelines and the

US Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families Office of Child Support Enforcement, Compendium of State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement 2003. Accessed 7/1/04. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/IM/2004/im-04-03b.doc 78 US Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families Office of Child Support Enforcement, Compendium of State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement 2002. Accessed 7/1/04. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/best/ 79 US Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families Office of Child Support Enforcement, Compendium of State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement 2001. Accessed 7/1/04. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2001/best/ 80 US Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families Office of Child Support Enforcement, Compendium of State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement 2002. Accessed 7/1/04. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/best/

77

89

noncustodial parent's quarterly income data ­ then compares this with the existing order and reports the difference for potential adjustment81 E-Government The child support enforcement program in the US is actively responding a call being heard across all government programs to utilize technology to provide more effective and efficient services to the public. This trend, known as "e-government", can be defined as "the use of electronic information to improve performance, create value, and enable new relationships between governments, business, and citizens."82 Many pressures are pushing the e-government movement forward, including increased demand from citizens for quick, accessible services and information brought on by the expansion of the Internet in the private sector; continued demand for the downsizing of government payrolls and budgets; and the demand from elected officials for improved customer service and better results from public agencies.83 Currently, the federal and local governments utilize web technology to provide services in several areas, including information and document access, online databases, communication, paperless files, and e-commerce applications.84 "E-commerce" in government can be defined as "any process or transaction conducted by a government organization over a computer-mediated network that transfers ownership of, or rights to use, goods, services, or information", including

US Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families Office of Child Support Enforcement, Compendium of State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement 2003. Accessed 7/1/04. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/IM/2004/im-04-03b.doc 82 Abramson, Mark A. and Grady E. Means, eds. E-Government 2001. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Pg. 2. 83 Ibid. 84 Stowers, Genie N.L. 2001. "Commerce Comes to Government on the Desktop: E-Commerce Applications in the Public Sector." E-Government 2001. Mark A. Abramson and Grady E. Means, eds. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Pgs. 44-84.

81

90

electronic payments.85 The most common uses of e-commerce in government are state sales of licenses and permits and vehicle registration renewals, followed by the e-filing of taxes.86 The federal government has made many moves toward on-line services in recent years. In 1999, President Clinton issued a memorandum directing agencies to put forms for the top 500 government services on-line by December 2000.87 In addition, the federal government now operates "FirstGov.gov" (a portal service to provide access to US government services across departments and agencies), "Volunteer.gov" (a site linking citizens to volunteer opportunities at national parks and other federal facilites), "Recreation.gov" (providing citizens with links to national parks) as well as free tax filing on-line.88 A government agency's use of the web can be ranked in stages of development, ranging from (1) posting information on-line but providing no interactivity with the citizen, (2) posting information on-line and allowing citizens to communicate interactively through e-mail or discussion areas, and (3) providing 24/7 service delivery, which includes allowing for the filing of on-line forms, the accessing of on-line databases and the completion of on-line transactions.89 According to this hierarchy, it would appear that the child support enforcement program in the federal government and in many state agencies has achieved a relatively high level of web sophistication.

85

Stowers, Genie N.L. 2001. "Commerce Comes to Government on the Desktop: E-Commerce Applications in the Public Sector." E-Government 2001. Mark A. Abramson and Grady E. Means, eds. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Pg. 46. 86 Stowers, Genie N.L. 2001. "Commerce Comes to Government on the Desktop: E-Commerce Applications in the Public Sector." E-Government 2001. Mark A. Abramson and Grady E. Means, eds. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Pgs. 44-84. 87 Hiller, Janine S. and France Belanger. 2001. "Privacy Strategies for Electronic Government." E-Government 2001. Mark A. Abramson and Grady E. Means, eds. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Pgs. 162-198. 88 "E-government Strategy: implementing the President's management agenda for e-government." 2003. Executive Office of the President. Accessed 7/28/04. http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS36050 89 Ibid.

91

The Benefits of E-Government In a 2001 case study by Cohen and Eimicke, the government programs analyzed demonstrated that services delivered via the Internet were less expensive than those delivered inperson, and that they freed up staff time to devote to the more complex tasks in an organization.90 One case in the study was the State of Indiana's "Access Indiana" web site. Indiana used a private contractor to develop a comprehensive site to serve as a portal to access thousands of web pages and many government services, including filing income taxes and purchasing licenses. In a unique funding method, the private contractor is responsible for all costs, which they recoup through fees that are charged for utilizing approximately 5 percent of the on-line services.91 The child support enforcement program's use of shared databases presents an opportunity for greater efficiency in service delivery. Significant cost-savings in programs can be achieved through the "greater sharing of data within government and between government and private sectors" and agencies can "create efficiencies by reducing the need for multiple collections" of data from the same customer.92 In addition to cost savings, e-government initiatives can help achieve general policy outcomes in areas such as the social services, through sharing data more effectively across stakeholders and providing more information to potential clients.93 The Challenges of E-Government

90

Cohen, Steven and William Eimicke. 2001. "The Use of the Internet in Government Service Delivery." Mark A. Abramson and Grady E. Means, eds. E-Government 2001. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 91 Ibid. 92 "The E-Government Imperative." 2003. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) eGovernment Studies. Paris, France: OECD. 93 Ibid.

92

The public sector faces unique concerns when implementing new technologies. Specifically, government has an express responsibility to protect citizen privacy and to maintain citizen trust, and the federal government must ensure privacy standards are in effect in its own and in state and local government systems.94 This issue seems especially salient in the child support enforcement program, since personal information on noncustodial parents is stored across multiple linked databases. In addition, the government has a responsibility to taxpayers to analyze the costs and benefits of implementing new technologies. In the 2001 study by Cohen and Eimicke, a very small percentage of governments with well-developed web sites had collected data on the cost-benefit ratio of new technologies before implementing them.95 One potential pitfall of this lack of analysis would be to use web technology to create redundant points of access for citizens, which can increase rather than decrease the costs of service delivery.96 The study concluded that government agencies should hire experts to assist in the development and management of new technologies to ensure that they provide the greatest benefit.97 Finally, another unique concern for government agencies is the "digital divide." When providing services on-line, the government must ensure that citizens with less access to technology are not receiving inferior services.98 E-Government and Social Service Programs In addition to the child support enforcement program, other government social services programs are utilizing technology to improve outcomes. With resources shrinking and demand

94

Abramson, Mark A. and Grady E. Means, eds. 2001. E-Government 2001. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 95 Cohen, Steven and William Eimicke. 2001. "The Use of the Internet in Government Service Delivery." Mark A. Abramson and Grady E. Means, eds. E-Government 2001. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 96 Ibid. 97 Ibid. 98 Stowers, Genie N.L. 2001. "Commerce Comes to Government on the Desktop: E-Commerce Applications in the Public Sector." E-Government 2001. Mark A. Abramson and Grady E. Means, eds. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Pgs. 44-84.

93

rising for social services in many states, a major goal of the use of technology is to free up staff time and increase efficiency.99 An additional goal of many of these technologies is to provide clients with more convenient services and access to information to bring "greater dignity and respect to a process that often involves citizens in financial and personal crisis."100 For example, an increasing trend among social services agencies is the use of electronic benefits transfers to provide clients with quicker and more discrete access to food stamps, TANF funds, and refugee benefits.101 According to a 2001 Center for Digital Government survey, states that are considered leaders in the area of using technology for social service delivery include Washington, Kansas, Maine and Minnesota (and one state that has shown significant progress in recent years is Indiana.).102 The "Access Washington" home page offers citizens extensive information on employment and social services, a unique online training for foster parents, and an application that allows rural clients to meet with case workers via interactive videoconferencing.103 In addition, many systems are being developed to electronically screen clients for eligibility for services and to improve rates of participation in programs. For example, the US Department of Agriculture has developed a new web-based tool called "Step 1" to screen individuals for eligibility for food stamps and provide them with a monthly estimate of benefits. Local governments and nonprofit organizations can utilize the programs to save staff time and

Newcombe, Tod. 2002. "Automatic Solutions." Government Technology. Accessed 7/30/04. http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.print.php?id=8103 100 Patterson, Darby. 2001. "State of the Digital State." Government Technology. Accessed 7/30/04. http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.print.php?id=4971 101 Ibid. 102 Ibid. 103 Ibid.

99

94

attract more eligible families to the food stamp program.104 Also, the state of Pennsylvania has been recognized as one of the top states utilizing Internet technology in public assistance programs, through its creation of a single access point for all social service programs called "Compass" (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Application for Social Services.)105 The project began with a system to allow citizens to apply on-line for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and is being expanded to include food stamps, cash assistance, day care and mental health services applications. The system has resulted in a 35 percent increase since 2002 in the number of applications submitted for these services.106 In addition, Texas has a similar program called "STARS", that allows citizens to navigate the range of public assistance programs to learn what options are available to them prior to meeting with caseworkers.107 Another use of new technology in the social services fields is to track cases and analyze data. In 2001, Louisiana began a $4.7 million project to create a web-based child welfare system to provide caseworkers with electronic records and on-line data.108 In addition, in order to better target resources, Congress required the US Department of Housing and Urban Development to collect data on the homeless and to analyze patterns in their access of services.109 This meant that any agency receiving funding from HUD had to have an information system in place by 2004, and private software firms have developed a number of applications that are low-cost and preserve confidentiality to offer to agencies.110 In Massachusetts, a statewide web-based system

Holsclaw, Abby Hughes. 2003. "Cities Get Access to Food Stamp Tool." Government Technology. Accessed 7/30/04. http://www.govtech.net/news/story.print.php?id=57550 105 Brown, Justine K. 2003. "COMPASS Finds the Way." Government Technology. Accessed 7/30/04. http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.print.php?id=48264 106 Ibid. 107 Newcombe, Tod. 2002. "Automatic Solutions." Government Technology. Accessed 7/30/04. http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.print.php?id=8103 108 Ibid. 109 Newcombe, Tod. 2002. "Helping the Homeless." Government Technology. Accessed 7/30/04. http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.print.php?id=10385 110 Ibid.

104

95

is being implemented with a goal of including 90 percent of all publicly funded homeless shelters in the state in its data network.111 Finally, technology is being used to provide low-income or at-risk citizens with better access to the legal system. For example, in Pierce County, Washington, a kiosk in City Hall allows domestic violence victims to file a petition for a protection order.112 Also, in Colorado, citizens who cannot afford attorneys can file legal paperwork in domestic violence, wrongful evictions or small claims cases on-line through a self-help, touch-screen computer terminal at county courthouses.113 Conclusion The federal and state child support enforcement agencies have developed many innovative and effective technological solutions to improve the child support system in the US. Many of these innovations both make it easier for the agencies to pursue collections on behalf of needy children and make it easier for parents to pay and receive support. It appears that the next logical step in the process is to have the federal OCSE work to implement the `best practices' of model state programs across the country. This would include sharing with all state agencies the systems and technologies that have proven effective, as well as the realities of costs and staff requirements for operating the systems. In addition, when test programs prove to be unsuccessful or too costly, this information should be shared across the states.

Ibid. "Pierce County Opens First Domestic Violence Kiosk." 2004. Government Technology. Accessed 7/30/04. http://www.govtech.net/news/story.print.php?id=85599 113 Brown, Justine K. 2003. "Opening the Doors of Justice." Government Technology. Accessed 7/30/04. http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.print.php?id=79907

112

111

96

The state child support agencies should also strive to link with other initiatives to increase technology use in the social services fields within their own state governments. It appears that costs and benefits could be shared across various social service programs within states, such as the maintenance of databases, web sites and consultant fees. In summary, the child support enforcement program has made significant strides in leading the way toward utilizing egovernment in service delivery, and it is poised to make even greater progress through partnerships between the federal and state governments, across state governments, and across the various social service agencies within states.

97

APPENDIX B: CLIENT SATISFACTION SURVEY AND TEXT

98

DirectD Questionnaire

Item: speak Module: Front End Target: All respondents Question Text: Hello, this is {IWER} calling from Indiana University. May I please speak with {NAME}? 1 2 3 4 Proceed, this is NAME NAME comes to the phone New/alternate # given NAME not known, doesn't live here

Next Item: Item: intro_ls Module: Front End Target: All respondents Question Text: (Hello, my name is IWER). I am calling on behalf of the Indiana Child Support Bureau. We are conducting a study to evaluate the ways child support is distributed in Indiana. We understand that you currently are registered to receive child support from your child's noncustodial parent through the State of Indiana, and that you receive child support payments through {direct deposit/a Hoosier Works Child Support Card}. Is this correct? I would like to invite you to participate in this study by asking you a few questions about how you receive child support. This year the state of Indiana and three counties began to distribute child support by Direct Deposit or onto HW debit cards. We want to find out how you like the new way of getting child support as well as some information about you and your family.

1 2

Proceed Ineligible (VERIFY BEFORE CODING)

Next Item: If proceed, goto adult, else terminate interview

99

DirectD Questionnaire Item: adult Module: Front End Target: All respondents Question Text: Are you at least 18 years old? clarify if needed: our survey procedures require that I speak with an adult. 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: If yes, goto intro1, else terminate interview Item: rights Module: Front End Target: All respondents Question Text: Before we begin, let me tell you that this study is funded by the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement and was developed by Dr. Maureen Pirog, the codirector of the Institute for Family and Social Responsibility at Indiana University. Dr. Pirog is part of a research team evaluating the Child Support Bureau's distribution program for the State of Indiana. The data collected will be used for this evaluation and for scholarly research. The study is being conducted by the IU Center for Survey Research. Your participation in this study is totally voluntary and you may decline to participate without penalty. If you decide to participate, you may withdraw from the study at any time. If you withdraw from the study before data collection is completed, your data will be destroyed. Let me assure you that all your answers will be kept completely confidential. No identifying information will be connected to your individual responses. If there are any questions you don't feel comfortable answering, please let me know and we'll move on. The interview generally takes about 10 to 15 minutes, depending on your responses. If you need to go at any point, please let me know and we can finish later. Do you want to participate in this study?

Remember to read verbatim Next Item: terms1

100

DirectD Questionnaire Item: terms1 Module: Front End Target: All respondents Question Text: I understand that many families fail to receive child support because the parent without custody is either unwilling or unable to pay what the courts have determined; however, for this survey, I ask that you restrict your answers to how child support is paid when you do receive it. {I understand that you may have more than one child support case. For this interview, I'm going to be asking questions about the child support case which is administered by {COUNTY} county.}

Next Item: if R = Hoosier Works, goto terms2, else terms3 Item: terms2 Module: Front End Target: R has Hoosier Works Question Text: Since this survey is about child support payments, I may ask questions about the Child Support Hoosier Works card. The Child Support Hoosier Works card is different from the Hoosier Works card used for public aid and food stamps. It looks very similar, but is separate. For instance, an individual receiving both food stamps and child support through Hoosier Works cards, will actually have two cards. One will simply say Hoosier Works. The Child Support Hoosier Works card has a MasterCard logo.

Next Item: terms3

101

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q1intro Module: A Target: All respondents Question Text: I will begin by asking questions about your experiences receiving child support through the Indiana Child Support Bureau before {DATE}. {DATE} is when the Child Support Bureau changed how it distributed child support. Having background information about your experience with the old methods will help determine your satisfaction with the new way of distributing child support as well as how your banking practices may have changed as a result of the Child Support Bureau's program changes.

Next Item: q1a Item: q1a Module: A Target: All respondents Question Text: Before {DATE}, did you have: A CHECKING account? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q1b

102

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q1b Module: A Target: All respondents Question Text: Before {DATE}, did you have: A SAVINGS account? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q1c Item: q1c Module: A Target: All respondents Question Text: Before {DATE}, did you have: Any OTHER kind of account at a bank? 1 0 8 9 Yes/answered (ENTER TEXT) No DK RF

Next Item: If Q1a and Q1b and Q1c = no and/or DK/RF goto Q44, else goto Q2.

103

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q2 Module: B Target: Respondents with bank accounts Question Text: Before {DATE}, did you USUALLY deposit your child support check in your bank account, cash your child support check at your bank, cash your child support check at a different location, or ask a friend or relative to cash your child support check for you? 1 2 3 4 8 9 Deposit my child support check in my bank account Cash my child support check at my bank Cash my child support check at a different location Ask a friend or relative to cash my child support check for me DK RF

Next Item: if bank deposit goto Q3, any "cash" goto Q4, else goto Q7 Item: q3 Module: B Target: Respondents w/bank account who deposited CS checks Question Text: Before {DATE}, if you deposited your child support check in your bank account, would you USUALLY withdraw your child support from your bank account and store it elsewhere, store your child support in your bank account until it was needed, or do something else with it? 1 Withdraw my child support from my bank account and store it elsewhere 2 3 8 9 Store my child support in my bank account until it was needed Something else (ENTER TEXT) DK RF

Next Item: If withdraw goto Q4, else goto Q7

104

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q4 Module: B Target: Respondents w/bank account who withdrew or cashed CS Question Text: Once you {FILL: withdrew/cashed} your child support money, where did you keep it? Did you keep it at home, in your wallet or on your person, or somewhere else?

1 2 3 8 9

At home In my wallet or on my person Somewhere else (ENTER TEXT) DK RF

Next Item: If Q2=3 (R cashed check "somewhere else") goto Q5, else goto Q7a. Item: q5 Module: B Target: Respondents with bank accounts; Q2=3 Question Text: Next, I will read a list of locations where people can cash checks. Please tell me where you USUALLY cashed your child support check before your payment was changed to an electronic payment. Did you USUALLY cash your check at a bank where you did not have an account, your workplace, a check cashing or payday loan store, a supermarket, or a restaurant, bar, or another kind of store? 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 A bank where I did not have an account Workplace Check cashing or payday loan store Supermarket Restaurant, bar, or another kind of store None of these (VOL) DK RF

Next Item: Q6

105

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q6 Module: B Target: Respondents with bank accounts Question Text: Is there another location I did not mention where you USUALLY cashed your child support check before {DATE}? 1 0 8 9 Yes/answered (ENTER TEXT) No DK RF

Next Item: Q7a Item: q7a Module: B Target: Respondents with bank accounts UNLESS Q5=1 Question Text: I will now read a list of locations where people cash checks. As I read the list, please tell me if you EVER cashed your child support check at that location. Did you EVER cash your check at: A bank where you did not have an account? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q7b

106

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q7b Module: B Target: Respondents with bank accounts UNLESS Q5=2 Question Text: I will now read a list of locations where people cash checks. As I read the list, please tell me if you EVER cashed your child support check at that location. Did you EVER cash your check at: Your work place? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q7c Item: q7c Module: B Target: Respondents with bank accounts UNLESS Q5=3 Question Text: I will now read a list of locations where people cash checks. As I read the list, please tell me if you EVER cashed your child support check at that location. Did you EVER cash your check at: A check cashing or payday loan store? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q7d

107

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q7d Module: B Target: Respondents with bank accounts UNLESS Q5=4 Question Text: I will now read a list of locations where people cash checks. As I read the list, please tell me if you EVER cashed your child support check at that location. Did you EVER cash your check at: A supermarket? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q7e Item: q7e Module: B Target: Respondents with bank accounts UNLESS Q5=5 Question Text: I will now read a list of locations where people cash checks. As I read the list, please tell me if you EVER cashed your child support check at that location. Did you EVER cash your check at: A restaurant, bar, or any other kind of store? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q8

108

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q8 Module: B Target: Respondents with bank accounts Question Text: Is there a location I did not mention where you EVER cashed your child support check before {DATE}? 1 0 8 9 Yes/answered (ENTER TEXT) No DK RF

Next Item: Q9 Item: q9 Module: B Target: Respondents with bank accounts UNLESS Q2=1 Question Text: How much were you charged, on average, to CASH each child support check? ENTER AND CONFIRM # FROM 0 (NONE) TO 10 (10 DOLLARS OR MORE) PROBE IF NEEDED: "Even a rough estimate would be fine. Can you give me your best guess?" 0.00-10.00 98 99 DK RF

Next Item: Q10

109

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q10 Module: B Target: Respondents with bank accounts Question Text: On average, how much did you receive in each child support check? Enter and confirm # 1 to 1000 (1000 dollars or more) PROBE IF NEEDED: "Even a rough estimate would be fine. Can you give me your best guess?" Clarifier: We are only asking about child support that you received through the state or county. We are not asking about medical support payments or child support <0-1000> 9998 DK 9999 RF Next Item: Q11 Item: q11 Module: B Target: Respondents with bank accounts Question Text: Did you feel that your child support money was safe and secure in the location where you kept it? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q12

110

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q12 Module: B Target: Respondents with bank accounts Question Text: For the following questions, please think about your experiences with child support before {DATE} Did you have a debit card? Please keep in mind that when I say "debit card," I mean either a debit card or an ATM card. 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: If R has DD, goto c_intro (Module C); if R has HW, goto 53trans (Module G)

Item: c_intro Module: C Target: Rs with Direct Deposit Question Text: Now I am going to ask you questions that focus on your current situation, that is, now that you are receiving your child support electronically. Please think only about your experiences with direct deposit child support paid since {DATE}

Next Item: Q17

111

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q17 Module: C Target: R has Direct Deposit Question Text: Do you have a debit card now that is not a Hoosier Works Child Support debit card? CLARIFY IF NEEDED: "By 'debit card' I mean either a debit card or an ATM card. 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: q18 Item: q18a Module: C Target: R has Direct Deposit Question Text: Now that you receive child support through direct deposit, of the following, how do you withdraw your child support from your bank account? Do you do it: By writing checks? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q18b

112

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q18b Module: C Target: R has Direct Deposit Question Text: Now that you receive child support through direct deposit, of the following, how do you withdraw your child support from your bank account? Do you do it: In person at the bank? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: If q17=1 Q18c, else Q18f Item: q18c Module: C Target: q17=1 Question Text: Now that you receive child support through direct deposit, of the following, how do you withdraw your child support from your bank account? Do you do it: At an ATM? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q18d

113

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q18d Module: C Target: q17=1 Question Text: Now that you receive child support through direct deposit, of the following, how do you withdraw your child support from your bank account? Do you do it: By using a debit card to make a purchase at a retail store? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q18e Item: q18e Module: C Target: q17=1 Question Text: Now that you receive child support through direct deposit, of the following, how do you withdraw your child support from your bank account? Do you do it: By using a debit card to make a purchase at a retail store and getting cash back?

1 0 8 9

Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q18f

114

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q18f Module: C Target: R has Direct Deposit Question Text: Now that you receive child support through direct deposit, of the following, how do you withdraw your child support from your bank account? Do you do it: Do you make another type of withdrawal from your checking account? 1 0 8 9 Yes/answered (ENTER TEXT) No DK RF

Next Item: Q19 Item: q19 Module: C Target: R has Direct Deposit Question Text: Where do you USUALLY keep your child support after it is deposited into your bank account? Do you keep it in your bank account, at home, in your wallet or on your person, or somewhere else? 1 2 3 4 8 9 In At In In DK RF my bank account home my wallet or on my person some other other location (ENTER TEXT)

Next Item: Q20

115

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q20 Module: C Target: R has direct deposit Question Text: How safe and secure do you feel your child support money is, in the location where you keep it? Would you say it is very safe, somewhat safe, not too safe, or not at all safe?

1 2 3 4 8 9

Very safe Somewhat safe Not too safe Not at all safe DK RF

Next Item: END OF MODULE; if Q17=yes goto Q21, else goto Q25 Item: q21trans Module: D Target: Banked Rs, Direct deposit, ATM/debit card Question Text: Next, we would like to ask you several questions regarding how you use your debit card after {DATE}. For these questions, please keep in mind the policy of your bank for charging fees for use of your debit card at ATMs and using your debit card to purchase goods or services at stores.

Next Item: Q21

116

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q21 Module: D Target: Banked Rs, Direct deposit, ATM/debit card Question Text: How often do you withdraw child support each month from your debit card at an ATM? ENTER NUMBER FROM 0 (NEVER) TO 25 (25 TIMES OR MORE) 0-25 98 99 DK RF

Next Item: Q22 Item: q22 Module: D Target: Banked Rs, Direct deposit, ATM/debit card Question Text: Keeping in mind your bank's fee policy, how many times per month are you charged a fee from your bank for withdrawing child support from an ATM? ENTER NUMBER FROM 0 (NEVER) TO 25 (25 TIMES OR MORE) 0-25 98 99 DK RF

Next Item: Q23

117

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q23 Module: D Target: Banked Rs, Direct deposit, ATM/debit card Question Text: How many times per month are you charged a fee from a bank other than your own, for using an ATM? ENTER NUMBER FROM 0 (NEVER) TO 25 (25 TIMES OR MORE) 0-25 98 99 DK RF

Next Item: Q24 Item: q24 Module: D Target: Banked Rs, Direct deposit, ATM/debit card Question Text: On average, when you are charged for withdrawing child support from an ATM, how much are you charged per transaction? Please include any fees your bank charges and any fee from the bank that owns the ATM. ENTER AND CONFIRM # FROM 0 (NOTHING) TO 5 (5 DOLLARS OR MORE) Probe if needed: I realize that it may be difficult to keep track because different types of withdrawals come out of the same checking account. Can you give me your best guess? 0-5 8 9 DK RF

Next Item: Q25trans

118

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q38trans Module: E Target: Banked Rs with DD and Newly Banked Rs with DD Question Text: For the next set of questions, I'd like you to compare your current situation with direct deposit to when you received your child support check in the mail.

Next Item: q38 Item: q38 Module: E Target: Banked Rs with DD and Newly Banked Rs with DD Question Text: Compared to receiving your child support check in the mail, do you feel having your child support deposited into your bank account is more reliable, about the same, or less reliable? 1 2 3 8 9 More reliable About the same Less reliable DK RF

Next Item: Q39

119

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q39 Module: E Target: Banked Rs with DD and Newly Banked Rs with DD Question Text: How secure do you feel your child support money is compared to when you received your check through the mail? Do you feel more secure, about the same, or less secure? 1 2 3 8 9 More secure About the same Less secure DK RF

Next Item: Q40 Item: q41 Module: E Target: Banked Rs with DD and Newly Banked Rs with DD Question Text: How expensive is it to withdraw funds now that your child support is deposited electronically? Do you believe it is more expensive, about the same, or less expensive than when you received your child support check through the mail? 1 2 3 8 9 More expensive About the same Less expensive DK RF

Next Item: Q42

120

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q42 Module: E Target: Banked Rs with DD and Newly Banked Rs with DD Question Text: Compared to receiving your child support check in the mail, how convenient is having your child support deposited into your bank account? Is it more convenient, about the same, or less convenient?

1 2 3 8 9

More convenient About the same Less convenient DK RF

Next Item: Q43 Item: q42a Module: E Target: All respondents Question Text: Do you receive your child support more quickly, about the same, or less quickly?

1 2 3 8 9

More quickly About the same Less quickly DK RF

Next Item:

121

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q42b Module: E Target: All respondents Question Text: Do you feel it makes having a bank account more difficult, about the same, or less difficult? 1 2 3 8 9 More difficult About the same Less difficult DK RF

Next Item: Item: q43 Module: E Target: Banked Rs with DD and Newly Banked Rs with DD Question Text: Overall, how satisfied are you with receiving your child support through direct deposit? Are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not too satisfied, or not at all satisfied? 1 2 3 4 8 9 Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Not too satisfied Not at all satisfied DK RF Goto q111tran

Next Item: END OF MODULE.

122

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q44 Module: F Target: Unbanked Rs [(Q1a AND Q1b AND Q1c) = no] Question Text: Is it correct to say then, that before {DATE}, you did not have a bank account?

1 0 8 9

Yes No DK RF

Next Item: if no goto Q2, else goto Q45. Item: q45 Module: F Target: All respondents Question Text: Next, I will read a list of locations where people can cash checks. Please tell me where you USUALLY cashed your child support check before your payment was changed to an electronic payment. Did you USUALLY cash your check at a bank where you did not have an account, your workplace, a check cashing or payday loan store, a supermarket, or a restaurant, bar, or another kind of store? 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 A bank where I did not have an account Workplace Check cashing or payday loan store Supermarket Restaurant, bar, or another kind of store None of these (VOL) DK RF

Next Item: Q46

123

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q46 Module: F Target: Unbanked Rs Question Text: Is there a location I did not mention where you USUALLY cashed your child support check before {DATE}? 1 0 8 9 Yes/answered (ENTER TEXT) No DK RF

Next Item: Q47a Item: q47a Module: F Target: Unbanked Rs unless Q45=bank (1) Question Text: Again, I will read a list of locations where people can cash checks. As I read the list, please tell me if you EVER cashed your child support check at that location before {DATE}. Did you EVER cash your check at: A bank where you did not have an account? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q47b

124

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q47b Module: F Target: Unbanked Rs unless Q45=workplace (2) Question Text: Again, I will read a list of locations where people can cash checks. As I read the list, please tell me if you EVER cashed your child support check at that location before {DATE}. Did you EVER cash your check at: Your workplace? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q47c Item: q47c Module: F Target: Unbanked Rs unless Q45=check cashing or payday loan store (3) Question Text: Again, I will read a list of locations where people can cash checks. As I read the list, please tell me if you EVER cashed your child support check at that location before {DATE}. Did you EVER cash your check at: A check cashing or payday loan store? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q47d

125

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q47d Module: F Target: Unbanked Rs unless Q45d=supermarket (4) Question Text: Again, I will read a list of locations where people can cash checks. As I read the list, please tell me if you EVER cashed your child support check at that location before {DATE}. Did you EVER cash your check at: A supermarket? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q47e Item: q47e Module: F Target: Unbanked Rs unless Q45e=restaurant, bar, etc (5) Question Text: Again, I will read a list of locations where people can cash checks. As I read the list, please tell me if you EVER cashed your child support check at that location before {DATE}. Did you EVER cash your check at: A restaurant, bar, or any other kind of store? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q48

126

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q48 Module: F Target: Unbanked Rs Question Text: Is there a location I did not mention where you EVER cashed your child support check before {DATE}? 1 0 8 9 Yes/answered (ENTER TEXT) No DK RF

Next Item: Q49 Item: q49 Module: F Target: Unbanked Rs (Q1a, b, c = no) Question Text: How much were you charged, on average, to CASH each child support check? ENTER AND CONFIRM # FROM 0 (NONE) TO 10 (10 DOLLARS OR MORE) PROBE IF NEEDED: "Even a rough estimate would be fine. Can you give me your best guess?" 0.00-10.00 98 99 DK RF

Next Item: Q50

127

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q50 Module: F Target: Unbanked Rs Question Text: On average, how much did you receive in each child support check? ENTER AND CONFIRM # FROM 1-1000 (1000 DOLLARS OR MORE) PROBE IF NEEDED: "Even a rough estimate would be fine. Can you give me your best guess?" CLARIFY IF NEEDED: WE ARE ONLY ASKING ABOUT CHILD SUPPORT THAT YOU RECEIVE THROUGH THE STATE. WE ARE NOT ASKING ABOUT MEDICAL SUPPORT PAYMENTS, OR CHILD SUPPORT THAT IS NOT ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE. <0-1000> 9998 DK 9999 RF Next Item: Q51 Item: q51 Module: F Target: Unbanked Rs Question Text: Once you cashed your child support check, where did you USUALLY keep your money? Did you keep it at home, in your wallet or on your person, or somewhere else?

1 2 3 8 9

At home In my wallet or on my person Somewhere else (ENTER TEXT) DK RF

Next Item: Q52

128

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q52 Module: F Target: Unbanked Rs Question Text: How safe and secure do you feel your child support money was, in the location where you kept it? Would you say it was very safe, somewhat safe, not too safe, or not at all safe?

1 2 3 4 8 9

Very safe Somewhat safe Not too safe Not at all safe DK RF

Next Item: END OF MODULE. Goto q53 trans Item: q53trans Module: G Target: All respondents Question Text: Now I am going to ask you questions that focus on your current situation now that you receive your child support electronically. For the following questions please think about your experience with your child support payments since {DATE}.

Next Item: q54

129

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q54 Module: G Target: All respondents Question Text: Since {DATE}, do you have a new bank account? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: if yes goto Q55; else (if R has HW) goto Q58; else (if R has DD) goto Q111tran (module K) Item: q55 Module: G Target: All respondents Question Text: Did you open a new checking account? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q56 Item: q56 Module: G Target: All respondents Question Text: Did you open a new savings account? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q57

130

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q57 Module: G Target: All respondents Question Text: Did you open a different type of bank account? 1 0 8 9 Yes/answered (ENTER TEXT) No DK RF

Next Item: If R has HW, goto Q58; if R has DD, goto q111 (module K) Item: q58a Module: G Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: When you want to use your child support now (after {DATE}), do you withdraw your child support from your child support Hoosier Works card: At an ATM? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q58b

131

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q58b Module: G Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: When you want to use your child support now (after {DATE}), do you withdraw your child support from your child support Hoosier Works card: By using your child support Hoosier Works card to make a purchase at a retail store? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q58c Item: q58c Module: G Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: When you want to use your child support now (after {DATE}), do you withdraw your child support from your child support Hoosier Works card: By using your child support Hoosier Works card to make a purchase at a retail store and get cash back? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q58d

132

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q58d Module: G Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: When you want to use your child support now (after {DATE}), do you withdraw your child support from your child support Hoosier Works card: By making another type of withdrawal from your child support Hoosier Works card?

1 0 8 9

Yes/answered (ENTER TEXT) No DK RF

Next Item: Q59a Item: q59a Module: G Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards ONLY if Q1a or Q1b or

Q1c OR Q54 = yes

Question Text: Where do you keep your child support after it is deposited onto your child support Hoosier Works card? Do you: Deposit it in your bank account? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q59b

133

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q59b Module: G Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: Where do you keep your child support after it is deposited onto your child support Hoosier Works card? Do you: Keep it in your child support Hoosier Works account? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q59c Item: q59c Module: G Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: Where do you keep your child support after it is deposited onto your child support Hoosier Works card? Do you: Keep it at home? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q59d

134

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q59d Module: G Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: Where do you keep your child support after it is deposited onto your child support Hoosier Works card? Do you: Do you keep it in your wallet or somewhere else on your person? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q59e Item: q59e Module: G Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: Where do you keep your child support after it is deposited onto your child support Hoosier Works card? Do you: Do you keep it in any other location? 1 0 8 9 Yes/answered (ENTER TEXT) No DK RF

Next Item: Q60

135

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q60 Module: G Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: How safe and secure do you feel your child support money is, in the location where you keep it? Would you say it is very safe, somewhat safe, not too safe, or not at all safe? 1 2 3 4 8 9 Very safe Somewhat safe Not too safe Not at all safe DK RF

Next Item: Q61 Item: q61 Module: G Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: On average, about how many times do you withdraw child support from your child support Hoosier Works card each month? Please include all transactions at ATMs, using checks, and/or using your child support Hoosier Works card for point of sale purchases. Enter # from 0 (none) to 25 (25 or more) 0-25 98 99 DK RF

Next Item: Q84

136

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q62trans Module: H Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: Next, we would like to ask you several questions regarding how often you use your child support Hoosier Works card.

Next Item: Q62 Item: q62 Module: H Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: Every child support Hoosier Works card is allowed one transaction each month without Citibank charging a fee for the use. These transactions include withdrawals from an ATM and when you use your child support Hoosier Works card to purchase goods or services at stores; however, the transaction is at an ATM not owned by Citibank, the owner of that ATM may charge you a fee for that use. After you use your child support Hoosier Works card once, Citibank will charge a $1.00 fee every time you withdraw money from your child support Hoosier Works card at an ATM, even if the ATM is owned by Citibank, or use your child support Hoosier Works card to purchase goods or services. Were you aware of these fees?

1 0 8 9

Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q63

137

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q66 Module: H Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: On average, when you are charged for withdrawing child support from an ATM, how much are you charged per transaction? Please include the fee Citibank charges after the first transaction and any fee from the bank that owns the ATM. ENTER # FROM 0 (NOTHING) TO 5 (5 DOLLARS OR MORE) PROBE IF NEEDED: "A rough estimate would be fine. Can you give me your best guess?" 0-5 8 9 DK RF

Next Item: Q67trans Item: q78tran Module: I Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: For the next set of questions, I'd like you to compare your current situation with the Hoosier Works card to when you received your child support check in the mail.

Next Item:

138

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q78 Module: I Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: For the next set of questions, I'd like you compare your current situation with the Hoosier Works card to when you received your child support check in the mail. Compared to receiving your child support check in the mail, do you feel having your child support deposited onto your child support Hoosier Works card is more reliable, about the same, or less reliable? 1 2 3 8 9 More reliable About the same Less reliable DK RF

Next Item: Q79 Item: q79 Module: I Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: How secure do you feel your child support money is compared to when you received your check through the mail? Do you feel more secure, about the same, or less secure? 1 2 3 8 9 More secure About the same Less secure DK RF

Next Item: Q80

139

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q80 Module: I Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: How expensive is it to withdraw funds from your Hoosier Works card? Do you believe it is more expensive, about the same, or less expensive than when you received your child support check through the mail? Clarify if needed: For example to withdraw money, or to change your child support into cash. 1 2 3 8 9 More expensive About the same Less expensive DK RF

Next Item: Q81 Item: q81 Module: I Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: Now that your child support is deposited electronically, do you personally feel more safe, about the same, or less safe? CLARIFY IF NEEDED: I'd like you compare your current situation with the Hoosier Works card to when you received your child support check in the mail. 1 2 3 8 9 More safe About the same Less safe DK RF

Next Item: Q82

140

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q82 Module: I Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: How convenient is having your child support deposited onto your child support Hoosier Works card? Is it more convenient, about the same, or less convenient? CLARIFY IF NEEDED: I'D LIKE YOU COMPARE YOUR CURRENT SITUATION WITH THE HOOSIER WORKS CARD TO WHEN YOU RECEIVED YOUR CHILD SUPPORT CHECK IN THE MAIL. 1 2 3 8 9 More convenient About the same Less convenient DK RF

Next Item: Q83 Item: Q82a Module: I Target: All respondents Question Text: Do you receive your child support more quickly, about the same, or less quickly? CLARIFY IF NEEDED: I'D LIKE YOU COMPARE YOUR CURRENT SITUATION WITH THE HOOSIER WORKS CARD TO WHEN YOU RECEIVED YOUR CHILD SUPPORT CHECK IN THE MAIL. 1 2 3 8 9 More quickly About the same Less quickly DK RF

Next Item:

141

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q82b Module: I Target: All respondents Question Text: Do you feel it makes having a bank account more difficult, about the same, or less difficult? CLARIFY IF NEEDED: I'D LIKE YOU COMPARE YOUR CURRENT SITUATION WITH THE HOOSIER WORKS CARD TO WHEN YOU RECEIVED YOUR CHILD SUPPORT CHECK IN THE MAIL. 1 2 3 8 9 More difficult About the same Less difficult DK RF

Next Item: Item: q83 Module: I Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: Overall, how satisfied are you with receiving your child support through your child support Hoosier Works card? Are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not too satisfied, or not at all satisfied? 1 2 3 4 8 9 Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Not too satisfied Not at all satisfied DK RF

Next Item: Q84trans

142

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q77 Module: I Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: Please give any other reasons why you like or dislike the Hoosier Works card. AO AND SP AS NEEDED 1 8 9 Answered (ENTER TEXT) DK RF

Next Item: Q78 Item: q84 Module: J Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: An added feature of the child support Hoosier Works card is the ability to have the IRS directly deposit your income tax refund onto your Hoosier Works card. Were you aware that you could have your income tax refund deposited onto your child support Hoosier Works card? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: if yes goto Q85 else goto Q99

143

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q85 Module: J Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: Did you have the IRS directly deposit this year's income tax refund onto your child support Hoosier Works card? 1 0 2 8 9 Yes No Did not get an income tax refund (VOL) DK RF

Next Item: if yes goto Q86trans, else goto Q99 Item: q86trans Module: J Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: For the following questions please compare your experience regarding the current system of depositing your income tax refund onto your child support Hoosier Works card, to your experience with income tax refund checks before {DATE}

I am going to read a list of reasons why you might like or dislike getting your income tax refund on a Hoosier Works card. I would like to know whether you strongly agree, agree, are neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree with each of these statements.

Next Item: Q96

144

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q96 Module: J Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards and refund on card Question Text: Compared to receiving your income tax refund check in the mail, do you feel having your income tax refund deposited onto your child support Hoosier Works card is more reliable, about the same, or less reliable? 1 2 3 8 9 More reliable About the same Less reliable DK RF

Next Item: Q97 Item: q97 Module: J Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards and refund on card Question Text: Now that your income tax refund is deposited onto your child support Hoosier Works card, how secure do you feel compared to when you received your income tax refund through the mail? Do you feel more secure, about the same, or less secure? 1 2 3 8 9 More secure About the same Less secure DK RF

Next Item: Q97a

145

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q97a Module: J Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards and refund on card Question Text: Now that your income tax refund is deposited onto your child support Hoosier Works card, do you get your tax refund money more quickly, about the same, or less quickly? 1 2 3 8 9 More quickly About the same Less quickly DK RF

Next Item: q98 Item: q98 Module: J Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards and refund on card Question Text: Overall, how satisfied are you with the new electronic disbursement system for income tax refunds? Are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not too satisfied, or not at all satisfied? 1 2 3 4 8 9 Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Not too satisfied Not at all satisfied DK RF

Next Item: Q97a

146

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q95 Module: J Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: Please give any other reason why you like or dislike having the IRS directly deposit your income tax refund onto Hoosier Works card. 1 8 9 Answered (ENTER TEXT) DK RF

Next Item: Q96 Item: q99 Module: J Target: Rs with Hoosier Works Cards Question Text: {Now that you are aware of the option to have your tax refund added to your Hoosier Works card,} Will you have the IRS directly deposit next year's income tax refund onto your child support Hoosier Works card? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Module K Item: q111tran Module: K Target: All respondents Question Text: Now I would like to get some information about your family. This information is anonymous, and will not affect your child support in any way. You have the option to answer these questions or to refuse to answer them. Please let me know if you do not want to answer the question as I read it.

Next Item: Q111a

147

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q111a Module: K Target: R has more than 1 child support case. Question Text: Since you have more than one child support case, we would like to find out how you know which non-custodial parents are paying or not paying their child support. Please tell me all the ways, from the following, that you find out which non-custodial parent has made or not made their child support payments. Do you receive a notice of collections for TAN-F only? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q111b Item: q111b Module: K Target: R has more than 1 child support case. Question Text: Since you have more than one child support case, we would like to find out how you know which non-custodial parents are paying or not paying their child support. Please tell me all the ways, from the following, that you find out which non-custodial parent has made or not made their child support payments. Do you call Kids' Line 1-800-840-8757? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q111c

148

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q111c Module: K Target: R has more than 1 child support case. Question Text: Since you have more than one child support case, we would like to find out how you know which non-custodial parents are paying or not paying their child support. Please tell me all the ways, from the following, that you find out which non-custodial parent has made or not made their child support payments. (Do you) Speak with the non-custodial parents? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q111d Item: q111d Module: K Target: R has more than 1 child support case. Question Text: Since you have more than one child support case, we would like to find out how you know which non-custodial parents are paying or not paying their child support. Please tell me all the ways, from the following, that you find out which non-custodial parent has made or not made their child support payments. (Do you) Use another method? 1 0 8 9 Yes/answered (ENTER TEXT) No DK RF

Next Item: Q112

149

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q112 Module: K Target: All respondents Question Text: What is the highest grade of school or level of education you have completed? IF R ANSWERS "COLLEGE", PROBE IF S/HE HAS A DEGREE. IF R ANSWERS "COLLEGE DEGREE", PROBE FOR TYPE OF DEGREE. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 98 99 No school/kindergarten 1st grade 2nd grade 3rd grade 4th grade 5th grade 6th grade 7th grade 8th grade 9th grade 10th grade 11th grade 12th grade/High school/Diploma/GED Some college but no degree Associate/Community college/nursing degree/AA/AS Bachelors degree/BA/BS/AB Masters degree Medical, law/JD or other doctorate degree Vocational or technical school beyond high school

Next Item: Q113

150

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q113 Module: K Target: All respondents Question Text: What is your household annual income from all sources including employment, welfare, food stamps, other government payments, income from spouse or roommate, and child support? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 98 99 Under $5,000 $5,000 - $9,999 $10,000 - $14,999 $15,000 - $19,999 $20,000 - $29,999 $30,000 - $39,999 $40,000 - $59,999 $60,000 and higher DK RF

Next Item: Q113b Item: q112b Module: K Target: All respondents Question Text: Do you have a GED or other high school equivalency? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: 113a

151

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q113b Module: K Target: All respondents Question Text: Have you ever been a victim of domestic violence? Clarification if needed: "This could include violence from any member of your household." PRObe once on DK/RF Take case notes at this item if R provides additional information. 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: If yes q113c, else q114 Item: q113c Module: K Target: All respondents Question Text: Are you currently a victim of domestic violence? CLARIFICATION IF NEEDED: "THIS COULD INCLUDE VIOLENCE FROM ANY MEMBER OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD." PROBE ONCE ON DK/RF TAKE CASE NOTES AT THIS ITEM IF R PROVIDES ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: q114

152

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q114 Module: K Target: All respondents Question Text: (Are you male or female?) RECORD RESPONDENT'S GENDER. 1 2 8 9 Male Female DK RF ASK ONLY IF UNSURE.

Next Item: Q115 Item: q116x Module: K Target: All respondents Question Text: Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin? CODE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING AS "YES": MEXICAN, MEXICAN AMERICAN, OR CHICANO; PUERTO RICAN; CUBAN. 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: q116a Item: q116 Module: K Target: All respondents Question Text: RACE/ETHNICITY BATTERY -- STANDARD CSR PHONE BATTERY.

Next Item: Q117

153

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q116a Module: K Target: All respondents Question Text: Please tell me your race using one or more of the following categories. Please answer yes or no to each. Are you: White CODING "RF" WILL SKIP YOU OUT OF REMAINING RACE ITEMS 1 2 Yes No

Next Item: q116b Item: q116b Module: K Target: All respondents Question Text: Please tell me your race using one or more of the following categories. Please answer yes or no to each. Are you: Black or African-American? CODING "RF" WILL SKIP YOU OUT OF REMAINING RACE ITEMS 1 2 Yes No

Next Item: q116c Item: q116c Module: K Target: All respondents Question Text: Please tell me your race using one or more of the following categories. Please answer yes or no to each. Are you: American Indian or Alaska Native? CODING "RF" WILL SKIP YOU OUT OF REMAINING RACE ITEMS 1 2 Yes No

Next Item: q116d

154

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q116d Module: K Target: All respondents Question Text: Please tell me your race using one or more of the following categories. Please answer yes or no to each. Are you: Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander? CODING "RF" WILL SKIP YOU OUT OF REMAINING RACE ITEMS 1 2 Yes No

Next Item: q116e Item: q116e Module: K Target: All respondents Question Text: Please tell me your race using one or more of the following categories. Please answer yes or no to each. Are you: Asian? CODING "RF" WILL SKIP YOU OUT OF REMAINING RACE ITEMS 1 2 Yes No

Next Item: q116f

155

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q116f Module: K Target: All respondents Question Text: Please tell me your race using one or more of the following categories. Please answer yes or no to each. Are you: Are you another race I have not mentioned? CODING "RF" WILL SKIP YOU OUT OF REMAINING RACE ITEMS 1 8 9 Answered (ENTER TEXT) DK RF

Next Item: q119 Item: q119 Module: K Target: All respondents Question Text: Do you currently receive TAN-F? CLARIFIER: TAN-F STANDS FOR "TEMPORARY AID TO NEEDY FAMILIES." GOVERNMENT PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE OF INDIANA. Tan-f pronounced "TAN'-EFF" 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF IT IS A

Next Item: Q120

156

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q120 Module: K Target: All respondents Question Text: Do you currently receive Food Stamps? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: if Q119 OR Q120=yes goto Q121, else goto Q122 Item: q121 Module: K Target: R's with Hoosier Works card. Question Text: Have you ever confused your child support Hoosier Works card with your {FILL: TAN-F|Food Stamp} Hoosier Works card and accidentally used the wrong card to make a purchase? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: Q122

157

DirectD Questionnaire Item: q122 Module: K Target: All respondents Question Text: Have you moved five or more times in the past two years? CLARIFY IF NEEDED: We are asking about places you have lived in for a week or longer. 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: BACK END Item: ENDQ Module: Back End Target: Everyone Question Text: THIS ENDS THE SUBSTANTIVE INTERVIEW.

Next Item: sponsor

158

DirectD Questionnaire Item: sponsor Module: Back End Target: Everyone Question Text: These are all the questions I have for you. I would like to thank you for participating in our survey today as we research the methods for distributing child support in the state of Indiana. Dr. Maureen Pirog is the project director for this study. Would you like Dr. Pirog's address or phone number in case you have any questions about the survey?

1 0 8 9

Yes No DK RF

Next Item: sponsor2 Item: sponsor2 Module: Back End Target: All respondents Question Text: Dr Pirog's address is: Indiana University, School of Public and Environmental Affairs Bloomington, Indiana 47405 Dr Pirog's office phone number is: 812-856-5926

Next Item:

159

DirectD Questionnaire Item: humsub_a Module: Back End Target: Everyone Question Text: Would you like the address or phone number of the Human Subjects Committee at IU to ask any questions about your rights as a respondent? 1 0 8 9 Yes No DK RF

Next Item: humsub_b Item: humsub_b Module: Back End Target: Everyone Question Text: The address is: Human Subjects Committee Indiana University Carmichael Center L03 530 E. Kirkwood Ave. Bloomington, IN 47408 The phone number is: 812-855-3067 The e-mail address is [email protected] CLARIFICATION IF NEEDED: THE IU-BLOOMINGTON CAMPUS HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE IS CHARGED WITH SAFEGUARDING THE RIGHTS AND WELFARE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS. THE COMMITTEE REVIEWS AND APPROVES ALL RESEARCH THAT IS SPONSORED BY IU PROFESSORS AND STUDENTS. Next Item: Chck

DirectD Questionnaire Item: thnk Module: Back End Target: Everyone Question Text: Thank you very much for your time and cooperation. You have been very helpful.

160

APPENDIX C: DISPOSITION OF CASES THAT THE CSR ATTEMPTED TO INTERVIEW

161

Disposition of Cases that the Center for Survey Research Attempted to Interview

Interviews Complete Partial Eligible, Non-Interview Refusal Break-off Respondent never available Respondent away duration of survey Respondent deceased Physically or mentally unable/incompetent Language problem Telephone answering device (message confirms respondent), no other contact. Misc Total Eligible, Non-Interviews Unknown Eligibility/ Respondent not found Respondent not found Always busy No answer Telephone answering device (message does not confirm respondent) Phone barrier (privacy manager) Misc phone problem142 Total Unknown Eligibility/ Respondent not found Respondent not eligible143 Total sample Sample cells HWS HWA HWM HWV DDS DDA DDM DDV Total 261 10 6 13 79 74 79 77 599 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 61 9 129 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 7 0 0 1 1 1 0 5 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 4 24 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 4 19 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 1 38 1 0 0 1 2 0 15 0 16 0 1 0 0 1 1 116 20 240 4 1 2 4 5 2 394 1000 9 44 87 1 137 1278 76 2348

637 8 22 38 0 90 41

37 0 2 1 0 1 8

16 0 2 1 0 2 3

16 0 0 0 0 3 1

79 1 6 16 1 11 6

73 0 3 10 0 9 3

85 0 6 15 0 7 6

58 0 3 6 0 14 8

Production sample Case counts by cell: Hoosier Works, State (HWS) Hoosier Works, Allen county (HWA) Hoosier Works, Marion county (HWM) Hoosier Works, Vanderburgh county (HWV) Direct Deposit, State (DDS) Direct Deposit, Allen county (DDA) Direct Deposit, Marion county (DDM) 1301 72 41 34 250 200 250

Phone problem (contact telephone number not in service, temporarily not in service, fax machine, etc.) ­ 316, 420 430, 433 143 Respondent denies receiving child support, duplicate case, etc. (470, 481)

142

162

APPENDIX D: TIMELINE OF EVALUATION ACTIVITIES

163

Electronic Disbursement of Child Support Study Timeline of Activities Performance Output Survey of the Current System, Performance Output Survey of New System, and Process Evaluation Survey

PRE IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE 12-Mar-03 Sent application and proposal to Indiana University Human Subjects Committee for approval of project. Change in Evaluation Methodology memo sent to Thelzeda Moore. Received approval from Indiana University Human Subjects Committee. Distributed Surveys to County and State Officials as follows

17-Mar-03 8-Apr-03 April ­ May 2003

Performance Output Surveys of Current System sent to Allen County ­ Alice Keesler, Susan Schroeder and Therese Brown. Marion County ­ Doris Anne Sadler, John Owens, Phyllis Manfredi, Tony Schaffer. Vanderburgh County ­Carla Hayden, Kathy James, Marshal Abel, Ronald L Jordan. DCS ­ Thelzeda Moore, Robert Conrad, Peggy Boggs, Mary Francis, Karla Mantia, Debbie Brown, Connie Dugan, and Charlotte Wynn State Auditors Office ­ blank survey. Additional blank surveys were distributed at meeting in Indianapolis. 19-May-03 19-May-03 20-May-03 20-May-03 1-May-03 6-Jun-03 10-Jun-03 Received Survey response from Alice Keesler, Allen Circuit and Superior Courts Child Support Division representative. Presented overview of project at the National Conference on Digital Government Research sponsored by the National Science Foundation in Boston, Massachusetts. Received survey response from Carla Hayden, Vanderburgh County Clerks Office Received survey response from Phyllis Manfredi, Marion County Clerks Office Received survey response from Doris Anne Sadler, Marion County Clerks office (undated response therefore the month is an approximation). Project Update memo sent to Thelzeda Moore Received survey response from Lucy Mikula, CSB - Security and Audit

164

15-Jul-03

Received fax from the Auditor of the State of Indiana ­ Sally Mayrose ­Jones regarding cost of child support check printing. Teleconference interview with Vi Irwin, Marion county with regard to responses on surveys.

13-Aug-03

13-Aug-03

Teleconference interview with Carla Hayden Vanderburgh county with regard to responses on surveys.

30-Oct-03

Letter sent to Karla Mantia, Deputy Director, DCS Child Support Bureau, regarding incomplete and unreturned surveys.

2-Feb-04

Received survey responses from DCS employees ­ Peggy Boggs, Mary Francis, Charlotte Wynn, Robert Conrad, and Debbie Brame.

18-Feb-04

Contacted Vi Irwin of Marion county and Linda Schiff of Vanderburgh county via email with follow-up questions on survey response

19-Feb-04

Received survey response from Thelzeda Moore and instructions for child support disbursement and survey response from financial management unit. Conducted telephone interviews of follow up question sent on 18th February to Vi Irwin (Marion county) and Linda Schiff (Vanderburgh County)

20-Feb-04

23-Feb-04

Received survey responses from DCS employees ­ C Anderson (Mailroom), Diana Montgomery (Mailroom), and Tom Cunningham (Mailroom).

25-Feb-04

Received clarification on DCS survey responses from Thelzeda Moore regarding stop payments

2-Jun-04

Submitted Electronic Disbursement of Indiana's Child Support ­ Report on the Performance of the Current System to Indiana's Department of Child Services (DCS).

165

POST IMPLEMENTATION AND PROCESS EVALUATION TIMELINE

24-Aug-04

Performance output surveys of new system and process evaluation surveys are mailed to the participating counties and DCS.

Performance Output Surveys of New System sent to Allen County: Alice Keesler and Therese Brown. Marion County: Doris Anne Sadler and Phyllis Manfredi. Vanderburgh County: Carla Hayden and Marsha Abel. DCS: Thelzeda Moore, Peggy Boggs and Mary Francis.

Process Evaluation Survey sent to Allen County: Alice Keesler, Therese Brown, Susan Schroeder, Renee Rousseau and Mary O'Shaughnessy. Marion County: Tony Schaffer, Doris Anne Sadler, John Owens and Phyllis Manfredi. Vanderburgh County Marsha Abell, Carla Hayden, Kathy James and Ronald L. Jordon. DCS Karla A. Mantia, Thelzeda Moore, Peggy Boggs, Mary Francis, Connie Dugan, Charlotte Wynn, Robert Conrad, Debbie Brame. 17-Sep-04 Initial contact with survey recipients - request for surveys to be filled out and returned. Earlier phone calls indicated that the surveys had not been received. Primary contact are established for each county as follows Alice Kessler for Allen County Phyllis Manfredi for Marion County Carla Hayden for Vanderburgh County Peggy Boggs and Thelzeda Moore for DCS 20-Sep-04 Sent email request for specific post-implementation data to be compiled and presented by Dr. Pirog at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM conference). Initiated second contact via telephone to the survey counties and DCS as a reminder to provide information as requested in the email circulation Received process evaluation surveys from Phyllis Manfredi.

24-Sep-04 4-Oct-04

11-Oct-04

Initiated third contact via telephone to the survey counties and DCS as a reminder to provide information as requested in the email circulation and also to complete the survey in full and return it to the evaluators.

166

19-Oct-04

Received process evaluation survey from Therese Brown.

15-Nov-04

Submitted a data request to Karla Mantia outlining the data that is required to fulfill the requirements of the evaluation and provided a list of contact persons at the survey counties for the post-performance evaluation and list of individuals to respond to the process evaluation survey. Provided copies of the survey instruments and study information sheets for her to circulate to the relevant counties. Issued a second email circulation notice to all the survey counties and DCS to return their completed surveys.

23-Nov-04

3-Dec-04

Received process evaluation surveys from Charlotte Wynn, Debbie Brame, Robert Conrad, Shirley Easley (not included in initial distribution list), Connie Dugan, Mary Francis, Peggy Boggs and John Owens before the end of the first week of December. Initiated contact with Thelzeda Moore on additional data requirements for DCS.

27-Jan-05

31-Jan-05

Received process evaluation surveys from Thelzeda Moore, Kathy James, and Susan Schroeder the last week of January.

3-Feb-2005

Primary contact for Vanderburgh County changes from Carla Hayden to Charlene Appman and Kathy James. A performance evaluation survey is sent to new primary contacts. Initiated contact with new Bookkeeper at Marion County ­ Brian Atkinson and followed up telephone conference with an email of the Performance Output Survey of the New System. Received Performance Output Survey response from Marion County Bookkeeping Supervisor Brian Atkinson

7-Feb-05

11-Feb-05

14-Feb-05

Received additional information from Brian Atkinson regarding the number of child support warrants disbursed by Marion County.

17-Feb-05

Initiated contact via telephone to Vanderburgh County as a reminder to complete survey.

167

APPENDIX E: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY, TABLES 9 ­ 20 INCLUDING VANDERBURGH COUNTY

168

Corresponding Tables including Vanderburgh County

Table 1­ Annual Cost of Disbursing Child Support for Pilot counties Pilot County DCS Pilot County A. Pre-Implementation Allen $141,714.02 $299,948.31 Marion $265,938.40 $497,867.59 Vanderburgh $43,843.90 $227,750.18 Total $451,496.33 $1,025,566.08 B. Post-Implementation Allen Marion Vanderburgh Total C. Annual Cost Savings Annual Cost Savings, $ Cost Savings, percent Total $441,662.33 $763,805.99 $271,594.08 $1,477,062.41

$136,512.33 $267,363.40 $42,935.14 $446,810.87

$124,224.35 $341,775.97 $92,177.21 $558,177.53

$260,736.68 $609,139.37 $135,112.35 $1,004,988.40

$4,685.46 1.04%

$467,388.55 45.57%

$472,074.01 31.96%

Table 2 ­ Annual Costs for Disbursing Child Support in Indiana Counties A. Pre-Implementation DCS for all 92 counties Pilot counties Total Annual Cost of Disbursement in Pilot Counties and for DCS's 92 counties B. Post-Implementation DCS for all 92 counties Pilot counties Total Annual Cost of Disbursement in Pilot Counties and for DCS's 92 counties C. Cost Savings DCS for all 92 counties, $ DCS for all 92 counties, % Pilot counties, $ Pilot Counties, % Cost Savings, Pilot Counties and for DCS's 92 counties, $ Cost Savings, Pilot Counties and for DCS's 92 counties, %

$1,723,272.98 $1,025,566.08 $2,748,839.06

$1,652,800.60 $558,177.53 $2,210,978.13

$70,472.38 4.09% $467,388.55 45.57% $537,860.93 19.57%

169

Table 3: Total County Child Support Annual Disbursement Costs in Pilot Counties Warrants disbursed per year 233,313 498,000 171,929 Total Unit Cost of Disbursement $1.29 $1.00 $1.32 Total Annual Cost $299,948.31 $497,867.59 $227,750.18 $1,025,566.08

Pilot County A. Pre-Implementation Allen Marion Vanderburgh

B. Post-Implementation Allen Marion Vanderburgh

85,905 241,779 63,304

$1.45 $1.41 $1.45

$124,224.35 $341,775.97 $91,541.27 $557,541.59 Percent Reduction in Cost -70.69% -218.96% -67.21%

Warrant Reduction C. Annual Cost Savings Allen Marion Vanderburgh -63% -51% -63%

Percent Change in Unit Cost 12.10% 41.36% 9.55%

$Reduction in Costs $175,723.96 $156,091.63 $136,208.91

Table 4: Annual Distribution Costs for New Warrants Total unit cost per warrant $1.14 $0.90 $0.95 Warrants disbursed per year 233,313 498,000 171,929 Cost of processing warrants per year $266,616.75 $450,129.75 $163,332.55 $880,079.05 $114,548.86 $322,562.07 $84,454.61 $521,565.54

Pilot County Pre-Implementation Allen Marion Vanderburgh Post Implementation Allen Marion Vanderburgh

$1.33 $1.33 $1.33

85,905 241,779 63,304

170

Table 5: Annual Personnel Costs of Disbursement Total unit cost per warrant $0.81 $0.57 $0.62 Warrants disbursed per year 233,313 498,000 171,929 Cost of processing warrants per year $189,623.46 $285,789.75 $106,595.98 $582,009.19 $86,200.21 $242,775.00 $52,226.98 $381,202.19

County Pre-Implementation Allen Marion Vanderburgh Post Implementation Allen Marion Vanderburgh

$1.00 $1.00 $0.83

85,905 241,779 63,304

Table 6: Annual Direct Non-Personnel Warrant Costs Total unit cost per warrant $0.33 $0.33 $0.33 Warrants disbursed per year 233,313 498,000 171,929 Cost of processing warrants per year $76,993.29 $164,340.00 $56,736.57 $298,069.86 $28,348.65 $79,787.07 $20,890.20 $129,025.92

County Pre-Implementation Allen Marion Vanderburgh Post Implementation Allen Marion Vanderburgh

$0.33 $0.33 $0.33

85,905 241,779 63,304

Table 7: Annual Returned Warrant Costs Cost of processing returned warrants per year $4,325.13 $8,842.35 $7,344.88 $13,167.48 $3,656.36 $5,004.90 $6,096.25 $8,661.26

County Pre-Implementation Allen Marion Vanderburgh Post Implementation Allen Marion Vanderburgh

Total cost of returned Warrant $1.93 $2.33 $2.95

Warrants returned per year 2,241 3,795 2,490

$2.94 $2.01 $4.41

1,245 2,490 1,383

171

Table 8: Annual Stop-payment Costs Total cost of Stop payments $7.75 $25.59 $32.00 Stop payments per year 299 872 198 Cost of processing Stop payments per year $2,317.25 $22,314.48 $6,336.00 $30,967.73 $2,080.00 $1,820.00 $4,407.65 $8,307.65

Pilot County Pre-Implementation Allen Marion Vanderburgh Post Implementation Allen Marion Vanderburgh

$10.00 $5.00 $32.00

208 364 138

Table 9 ­ Reconciliation Costs Total personnel hours per day 4.75 5.63 15

Pilot County Pre-Implementation Allen Marion Vanderburgh Post Implementation Allen Marion Vanderburgh

Average Wage $21.16 $9.98 $13.11

Annual Cost $25,026.99 $13,990.66 $48,965.85 $87,983.50 $3,939.13 $12,389.00 $8,556.14 $24,884.26

0.83 4.5 2.62

$19.06 $11.06 $13.11

172

Table 10: Total Annual Costs of Child Support Disbursement for Indiana Counties and Pilot Counties

Average cost per warrant Pre-Implementation All Counties Pilot county Allen Marion Vanderburgh TOTAL Post Implementation All Counties Pilot county Allen Marion Vanderburgh TOTAL $1.37 Warrants per year 1,260,735 Total cost $1,723,272.98

$1.37 $1.37 $1.37

103,677 194,559 32,076

$141,714.02 $265,938.40 $43,843.90 $451,496.33

$1.45

1,137,331

$1,652,800.60

$1.45 $1.45 $1.45

93,937 183,979 29,545

$136,512.33 $267,363.40 $42,935.14 $446,810.87 Percent Reduction in Cost

Percent Change in Unit Cost C. Annual Cost Savings All Counties Allen Marion Vanderburgh 6.32% 6.32% 6.32% 6.32%

Warrant Reduction

$Reduction in Costs

-9.79% -9.39% -5.44% -7.89%

$70,472.38 $5,201.69 -$1,425.00 $908.76

-4.09% -3.67% 0.54% -2.07%

173

Table 11: Total Annual Personnel and Non-personnel costs of Child Support Disbursement in Indiana Counties Non personnel and personnel costs per warrant issued Pre-Implementation Average non-personnel costs Average personnel costs TOTAL Post Implementation Average non-personnel costs Average personnel costs TOTAL $0.46 $0.67 $1.13 Annual non personnel and personnel costs $579,938.10 $839,946.72 $1,419,884.82

Warrants issued 1,260,735 1,260,735

$0.46 $0.75 $1.21

1,137,331 1,137,331

$523,172.26 $847,596.00 $1,370,768.26

Table 12: Total Annual Returned and Reissued Warrant Costs Cost per warrant returned / reissued Pre-Implementation Cost per returned warrant Cost per reissued warrant $3.79 $10.49 Warrants returned / reissued per year 24,900 19,920 Cost of processing returned / reissued warrants per year $94,371.00 $208,960.80 $303,331.80

Post Implementation Cost per returned warrant Cost per reissued warrant

$2.04 $10.49

28,137 21,414

$57,399.48 $224,632.86 $282,032.34

174

APPENDIX F: ELECTRONIC DISBURSEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT STUDY PERFORMANCE OUTPUT SURVEY CURRENT SYSTEM

175

Electronic Disbursement of Child Support Study Performance Output Survey Current System

Introduction 1. This survey is being conducted on behalf of the Indiana Child Support Bureau and is being administered by a research team from the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University. The survey is being sent from the Institute for Family and Social Responsibility as part of evaluating the electronic disbursement of child support project funded by the Indiana Department of Child Services and the United States Office of Child Support Enforcement. The purpose of this survey is to gather information to evaluate the project. The survey focuses on several aspects of the current child support disbursement system. 2. You are invited to participate in this survey. Your participation is voluntary and very much appreciated. Survey responses will be used to facilitate the roll-out of direct deposit and Hoosier Works cards for child support to the remaining 89 counties in Indiana and serve as a model for other states and jurisdictions nationally. Our study calls for this mail survey as well as a face-toface interview with you within one or two weeks of receiving survey responses. Before we conduct the face-to-face interviews, we ask that you to complete this enclosed survey and return it to the Institute for Family and Social Responsibility in the enclosed stamped, addressed envelope. Filling out the questionnaire should take between sixty and ninety minutes. 3. After we receive and tabulate the mail survey responses, we will telephone you to set up a follow-up interview to discuss certain questions in further detail. The follow-up interview should take from thirty-sixty minutes. At the time of the interview, we will ask your permission to record the interview. 4. If a survey question is not within your area of professional responsibility, please answer the question with N/A. 5. Please make sure the information in the contact information section is accurate. If any information is incorrect, please correct it on the paper. If you have any questions about the survey, please contact Craig Johnson directly at 812-855-0732. Please fill-in the date and complete the survey. Thank you for your time and cooperation.

176

I. Contact Information Date: __________________________________________________________________ Agency: ________________________________________________________________ Unit: ___________________________________________________________________ Respondent's Name: ______________________________________________________ Respondent's Email: ______________________________________________________ Phone #: ________________________________________________________________

II. Project Implementation Questions 1. What are you doing to anticipate the potential problems that might be encountered by custodial parents receiving child support by direct deposit or the new child support Hoosier Works card? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. When designing the new electronic methods of disbursing child support, what activities are you doing, if any, to educate custodial parents how to use and understand the new payment process? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

177

3. In your opinion, what are the most important factors that will facilitate the implementation of the direct deposit child support payment system in [DCS/Marion County/Vanderburgh County/Allen County]? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. In your opinion, what are the most important factors that will facilitate the implementation of the Hoosier Works child support payment system in [DCS/Marion County/Vanderburgh County/Allen County]? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. In your opinion, what are the most important factors that could hinder the implementation of the direct deposit child support payment system in [DCS/Marion County/Vanderburgh County/Allen County]? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. In your opinion, what are the most important factors that could hinder the implementation of the Hoosier Works child support payment system in [DCS/Marion County/Vanderburgh County/Allen County]? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

178

III. General Cost and Workload Data 7. On average, how many returned warrants are received each day?__________________ 8. What is the cost, on average, to your unit for all returned warrants in a typical month?__________________ 9. On average, how many addresses are located for returned warrants so that they may be remailed each day? ____________________ 10. What is the average cost to your unit to re-issue a warrant that was lost, stolen or not received? ___________________ 11. How many stop-payment check orders does your office place each week? __________________ 12. What is the average cost of a stop-payment order? ___________________ 13. For child support payments that are made electronically from an employer or an account of a non-custodial parent, how long on average does it take after the funds have been received until the payment is posted on ISETS to the custodial parent's account? ________________________________________ 14. For child support payments that are made electronically from an employer or an account of a non-custodial parent, how long on average does it take from the receipt of the child support in your unit until the child support is disbursed? _____________________ If necessary, please elaborate on any answers to the above cost and workload data questions: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

179

IV. Cost and Workload Data for Child Support Distribution In this section of the survey, we are going to ask you about the workload and costs associated with child support distribution in your county [paid to recipients by DCS]. By distribution, we are referring specifically to those tasks associated with determining who is entitled to the child support that is received from obligors (that is, are the child support dollars owed to the custodial parent, or the state or federal governments), through the printing of the ISETS file that is used as the basis for disbursing payments to custodial parents. In the next section of the survey, we will ask you a parallel set of questions about child support disbursement, or the actual payment of child support by checks, direct deposit or the new Hoosier Works card. 15. How many child support payments and how much child support, in total and as percentage of incoming payments, are not distributed within 48 hours, 72 hours, one week, 10 days, 30 days, and 60 days, and that end up as undistributed child support payments? Please fill in Table 15. Table 15 Figures on Undistributed Child Support

Undistributed support as of (MM/DD/YY) Number of undistributed child support payments Number of undistributed child support payments as a percentage of all payments received Dollar amount of undistributed child support Dollar amount of undistributed child support as a percentage of all payments received

48 hrs. 72 hrs. One week 10 days 30 days 60 days

Comments:____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

180

16. Please list all the tasks your unit conducts to distribute new support payments on a typical day, keeping in mind our definition of child support distribution in the previous question. For each task, provide the daily personnel hours involved in completing the task, the average hourly wage of the personnel completing the task, and the monthly non-personnel costs required to complete the task. Please fill-in Table 16. Table 16

Tasks

Tasks in Distributing Incoming Child Support Payments

Daily personnel hours Average hourly wage Monthly nonpersonnel costs

Comments: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

17. For child support payments processed by [DCS/Marion County/Vanderburgh County/Allen County], on average, how many staff hours per day are spent distributing new child support payments?_____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

181

V. Cost and Workload Data for Child Support Disbursement Now we would like to turn our attention to the process of disbursing or actually paying child support. 18. How many child support payments and how much child support, in total and as percentage of incoming payments, are not disbursed within 48 hours, 72 hours, one week, 10 days, 30 days, and 60 days? By not disbursed, we mean child support dollars received but not paid to the child support recipient, the state or federal governments for some reason. Please fill in Table 18. Table 18

Undistributed support as of (MM/DD/YY)

Figures on Undisbursed Child Support

Number of undistributed child support payments Number of undistributed child support payments as a percentage of all payments received Dollar amount of undistributed child support Dollar amount of undistributed child support as a percentage of all payments received

48 hrs. 72 hrs. One week 10 days 30 days 60 days

Comments: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 182

19. Please list all the tasks your unit conducts to disburse new support payments on a typical day, keeping in mind our definition of child support disbursement in the previous question. For each task, provide the daily personnel hours involved in completing the task, the average hourly wage of the personnel completing the task, and the monthly non-personnel costs required to complete the task. Please fill-in Table 19. Table 19

Tasks

Tasks in Disbursing Incoming Child Support Payments

Daily personnel hours Average hourly wage Monthly nonpersonnel costs

Comments: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 20. For child support payments processed by [DCS/Marion County/Vanderburgh County/Allen County], how many personnel hours per day are now spent disbursing initial child support payments? ______________________________________________ 183

VI. Adjustments and Returned Warrants 21. Please breakdown the daily tasks involved in processing returned warrants in [DCS/Marion County/Vanderburgh County/Allen County]. For each task, provide the daily personnel hours involved in completing the task, the average hourly wage of the personnel completing the task, and the monthly non-personnel costs required to complete the task. Please fill-in Table 21. Table 21

Tasks

Tasks Involved in Processing Returned Warrants

Daily personnel hours Average hourly wage Monthly nonpersonnel costs

Comments: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 22. How many personnel hours per day are spent processing returned warrants in [DCS/Marion County/ Vanderburgh County/Allen County]? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

184

23. Please list all the tasks involved in reconciling child support accounts handled by [DCS/Marion County/ Vanderburgh County/ Allen County]. For each task provide the daily personnel hours involved, the average hourly wage of the personnel completing the task, and the monthly non-personnel costs required to complete the task. Please fill in Table 23. Table 23

Tasks

Tasks in Reconciling Child Support Accounts

Daily personnel hours Average hourly wage Monthly nonpersonnel costs

Comments: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

185

Thank you for participating in this survey. We will be contacting you soon to discuss some of these questions. If you have any concerns about this project, please call Professor Craig Johnson at 812-855-0732. Also, the Indiana University Bloomington Campus Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects is charged with safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects. The Committee reviews and approves all research that is sponsored by IU professors and students. You should call the IU Bloomington Human Subjects Committee at 812-855-3067 if you have concerns about the protection of human subjects in this survey. The study number for this project is 03-8068.

186

APPENDIX G: ELECTRONIC DISBURSEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT STUDY PERFORMANCE OUTPUT SURVEY CURRENT SYSTEM TABULATED RESPONSES

187

Tabulation of Responses, Section II - Electronic Disbursement of Child Support Performance Output Survey of Current System Section II - 2 Routing account No's - Part-time person appointed to work with the project. Making sure that bank information is entered on ISETS is correct - when the bank rejects because account was closed make sure appropriate adjustments are done to each check to CP and end date direct deposit info on ISETS. Not sure what type of problems will be encountered on the CDA case as of yet. Direct deposit has been processing for several years. Most problems have been dealt with. Changes still need to be made to our voice response system. Not sure how to use the Hoosier work card. There will be a learning curve. If fees are charged could be more difficult for parent in regards to loss of money Any issues concerning direct deposit are currently being handled with our bookkeeping department. This area is well trained in solving problems pertaining to direct deposits. Our bookkeeping department is making sure all information on the custodial parent is up to date such as addresses and bank information. Attend meetings, Set meetings with Bank Staff, Judges and other Clerks Section II - 3 An informative brochure will be placed on our counter, placed in local banks and credit unions. We are asking tellers to inform our customers who cash child support checks about the new programs. A notice has been placed on the child support check stubs stating that the programs are now available. This is not my area of responsibility. Thelzeda Moore will be drafting the notice to the participants. I will be reviewing after the notice is drafted to make my comments. The information is on the form they fill out and sign, for direct deposit. The activities that our department (clerks office) is doing to educate the custodial parents on understanding the new payment process is one with flyers in our lobby area in reference to direct deposit expressing the benefits of using the option in comparison to the paper check. Also we have a message which is displayed on our child support check stubs in support of direct deposit. Verbally we are articulating the benefits of the CDA card. We currently have telephone representatives who are knowledgeable of both the direct deposit and the CDA process. They are capable of answering questions which may pertain to these issues. Direct contact with those coming into the offices; Memo line of CP checks, Media exposure when the system is running properly Section II - 4 Enthusiasm of workers in Clerks office and prosecutors' office. Advertise the programs in different medias and let CP's know that this program will not be optional in the future. The notice to the participants stating the advantage of having their money direct deposited instead of receiving a check. Custodial Parents being informed of all processes and being shown that EFT is the best. Getting the word out to the custodial parent Customer notification; Employee awareness of new process; Brochures; News Media and Employee training CP must have a method to verify a deposit; Calling the clerk's office is not an option; KIDS line is not dependable; Concerned because HEA 1408 doesn't become effective until July 1, 2003

188

Section II - 5 If the process hits a snag and payments are not processed properly. May take longer for the CP to have money in hand. If CP cannot easily get payment information. Not getting the direct deposit info entered in ISETS in a timely manner once it is received from the participant. Custodial/Parent education Custodial Parents not signing up for this service/ not understanding the letter and new procedures (people tend to think thing that don't pertain to them) Inability to test the system without using live data (unless someone else [IE, ISETS, DCS] is willing to accept the liability if anything goes wrong we are hesitant to move forward with having first tested the system Section II - 6 Cooperation with various agencies, education of staff and CP's. Must be a clear understanding of how the process works - knowledge of fees that will apply, i.e. using automatic teller machines. Custodial/Parent Education

189

APPENDIX H: ELECTRONIC DISBURSEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT STUDY PERFORMANCE OUTPUT SURVEY NEW SYSTEM

190

Electronic Disbursement of Child Support Study Performance Output Survey New System

Introduction 1. This survey is being conducted on behalf of the Indiana Child Support Bureau and is being administered by a research team from the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University. The survey is being sent from the Institute for Family and Social Responsibility as part of evaluating the electronic disbursement of child support project funded by the Indiana Department of Child Services and the United States Office of Child Support Enforcement. The purpose of this survey is to gather information to evaluate the project. The survey focuses on several aspects of the new child support disbursement systems. 2. You are invited to participate in this survey. Your participation is voluntary and very much appreciated. Survey responses will be used to facilitate the roll-out of direct deposit and Hoosier Works cards for child support to the remaining 89 counties in Indiana and serve as a model for other states and jurisdictions nationally. Our study calls for this mail survey as well as a face-toface interview with you within one or two weeks of receiving survey responses. Before we conduct the face-to-face interviews, we ask that you to complete this enclosed survey and return it to the Institute for Family and Social Responsibility in the enclosed stamped, addressed envelope. Filling out the questionnaire should take between sixty and ninety minutes. 3. After we receive and tabulate the mail survey responses, we will telephone you to set up a follow-up interview to discuss certain questions in further detail. The follow-up interview should take from thirty-sixty minutes. At the time of the interview, we will ask your permission to record the interview. 4. If a survey question is not within your area of professional responsibility, please answer the question with N/A. 5. Please make sure the information in the contact information section is accurate. If any information is incorrect, please correct it on the paper. If you have any questions about the survey, please contact Craig Johnson directly at 812-855-0732. Please fill-in the date and complete the survey. Thank you for your time and cooperation.

191

I. Contact Information Date: __________________________________________________________________ Agency: ________________________________________________________________ Unit: ___________________________________________________________________ Respondent's Name: ______________________________________________________ Respondent's Email: ______________________________________________________ Phone #: ________________________________________________________________

II. Project Implementation Questions 1. What did you do to anticipate the potential problems that might be encountered by custodial parents receiving child support by direct deposit or the new child support Hoosier Works card? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. When designing the new electronic methods of disbursing child support, what activities did you undertake, if any, to educate custodial parents how to use and understand the new payment process? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

192

3. In your opinion, what were the most important factors that facilitated the implementation of the direct deposit child support payment system in [DCS/Marion County/Vanderburgh County/Allen County]? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. In your opinion, what were the most important factors that facilitated the implementation of the Hoosier Works child support payment system in [DCS/Marion County/Vanderburgh County/Allen County]? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. In your opinion, what were the most important factors that hindered the implementation of the direct deposit child support payment system in [DCS/Marion County/Vanderburgh County/Allen County]? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. In your opinion, what were the most important factors that hindered the implementation of the Hoosier Works child support payment system in [DCS/Marion County/Vanderburgh County/Allen County]? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

193

III. General Cost and Workload Data 7. On average, how many returned warrants are received each day?__________________ 8. What is the cost, on average, to your unit for all returned warrants in a typical month?__________________ 9. On average, how many addresses are located for returned warrants so that they may be remailed each day? ____________________ 10. What is the average cost to your unit to re-issue a warrant that was lost, stolen or not received? ___________________ 11. How many stop-payment check orders does your office place each week? __________________ 12. What is the average cost of a stop-payment order? ___________________ 13. For child support payments that are made electronically from an employer or an account of a noncustodial parent, how long on average does it take after the funds have been received until the payment is posted on ISETS to the custodial parent's account? ________________________________________ 14. For child support payments that are made electronically from an employer or an account of a noncustodial parent, how long on average does it take from the receipt of the child support in your unit until the child support is disbursed? _____________________ If necessary, please elaborate on any answers to the above cost and workload data questions: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

194

IV. Cost and Workload Data for Child Support Distribution In this section of the survey, we are going to ask you about the workload and costs associated with child support distribution in your county [paid to recipients by DCS]. By distribution, we are referring specifically to those tasks associated with determining who is entitled to the child support that is received from obligors (that is, are the child support dollars owed to the custodial parent, or the state or federal governments), through the printing of the ISETS file that is used as the basis for disbursing payments to custodial parents. In the next section of the survey, we will ask you a parallel set of questions about child support disbursement, or the actual payment of child support by checks, direct deposit or the new Hoosier Works card. 15. How many child support payments and how much child support, in total and as percentage of incoming payments, are not distributed within 48 hours, 72 hours, one week, 10 days, 30 days, and 60 days, and that end up as undistributed child support payments? Please fill in Table 15. Table 15

Undistributed support as of (MM/DD/YY)

Figures on Undistributed Child Support

Number of undistributed child support payments Number of undistributed child support payments as a percentage of all payments received Dollar amount of undistributed child support Dollar amount of undistributed child support as a percentage of all payments received

48 hrs. 72 hrs. One week 10 days 30 days 60 days

Comments: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

195

16. Please list all the tasks your unit conducts to distribute new support payments on a typical day, keeping in mind our definition of child support distribution in the previous question. For each task, provide the daily personnel hours involved in completing the task, the average hourly wage of the personnel completing the task, and the monthly non-personnel costs required to complete the task. Please fill-in Table 16. Table 16

Tasks

Tasks in Distributing Incoming Child Support Payments

Daily personnel hours Average hourly wage Monthly nonpersonnel costs

Comments: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 17. For child support payments processed by [DCS/Marion County/Vanderburgh County/Allen County], on average, how many staff hours per day are spent distributing new child support payments? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

196

V. Cost and Workload Data for Child Support Disbursement Now we would like to turn our attention to the process of disbursing or actually paying child support. 18. How many child support payments and how much child support, in total and as percentage of incoming payments, are not disbursed within 48 hours, 72 hours, one week, 10 days, 30 days, and 60 days? By not disbursed, we mean child support dollars received but not paid to the child support recipient, the state or federal governments for some reason. Please fill in Table 18. Table 18

Undistributed support as of (MM/DD/YY)

Figures on Undisbursed Child Support

Number of undistributed child support payments Number of undistributed child support payments as a percentage of all payments received Dollar amount of undistributed child support Dollar amount of undistributed child support as a percentage of all payments received

48 hrs. 72 hrs. One week 10 days 30 days 60 days

Comments: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

197

19. Please list all the tasks your unit conducts to disburse new support payments on a typical day, keeping in mind our definition of child support disbursement in the previous question. For each task, provide the daily personnel hours involved in completing the task, the average hourly wage of the personnel completing the task, and the monthly non-personnel costs required to complete the task. Please fill-in Table 19. Table 19

Tasks

Tasks in Disbursing Incoming Child Support Payments

Daily personnel hours Average hourly wage Monthly nonpersonnel costs

Comments: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 20. For child support payments processed by [DCS/Marion County/Vanderburgh County/Allen County], how many personnel hours per day are now spent disbursing initial child support payments? ____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

198

VI. Adjustments and Returned Warrants 21. Please breakdown the daily tasks involved in processing returned warrants in [DCS/Marion County/Vanderburgh County/Allen County]. For each task, provide the daily personnel hours involved in completing the task, the average hourly wage of the personnel completing the task, and the monthly non-personnel costs required to complete the task. Please fill-in Table 21. Table 21

Tasks

Tasks Involved in Processing Returned Warrants

Daily personnel hours Average hourly wage Monthly nonpersonnel costs

Comments: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 22. How many personnel hours per day are spent processing returned warrants in [DCS/Marion County/ Vanderburgh County/Allen County]? ________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

199

23. Please list all the tasks involved in reconciling child support accounts handled by [DCS/Marion County/ Vanderburgh County/ Allen County]. For each task provide the daily personnel hours involved, the average hourly wage of the personnel completing the task, and the monthly non-personnel costs required to complete the task. Please fill in Table 23. Table 23

Tasks

Tasks in Reconciling Child Support Accounts

Daily personnel hours Average hourly wage Monthly nonpersonnel costs

Comments: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

200

Thank you for participating in this survey. We will be contacting you soon to discuss some of these questions. If you have any concerns about this project, please call Professor Craig Johnson at 812-855-0732. Also, the Indiana University Bloomington Campus Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects is charged with safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects. The Committee reviews and approves all research that is sponsored by IU professors and students. You should call the IU Bloomington Human Subjects Committee at 812-855-3067 if you have concerns about the protection of human subjects in this survey. The study number for this project is 03-8068.

201

APPENDIX I: ELECTRONIC DISBURSEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT STUDY PERFORMANCE OUTPUT SURVEY NEW SYSTEM TABULATED RESPONSES

202

Tabulation of Responses, Section II - Electronic Disbursement of Child Support Performance Output Survey of New System Section II - 1 We printed out direct deposit authorization forms and a tri-fold return mailer that explained the benefits and ease of direct deposit (samples were enclosed) The state handled the notification and explanation of the Hoosier works card. Made sure staff entering the direct deposit info in ISETS is double checked to ensure accuracy. This prevents money from going into the wrong persons account or being returned to our office because the account was not found. Section II - 2 Staff explained how the process would work. Forms mentioned above were distributed. Tri-fold brochures were placed at most local banks and credit unions. I reviewed the notices being sent to the CP's for any errors and made minor changes. Thelzeda Moore was primarily responsible for the notices that went out. Section II - 3 Sending Brochures to the local financial institutions and explain the process to them so that they would promote the program for us. Note on the child support check stub helped make recipients aware of the direct deposit program. The notice sent to CP's notifying them of the advantages of direct deposit to a bank account or CDA card instead of getting a check. Section II - 4 Mass mailing to the recipients by the state Stressing the fact, in the notice, for participants who do not have a bank account that the fee for using the debit card is minimal compared to check cashing fees. Also no change when they use P.O.S. Section II - 5 Not understanding when the direct deposit would be in the participants' bank account. Participants expected the program to help them get their payments sooner. The time delays in getting the info entered into ISETS if the person chose to have their money go to their bank account. Section II - 6 Participants felt that they did not have anyone to contact with their problems. The literature sent out was over whelming to some and they just ignored it until it was too late to sign up for direct deposit and they were surprised when thy got the Hoosier works card. Having to send several notices to the CP before CDA could start

203

APPENDIX J: ELECTRONIC DISBURSEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT STUDY PROCESS EVALUATION SURVEY

204

Electronic Disbursement of Child Support Study Process Evaluation Survey

Introduction 1. This survey is being conducted on behalf of the Indiana Child Support Bureau and is being administered by a research team from the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University. The survey is being sent from the Institute for Family and Social Responsibility as part of evaluating the electronic disbursement of child support project funded by the Indiana Department of Child Services and the United States Office of Child Support Enforcement. The purpose of this survey is to gather information to evaluate the process of implementing the new child support disbursement systems. The questions are largely designed to ascertain your perceptions of the level of effective collaboration in implementing the electronic child support disbursement project. 2. You are invited to participate in this survey. Your participation is voluntary and very much appreciated. Survey responses will be used to facilitate the roll-out of direct deposit and Hoosier Works cards for child support to the remaining 89 counties in Indiana and serve as a model for other states and jurisdictions nationally. Our study calls for this mail survey as well as an interview with you. Before we conduct the interviews, we ask that you complete this enclosed survey and return it to the Institute for Family and Social Responsibility in the enclosed stamped, addressed envelope. Filling out the questionnaire should take between sixty and ninety minutes. 3. After we receive and tabulate the mail survey responses, we will telephone you to set up a follow-up interview to discuss certain questions in further detail. The follow-up interview should take from thirty-sixty minutes. At the time of the interview, we will ask your permission to record the interview. 4. Please make sure the information in the contact information section is accurate. If any information is incorrect, please correct it on the paper. If you have any questions about the survey, please contact Craig Johnson directly at 812-855-0732. Please fill-in the date and complete the survey. Thank you for your time and cooperation. I. Contact Information Date: __________________________________________________________________ Agency: ________________________________________________________________ Unit: ___________________________________________________________________ Respondent's Name:_______________________________________________________ Respondent's Email:_______________________________________________________ Phone #: ________________________________________________________________

205

II: Direct Deposit System for Custodial Parents - Effectiveness of Project Managers First, we would like to ask you about the effectiveness of project managers in the planning, design, development, testing and implementation stages of the two new methods of receiving child support payments; direct deposit to the bank accounts of child support recipients and the electronic transfer of child support to the new Hoosier Works debit card for child support. We will define what we mean for each of these stages. We will begin with questions on direct deposit and will turn our attention to the Hoosier Works card later in the survey. 1. How would you evaluate the effectiveness of project managers during the "planning" stage for the new direct deposit of child support initiative? As part of the "planning" stage, we include a basic assessment of the child support by paper check disbursement system; the identification of the requirements and an analysis of the feasibility of the direct deposit system for child support including a preliminary assessment of costs and benefits; and, a basic definition of the functional requirements of the new direct deposit payment system. Overall, would you say that project managers during the "planning" stage were: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess effectiveness of the project managers. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. How would you evaluate the effectiveness of project managers during the "design" stage of the new project to pay child support by direct deposits to the bank accounts of child support recipients? In the "design" stage, we include the finalization of the functional requirements of the direct deposit system and their translation into a general design. The following are just some of the questions that had to be answered during the "design" stage of this project: How will the system operate? What are the hardware, software and programming requirements? Where will different parts of the system be physically located? How will users interface with the system? How will the new system be integrated with other systems, including older information technology systems? What input data are needed for the system to function properly, and what data reports should be produced? Overall, would you say that project managers during the "design" stage were: 206

Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess effectiveness of the project managers. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. How would you evaluate the effectiveness of project managers during the "development" stage of the payment of child support by direct deposit project? In the "development" stage, most of the computer programming takes place, basic program information is documented, and unit testing occurs. Overall, would you say that project managers during the "development" stage were: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess effectiveness of the project managers. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. How would you evaluate the effectiveness of project managers during the "testing" stage of the payment of child support by direct deposit project? In the "testing" stage, system test plans and procedures are documented; the new direct deposit system is sufficiently developed to be put 207

through a sequence of acceptance tests to ensure that it functions as expected. Overall, would you say that project managers during the "development" stage were: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess effectiveness of the project managers. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ 5. How would you evaluate the effectiveness of project managers during the "implementation" stage of the direct deposit project? The "implementation" stage involves installing the direct deposit system, training staff and custodial parents to use the new system, and the actual use of the new system by custodial parents. Overall, would you say that project managers during the "implementation" stage were: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess effectiveness of the project managers. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

208

III Hoosier Works Debit Card System: Effectiveness of Project Managers Now we would like to turn your attention to the implementation of the new child support Hoosier Works debit card. We will remind you again what we mean by the planning, design, development, testing and implementation stages of the Hoosier Works child support project. 6. How would you evaluate the effectiveness of project managers during the "planning" stage for the Hoosier Works debit card child support initiative? As part of the "planning" stage, we include a basic assessment of the child support by paper check disbursement system; the identification and feasibility analysis of the child support Hoosier Works debit card including a preliminary assessment of costs and benefits; and, a basic definition of the functional requirements of the new Hoosier Works payment system. Overall, would you say that project managers during the "planning" stage were: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess effectiveness of the project managers. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. How would you evaluate the effectiveness of project managers during the "design" stage of the Hoosier Works project? The design stage includes the finalization of the functional requirements of the Hoosier Works debit card system and their translation into detailed designs. The following are just some of the questions that had to be answered during the design stage. How will the system operate? What are the hardware, software and programming requirements? What type of card will it be? How will users interface with the system? Where will users be able to make draws? How will the new system be integrated with other systems, including older information technology systems? What input data are needed for the system to function properly, and what data reports should be produced? Overall, would you say that project managers during the "design" stage were:

209

Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess effectiveness of the project managers. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ 8. How would you evaluate the effectiveness of project managers during the "development" stage of the Hoosier Works project? In the "development" stage, most of the computer programming takes place; basic program information is documented, and unit testing occurs. Overall, would you say that project managers during the "development" stage were: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess effectiveness of the project managers. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

9. How would you evaluate the effectiveness of project managers during the "testing" stage of the Hoosier Works project? In the "testing" stage, system test plans and procedures are documented; the new Hoosier Works payment system is sufficiently developed to be put through 210

a sequence of acceptance tests to ensure that it functions as expected. Overall, would you say that project managers during the "testing" stage were: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess effectiveness of the project managers. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 10. How would you evaluate the effectiveness of project managers during the "implementation" stage of the Hoosier Works project? The "implementation" stage involves installing the Hoosier Works debit card system; training staff and vendors on how to administer and use the debit card system; training custodial parents to use the debit card; and, the actual use of the debit card by custodial parents. Overall, would you say that project managers during the "implementation" stage were: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess effectiveness of the project managers. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

211

IV. Project Team Collaboration Next, we are asking you a series of questions about collaboration. First, we will ask about collaboration at the state level and then focus on collaboration within the pilot counties and between the state agencies and the pilot counties. We will ask about overall collaboration as well as collaboration between the technical and program/policy units, and between the technical and financial administrative units. 11. How would you evaluate the level of collaboration across administrative units within state government? Overall, was this collaboration: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess the effectiveness of the collaboration. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 12. How would you evaluate the level of collaboration between technical (information technology/systems operations) and program/policy-oriented administrative units in state government? Overall, was this collaboration: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess the effectiveness of the collaboration. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

212

13. How would you evaluate the level of collaboration between technical (information technology/systems operations) and financial administrative units in state government? Overall, was this collaboration: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess the effectiveness of the collaboration. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 14. How would you evaluate the level of collaboration between program/policy-oriented and financial administrative units in state government? Overall, was this collaboration: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess the effectiveness of the collaboration. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

213

15. How would you evaluate the level of collaboration at the county? If you are a State employee, please think about all the pilot counties. If you are a county employee, please confine your response to collaboration within your county. Overall, was this collaboration: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess the effectiveness of the collaboration. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 16. How would you evaluate the level of collaboration between technical (information technology/systems operations) and program/policy-oriented administrative units at the county? If you are a State employee, please think about all the pilot counties. If you are a county employee, please confine your response to collaboration within your county. Overall, was this collaboration: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess the effectiveness of the collaboration. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 17. How would you evaluate the level of collaboration between technical (information technology/systems operations) and financial administrative units at the county? If you are a 214

State employee, please think about all the pilot counties. If you are a county employee, please confine your response to collaboration within your county. Overall, was this collaboration: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess the effectiveness of the collaboration. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ 18. How would you evaluate the level of collaboration between program/policy-oriented and financial administrative units at the county? If you are a State employee, please think about all the pilot counties. If you are a county employee, please confine your response to collaboration within your county. Overall, was this collaboration: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess the effectiveness of the collaboration. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 19. For this project, how would you evaluate the level of collaboration between the state government and county clerk's office? If you are a State employee, please think about all the pilot counties. If you are a county employee, please confine your response to collaboration within your county. Overall, was this collaboration: 215

Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess the effectiveness of the collaboration. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ 20. For this project only, how would you evaluate the level of collaboration between the county government and the private vendor(s)? If you are a State employee, please think about all the pilot counties. If you are a county employee, please confine your response to collaboration within your county. Please fill in the name and answer box for each vendor you worked with on this project. Overall, was this collaboration: 20a. Name of Vendor:______________________________________________________ Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess the effectiveness of the collaboration. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

216

20b. Name of Vendor:______________________________________________________ Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess the effectiveness of the collaboration. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 20c. Name of Vendor:______________________________________________________ Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess the effectiveness of the collaboration. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

217

20d. Name of Vendor:______________________________________________________ Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess the effectiveness of the collaboration. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ 21. For this project only, how would you evaluate the level of collaboration between the state government and the private vendor(s)? Please fill in the name and answer box for each vendor you worked with on this project. Overall, was this collaboration: 21a. Name of Vendor: _____________________________________________________ Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess the effectiveness of the collaboration. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

218

21b. Name of Vendor: _____________________________________________________ Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess the effectiveness of the collaboration. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 21c. Name of Vendor: _____________________________________________________ Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess the effectiveness of the collaboration. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

219

21d. Name of Vendor: _____________________________________________________ Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess the effectiveness of the collaboration. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 22. For the direct deposit portion of this project only, how would you evaluate the level of collaboration between state government and the bank(s)? Overall, was this collaboration: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess the effectiveness of the collaboration. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

220

23. For the Hoosier Works debit card portion of the project only, how would you evaluate the level of collaboration between the state government and the bank(s)? If you are a State employee, please think about all the pilot counties. If you are a county employee, please confine your response to collaboration within your county. Overall, was this collaboration: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess the effectiveness of the collaboration. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 24. For the direct deposit portion of this project only, how would you evaluate the level of collaboration between county government and the bank(s)? If you are a State employee, please think about all the pilot counties. If you are a county employee, please confine your response to collaboration within your county. Overall, was this collaboration: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess the effectiveness of the collaboration. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

221

25. For the Hoosier Works debit card portion of the project only, how would you evaluate the level of collaboration between the county government and the bank(s)? If you are a State employee, please think about all the pilot counties. If you are a county employee, please confine your response to collaboration within your county. Overall, was this collaboration: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess the effectiveness of the collaboration. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ IV. Involving the Custodial Parent in the Project Now we are asking about the kinds of activities that you may have conducted to facilitate the direct deposit and Hoosier Works debit cards payment methods for custodial parents. We will ask you about what happened in the planning, design, development, testing and implementation stages of the project to facilitate the use of the new payment methods by custodial parents. 26. When "planning" the new electronic methods of disbursing child support, what did you do ascertain the requirements (needs, constraints, etc.) of custodial parents? Remember, the "planning" stage of the Hoosier Works and direct deposit innovations include a basic assessment of the child support paper check disbursement system; the identification of the requirements and an analysis of the feasibility of the Hoosier Works and direct deposit systems for child support including a preliminary assessment of costs and benefits; and, a basic definition of the functional requirements of the two new payment systems. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

222

27. When "designing" the new electronic methods of disbursing child support, what did you do to ascertain the requirements (needs, constraints, etc.) of custodial parents? Again, remember that in the "design" stage, we include the finalization of the functional requirements of the Hoosier Works and direct deposit systems and their translation into detailed designs. The following are just some of the questions that had to be answered during the "design" stage of this project: How will the system operate? What are the hardware, software and programming requirements? Where will different parts of the system be physically located? How will users interface with the system? How will the new system be integrated with other systems, including older information technology systems? What input data are needed for the system to function properly, and what data reports should be produced? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

28. When "developing" and "testing" the new electronic methods of disbursing child support, what did you do to ascertain the requirements (needs, constraints, etc.) of custodial parents? Again, in the "development" stage, most of the computer programming takes place and basic program information is documented; in the "testing" phase, system test plans and procedures are documented; and the new Hoosier Works and direct deposit systems are sufficiently developed to be put through a sequence of acceptance tests to ensure that they function as expected. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 29. When "implementing" the new electronic methods of disbursing child support, what did you do to ascertain the requirements (needs, constraints, etc.) of custodial parents? As a brief reminder, the "implementation" stage involves installing the direct deposit and Hoosier Works systems, training staff and custodial parents to use the new systems, and the actual use of the new systems by custodial parents. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 223

30. What did you do to anticipate the potential problems that might be encountered by custodial parents receiving child support by direct deposit or the new child support Hoosier Works card? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 31. In implementing the new electronic methods of disbursing child support, what activities did you undertake, if any, to educate custodial parents on how to use and understand the new payment process? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 32. If you conducted activities to educate custodial parents on how to use and understand the new payment processes, how would you evaluate their level of effectiveness? Would you say that they were: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very effective (2) Somewhat effective (3) Neither effective nor ineffective (4) Somewhat ineffective (5) Very ineffective (8) We did not conduct educational activities for custodial parents. Please provide specific examples or comments that elaborate on your response. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

224

33. If you conducted activities to educate custodial parents on how to use and understand the new payment process, we would like you to fill in the table below. We would like a listing of the educational activities undertaken, the duration and frequency of the activities, and the personnel and non-personnel costs associated with the educational activities?

Educational Activities

Duration of activities

Frequency of activities

Personnel costs

Nonpersonnel costs

V: Overall Satisfaction with New Payment Systems 34. How would you evaluate the level of your satisfaction with the new direct deposit disbursement system? Would you say that you are: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very satisfied (2) Somewhat satisfied (3) Neither satisfied nor not satisfied (4) Somewhat unsatisfied (5) Very unsatisfied Please tell us why you are satisfied or unsatisfied with the new direct deposit payment system. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

225

35. How would you evaluate the level of your satisfaction with the new Hoosier Works child support debit card? Would you say that you are: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very satisfied (2) Somewhat satisfied (3) Neither satisfied nor not satisfied (4) Somewhat unsatisfied (5) Very unsatisfied Please tell us why you are satisfied or unsatisfied with the new Hoosier Works debit card payment system. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 36. How would you evaluate the level of improvement in your unit's internal business processes from the change to the new direct deposit disbursement system? Would you say that business operations are: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very much improved (2) Somewhat improved (3) Neither improved nor worsened (4) Somewhat worsened (5) Very much worsened Please tell us how business processes have changed in a way that supports your assessment. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

226

37. How would you evaluate the level of improvement in your unit's internal business processes from the change to the new Hoosier Works debit card system? Would you say that business operations are: Please check the BOX that best describes your opinion. (1) Very much improved (2) Somewhat improved (3) Neither improved nor worsened (4) Somewhat worsened (5) Very much worsened Please tell us how business processes have changed in a way that supports your assessment. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

227

38. Please provide specific suggestions on how the planning, design, development & testing, and implementation phases of future child support electronic disbursement projects, or similar egovernment projects, can be improved in the future. We will leave you a page to comment on each stage of these two projects. Planning: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 228

Design: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

229

Development and Testing: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 230

Implementation: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

231

Thank you for participating in this survey. We will be contacting you soon to discuss some of these questions. If you have any concerns about this project, please call Professor Craig Johnson at 812-855-0732. Also, the Indiana University Bloomington Campus Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects is charged with safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects. The Committee reviews and approves all research that is sponsored by IU professors and students. You should call the IU Bloomington Human Subjects Committee at 812-855-3067 if you have concerns about the protection of human subjects in this survey. The study number for this project is 03-8068.

232

APPENDIX K: ELECTRONIC DISBURSEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT STUDY PROCESS EVALUATION SURVEY TABULATED RESPONSES

233

Tabulation of Responses, Electronic Disbursement of Child Support Process Evaluation Survey (1)Very (2) (3) Neither (4) (5) Very (8) I had no effective Somewhat Effective Somewhat ineffective involvement in effective nor ineffective this part of the ineffective project and cannot assess effectiveness of the project Likert managers Scale Q.1 1 3 0 0 0 4 Some situations were not addressed There were two "direct deposit" modules already in place: 1 - at the state and 2 - at Marion County. Planning was done to "somewhat" simulate these modules in Vanderburgh and Allen Counties. Allen County was a pilot for the project. I felt that this stage was given adequate effort from my perspective. Q.2 0 3 1 0 0 4 The direct deposit portion was in already in place before the CDA pilot. So the project manager did not have anything to do with the design stage of 'direct deposit'. She was involved in the CDA portion of the design. Design limited by current system functionality and resources already in place. Q.3 1 2 1 0 0 4 Was already done Efforts made to account for all contingents and setting guidelines for handling problems that may occur. Q.4 1 2 1 0 0 4 Project manager reviewed all programming line by line. Test was on a scenario basis. Additional scenarios were thought up to test. Was already done previously. No need to retest with CDA pilot Since our office does not handle payments we did not work with the project managers. However we did receive copies of the information given to custodial parents and thought it was very useful and informative 2 3 0 1 0 2 A letter was written to go to custodial parents explaining CDA and the option of using direct deposit instead Excellent. Every participant was mailed at least two notices about the forthcoming change to electronic disbursement. All clerks and IV-D prosecutors were also notified of each bit of information provided to the participant. No instructions- i.e. no hardcopies were distributed at implementation nor to date have we received any documentation to support what we have been told via phone transmission. At our level, we implemented forms to assist those wanting to participate. Based upon usage of system, I would say it was successful. 2 3 0 0 0 3 Several meetings were conducted with appropriate staff to determine how this would work. Also, project manager worked to make sure the CDA option was not to costly to the CP's

Q.5

Q.6

234

(1)Very effective

(2) Somewhat effective

(3) Neither Effective nor ineffective

(4) Somewhat ineffective

(5) Very ineffective

Likert Scale Q.7

(8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess effectiveness of the project managers

Q.8

Q.9

Q.10

2 2 0 0 0 4 Very thorough in this process - asked pertinent questions to come to connect conclusion of the best way to proceed. 2 2 0 0 0 4 Project managers received test plans and had other CSB review as well. Met with programmers to go over the test results. Found issues that needed to be reworked and made sure problems are fixed. 2 2 0 0 0 4 If our office received any inquiries from custodial parents in regards to this program we simply directed them to the clerk's office. 1 3 0 0 1 3 Got off to a slow start. Only explanation to custodial parents was the letter and insert by Citicorp. Inquiring workers at CSB had a lot of questions that came from CP's regarding the CDA card. After reviewing notification the participant was put on direct deposit within approx. two weeks after notifying the State/County. CDA was implemented at a later date. The implementation did not work properly - participants received confusing and/or conflicting information from the state. Since this portion of the program was to assist the state more than the local level. I believe all questions, concerns and issues should remain at the state level. 1 2 1 0 1 3 I was not involved at the meetings with the counties. There were weekly meetings for the first year and a quarter, then bi-weekly, then as needed. There was communication among staff several times a day. Yes it was collaborative. It seemed that the help desk staff was not aware of many of the initiatives. Communication was lacking. 3 1 1 0 0 3 Project staff worked closely with the project manager regarding program and policy questions Technical and program staff were involved in the weekly collaborative meetings. 1 3 0 0 0 4 Financial manager was involved in the project when needed. The way our program is set up there is very little for collaboration between technical and our financial management section. The technical staff for our computer system are contract employees. 2 2 0 0 0 4 Program/Policy Staff and financial staff were involved as needed at meetings Yes. There was some collaboration. 3 1 0 0 1 3 We made considerable outreach to the pilot counties with visits to the counties, meetings here at state and conference calls and training

Q.11

Q.12

Q.13

Q.14

Q.15

235

(1)Very effective

(2) Somewhat effective

(3) Neither Effective nor ineffective

(4) Somewhat ineffective

(5) Very ineffective

Likert Scale Q.16

(8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess effectiveness of the project managers

Q.17

Q.18

Q.19

3 1 0 0 0 4 Technical staff was included in the opening meeting with each county. They continued an on going relationship with state and county technical for the duration. 3 1 0 0 0 4 The state technical group worked with the financial institution through the clerk to establish transmission and resolve any problems. 3 1 0 0 0 4 To my knowledge the clerks had quite a bit of collaboration with their in-house financial institution and their banks. 2 2 0 0 0 3 There was at least weekly contact concerning various issues. 1 2 0 0 0 4 Covansys National City Bank - National City at the time was our primary banking institution. They helped local staff understand the process that needed to take place. They seemed to work well with the state agency. 0 2 0 0 0 4 There was excellent dialogue between the clerks and Covansys, our contract technical people. 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 Citicorp - Wasn't really involved in the issues while Citicorp was the vendor. 0 2 0 1 0 4

Q.20 a

Q.20 b

Q.20 c Q.20 d Q.21 a

Q.21 b

Q.21 c Q.21 d Q.22 Q.23 Q.24 Q.25 Q.26

JP Morgan - Customer service representative at JP Morgan are not responsive to the questions our CP's have and are reported as being rude. Will not give their name or ID when asked. Also JP Morgan is depositing money early and this causes many questions. 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 All indicators are that the clerks worked extremely well with their banks 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I helped review the letters that went out to custodial parents. Strongly suggested to management that the project not start right before Christmas to prevent CP's from not getting their money to Christmas shop due to possible initial start-up problems, Very little, I wasn't included in most of the process.

4 4 3 3 4 5 2

236

(1)Very effective

(2) Somewhat effective

(3) Neither Effective nor ineffective

(4) Somewhat ineffective

(5) Very ineffective

Likert Scale Q.27

(8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess effectiveness of the project managers

Q.28 Q.29

0 0 0 0 0 2 Helped determine criteria that would be used to select CDA population. Also reviewed requirements and deign documents to make sure nothing was missed and that the design works work well. 0 0 0 0 0 1 We took into consideration all previous problems and scenarios faced by custodial parents 0 0 0 0 0 1 Helped in development of the letters to CP's and made sure CSB staff entered direct deposit info accurately and timely when it was returned We took into consideration all previous problems and scenarios faced by custodial parents. Also, they were allowed to select direct deposit if they wished. Notices (via check stubs) were utilized to "offer" the new program. Staff was instructed as to how the program worked and forms were created to be handed, mailed or distributed to banks, credit unions and the individual for the sign up. 0 0 0 0 0 1 Helped project manager come up with list of frequently asked question sand answers for Inquiring staff to answer calls from CPs We took into consideration all previous problems and as far as any future problems went through the process step by step. Understanding that the turn around time would take a day or two longer, but if the payer was consistent, the deposit could be "relatively" counted on the same day (weekly, biweekly, monthly). 0 0 0 0 0 1 Helped with letter We sent letters of explanation to them as well as clerks and prosecutors. Held training sessions with clerks. 0 5 0 0 0 2 Some custodial parents understood the information sent to them, others either did not understand, or did not want to understand. Most questions could be answered by staff. Those questioning seemed to grasp the concepts well. 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 0 0 0 1 We never had a problem until accounts are closed, and we haven't been notified. Direct deposit was already in place before this pilot was started Majority of participants on direct deposit have few problems, a lot of convenience and no lost or stolen warrants. As the project continues to grow, our supply needs and postage expense continue to drop. We are not getting any complaints about this process in our office but all inquiries regarding payments are referred to our county clerk.

Q.30

Q.31

Q.32

Q.33 Q.34

237

(1)Very effective

(2) Somewhat effective

(3) Neither Effective nor ineffective

(4) Somewhat ineffective

(5) Very ineffective

Likert Scale Q.35

(8) I had no involvement in this part of the project and cannot assess effectiveness of the project managers

Q.36

Q.37

0 2 1 1 2 1 There are always problems. Customer service problems, address problems, and over all accounts problems Because of the customer service complaints There continues to be a number of customer service issues associates with the C DA card. 1 3 2 1 0 1 Not as many checks being mailed out to CP's - being sent electronically by direct deposit. Still problem if CP does not change her address - Money doesn't disburse if there is no mailing address I do not review collection and disbursement data on a daily or weekly basis. I do converse with the clerks concerning their lost, returned warrants and all involved in the pilot indirectly... the electronic disbursement ones has decreased the amount of their lost/returned warrants. Staff has increased speed in posting of payments adjustments and modifications. 1 3 1 0 2 1 When there's a problem we have to email our contact person, they email their contact person and we wait for a response so we can respond. The Hoosier works debit card system goes hand in hand with the direct deposit system. Those individuals with a personal bank account can select direct deposit and those without will receive a Hoosier Works debit card. Again, I say this is somewhat improved because this system is not available statewide. 0 0 0 0 0 1 Planning: Continue to include the local level in all aspects of the objective being obtained. We may have more insight on how things will or won't work. Design: Make the following concessions - User friendly - Frustration occurs when the design is complicated. Move toward a windows type format so information can easily be retrieved and formatted for other users. Implementation: The frustration of absolutely no instructions irritates to no end. We realize at the local level that a single answer does not work for everything. Yet if we were given written instructions on how the system is to work, data entry etc., we may be able to solve problems here versus having to call the help desk. The help desk needs to be more helpful - Trained in these processes and more communicative. I would plan on using a financial institution that has an in state customer service center instead of in India because it is difficult to understand some of the representatives. It also needs to be more customer service friendly. (the customer service center) Should have planned to send notification to vendor when CDA was closed because CP sent back info to send money to their checking/savings account. Design: Should have added to notes screen to CDA screen. Implementation: Should have made sure KIDS line (CSB Inquiry) staff were more prepared to answer questions. Also, should have made sure vendor's customer service reps could answer questions accurately. Include the staff that will do the work in the planning. Future child support electronic disbursement projects will require a new format and plan of action. There is no ability to expand the entire current process to a statewide system.

Q.38

238

APPENDIX L: PRICING COMPONENTS, STATE OF INDIANA DIRECT DEBIT CARD SERVICES

239

Pricing Components, State of Indiana Direct Debit Card Services

Cardholder fees will be fully disclosed to recipients in the Disclosure Statement and User Agreement distributed with cards upon enrollment. FEE CATEGORY TRANSACTION FEE Account Enrollment $0 One time set-up fee for account establishment and card/PIN issuance per cardholder ACH Credit $0 Fee assessed for each cardholder ACH deposit receipt and posting into Citicorp EFS MasterCard account Account Maintenance $0 Monthly fee assessed for each cardholder account receiving a deposit from the State of Indiana Inactive Account Maintenance $1.50 Monthly fee assessed for active accounts (with balances greater than zero) NOT receiving a deposit form the State of Indiana, or receiving a client-authorized debit, beginning with the thirteenth(13) consecutive month of inactivity. ATM Surcharge: Allpoint Network $0 All Other Networks Domestic ATM Fee Fee assessed for each domestic US cash withdrawal/ATM transaction beginning with the second (2nd) withdrawal each month. ATM Balance Inquiry Fee Fee assessed per ATM balance inquiry transaction, beginning with the fifth (5th) ATM balance inquiry transaction each month. Telephone Inquiry Fee Fee assessed per telephone inquiry call to the Citicorp Helpdesk, beginning with the fifth (5th) call each month. ATM Denial Fee Fee assessed for each ATM transaction denied for insufficient funds International ATM Fee Fee assessed for each international cash withdrawal and balance inquiry transaction. Variable foreign exchange rates will apply for non-dollar denominated transactions. Card to Card Transfer Fee assessed for a client-initiated request to transfer funds to a Cash Transfer Card POS Fee Fee assessed for each domestic or international retail purchase or purchases with cash back Card Replacement Fee assessed per card replacement beginning with the second (2nd) replacement card each calendar year Expedited Mail North American overnight delivery charge. Fee initiated at client discretion and assessed per event Check Issuance Fee assessed for processing checks for expungement of remaining balance upon account closure. Fee initiated at client discretion and assessed per event YES, as Posted $1.50 $0.40 $0.40 $0.50 $3.00

$4.95 $0 $5.00 $10.00 $12.50

Description of Usage Fees: 240

Monthly Account Maintenance Fee-Monthly Fee for core services, 7x24 toll-free helpline, account set up/training, material delivery, unlimited free POS transactions, web account access, monthly statement, one free annual card replacement.

ATM Transactions-Fee per successful withdrawal of cash from ATMs

ATM Balance Inquiries-Fee per account balance inquiry transaction at ATMs Cardholder may elect to use ATMs to check their account balances. ATM balance inquiry fees may be avoided since other no-cost alternatives are also available for balance inquiries (web account access, prior transaction receipt, helpline).

Telephone Inquiry Fee-Cardholders will be limited to four calls each month to the Citicorp EFS Customer Service helpdesk, and notified that they may be charged a fee for additional calls. There will be no fees for calls to report lost or stolen cards.

POS Transactions-There will be no charge to cardholders for purchase transactions (including Internet retail transactions), or purchase with cash back transactions at retail POS locations. This supports low cost account and cash access at most retailers.

ATM Denial Fee-Fee per ATM transaction denied due to insufficient account balances-NSF. International ATM Transactions-Fee per ATM withdrawal transaction at ATM locations outside of the U.S.

Card Replacement-Fee per replacement card requested by recipients. 241

Recipient may request one card replacement per year at no cost. Card replacement fees will apply beginning the second card replaced in a calendar year. Overnight delivery of replacement cards may be requested by recipients for an additional fee of $10.00.

Check Issuance-Fee for check requested by clients, usually requested to expunge balances upon account closing. Overnight delivery of checks may be requested by recipients for an additional fee of $10.00

Card-to-Card Transfer-Fee per transfer of funds from primary to Cash Transfer Cards. The Card-to-Card transfer feature is currently in pilot and fees for this service may be subject to change with advance notice to enrolled cardholders.

Account Inactivity Fee-Fee per account per month on all accounts with a balance greater than zero for which there is no credit or debit activity. The fee is applied in the thirteenth and succeeding consecutive months of inactivity, after twelve consecutive months of inactivity.

242

APPENDIX M: IMPLEMENTING THE ELECTRONIC DISBURSEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS ­ NSF DIGITAL GOVERNNACE CONFERENCE (dg.o2003)

243

Implementing the Electronic Disbursement of Child Support Payments NSF National Conference on Digital Government Research (dg.o2003)

Dr. Craig L. Johnson and Dr. Maureen A. Pirog Institute for Family and Social Responsibility Indiana University SPEA 241 1315 E. Tenth Street Bloomington, Indiana 47405-1701 [email protected] [email protected]

244

Abstract This paper will examine an on-going e-government pilot project to implement an electronic child support disbursement system in the state of Indiana. The new electronic disbursement system is designed to replace the current paper-based check system with a dual electronic system of direct bank deposits for custodial parents with bank accounts and commercial debit cards with a MasterCard logo for unbanked custodial parents, referred to as the Hoosier Works card. The paper will describe the development of the new electronic disbursement system, from project planning through project implementation, and provide a discussion of the comprehensive evaluation plan built into the project's design. 1. Introduction Child support payments in Indiana are currently disbursed through a paper-check based system from the state government and local county clerks' offices. The child support electronic disbursement pilot project involves payments disbursed by the state government and three counties in Indiana, with the expectation that the system will be rolled out through the entire state. In addition, the lessons learned from this project will influence the roll-out of similar child support disbursement systems in other states. As the first, statewide electronic child support payment system, this case study will likely influence the dissemination of this e-government innovation nationally. 2. Project Background The project began in the summer of 2002 with the joint drafting of a grant proposal by the Indiana Family and Social Service Administration and researchers from the Institute for Family and Social Responsibility at Indiana University, School of Public and Environmental Affairs. The project was awarded funding for both project implementation and project evaluation by United States Department of Health and Human Services, with matching funding provided by 245

the Indiana Family and Social Service Administration. Demonstration funding was provided because it is believed that, if successful, Indiana's electronic child support disbursement system will be replicated in other states. This will have far-reaching and long-lasting impacts, because nationally the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program is the second largest child-oriented program, second only to K-12 education, and it can serve children for long periods of time, from birth through college. The new electronic system is expected to significantly reduce county and state administrative costs, supply and material costs (i.e., writing checks, stuffing envelopes, postage and stationary), and increase client satisfaction. From the clients' perspective, the benefits of the new electronic disbursement system should be substantial. Child support checks will not take two to five days for postal delivery; check cashing and banking fees for low income families will be reduced; many "unbanked" low-income people will be brought into the banking system; the sense of security will be improved by using the commercial debit card rather than carrying cash; and custodial parents who are out of town, experiencing housing insecurity or are domestic violence victims will now be able to receive their child support payments. 3. Electronic Disbursement and Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) This child support electronic disbursement project continues the state of Indiana's efforts to implement major e-government projects to reduce the costs of delivering services to citizens, improve program performance, and increase customer service. In Indiana, as in some other states, the use of electronic benefit transfers (EBT) has become popular for the delivery of both Food Stamps and TANF payments. This technology has been used in ATM (automated teller machines) banking networks and electronic bill presentment and payment systems. In addition to direct deposits into client transaction accounts at financial institutions, EBT has been extended to the use of debit cards for child care, the social security insurance supplement program, 246

emergency assistance, and EBT is being considered in many states for delivering USDA Women, Infants and Children (WIC) benefits. However, there is little experience and no evaluation of projects that have included child support on such debit cards. While the upside potential for e-government innovations in child support is enormous, direct transfers of technology from the Food Stamps and TANF program may not work since child support is not a government benefit but rather a transfer from one private citizen to his or her children that is enforced by governments. In Indiana, this seemingly simple innovation involves contracts with debit card and information technology vendors, banks, and up to 92 counties where child support is deposited before being disbursed to recipient families. At the state level, collaboration between the Child Support Bureau (CSB), the technology branch of the state social services agency and its private vendor, the state Accountant's office, the finance office, and the TANF program is necessary. This innovation also requires collaboration between the state CSB and 92 elected county clerks who are paid for disbursing child support. 4. Project Evaluation Many states electronically deposit incoming child support payments from non-custodial parents into transaction accounts. But, few states deposit child support onto state-issued debit cards used either for child support alone or in conjunction with other income-transfer programs, and no state has a disbursement system comprised entirely of electronic funds transfers. Moreover, none of the states using debit cards have evaluated their efficacy. This is the first, rigorous evaluation of state-issued, child support debit cards in a state that will move from a disbursement system that is comprised largely of traditional check-writing services to a disbursement system that will be entirely electronic. Researchers will use a triangulation strategy to thoroughly evaluate the project from multiple dimensions. The triangulation strategy involves assessing the individual role of clients, administrators, and 247

vendors. The individual surveys, followed by face-to-face interviews, will be administered to all three groups. Each survey covers qualitative information and quantitative project output data (i.e., costs, work flow statistics, etc.) The evaluation plan has both process and impact components. First, to evaluate changes in program performance, university researchers will employ a pre-test, post-test with comparison groups methodology and rely on both qualitative and quantitative measures collected from the state and the three pilot counties. Quantitative measures will include budgetary data on costs, administrative savings and program performance data on changes in undistributed child support, disbursement error rates, and the number of returned warrants for invalid addresses. Qualitative administrative performance measures will focus on problems and strengths of both disbursement systems and administrators' impressions of programmatic success. The evaluation involves a pre-implementation and post-implementation mail surveys and site visits to each pilot county to collect administrative data and conduct semi-structured interviews with county clerks and staff responsible for distributing child support. Administrative data on factors such as costs, returned warrants, undistributed collections, and fees paid by obligors to cover disbursement costs will be collected. Additionally, interviews will be conducted with county clerks and staff members directly responsible for distributing child support. Interviews will address the problems and strengths of the current county-level child support distribution system. State employees responsible for implementing and running both the old and new child support distribution systems will be part of the two rounds of staff interviews. The evaluation team will also collect pre-test, post-test, county-level, administrative data from three comparison counties matched on size, population density, and other important socioeconomic variables.

248

In addition, a post-project implementation mail survey with follow-up face-to-face interviews will administered to assess the level of effective collaboration between the various parties responsible for implementing the project. These participants cut across levels of government (county and state); functions within government (information technology, finance, program management, policy, etc.); and between government and private vendors. Improved customer satisfaction is also an integral part of this project and changes in it will be systematically measured. The evaluation team will conduct a retrospective, post-test telephone survey of 500 child support recipients who switched from paper checks to the Hoosier Works debit card. The survey will address satisfaction with the new system vis-à-vis the old; the number of custodial parents brought into the banking system; the costs to customers of the new technology and old paper check distribution methods; perceived changes in the speed with which they receive their child support; and, the extent to which clients feel more secure with the Hoosier Works card. These data will be linked with demographic, family, location and child support receipt data. To conclude, this project is an example of a major inter-governmental, public-private, university-practitioner collaboration that uses electronic services to reduce costs and improve the delivery of government services to citizens. As the first, statewide electronic child support payment system, this project, and the information produced from the evaluation of this project, will likely influence a broad array of e-government projects in the future.

249

Information

Microsoft Word - Client Survey-Final Report to FSSA 022805.doc

258 pages

Find more like this

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

783814


You might also be interested in

BETA
UK version
Improving Student Learning and Achievement with Educational Leadership
INTRODUCTION
Youth Transitioning From Foster Care: Background, Federal Programs, and Issues for Congress
Report on Faith-based