HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09191989 - IO.14 S L I.O. 14
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE -
a
DATE: September 11, 1989
srA,coux'�';
SUBJECT: REPORT ON SPACE AND STAFFING NEEDS IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
FAMILY SUPPORT DIVISION AND ON CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILD
SUPPORT COLLECTIONS COMPARED TO THOSE OF OTHER URBAN COUNTIES
IN CALIFORNIA
Specific Request(s) or Recommendations(s) & Background & Justification
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Acknowledge receipt of the report from the District Attorney's Office on the Child Support Collections in this
County compared to the level of collections in other urban counties in California.
2. Request the County Administrator's Office and Lease Management staff to move ahead as expeditiously as
possible to relocate the Welfare Fraud Unit so that the Family Support Division can be expanded as the Board
of Supervisors has already approved.
3. Remove this item as a referral to our Committee.
BACKGROUND:
On August 1, 1989 the Board of Supervisors asked the County Administrator's Office to report to our Committee
September 11, 1989 on the status of plans to relocate the Welfare Fraud Unit from the building housing the Family
Support Division so that the Family Support Division can be expanded to the extent the Board of Supervisors has
already approved. In addition the Board at that same time asked the District Attorney to provide our Committee
with data on the level of Child Support collections in this County compared with those in other urban counties.
(continued)
Continued on attachment: YES Signature:
Recomme dati o ty Administrator Recommendation of Board Committee
Approve Other:
Sig- ture(s): T M POWERS SUNNE WRIGHT MC PEAK
Action of Board n: September 19 1989 Approved as Recommended x Other
Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
X Unanimous (Absent — ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
Ayes: Noes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN.
Absent: Abstain:
Attested .24 ,U-", x t—, /9x/98'9
cc: County Administrator Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board
District Attorney of Supervisors and County Administrator
Director,Family Support Division
Director of General Services By , Deputy Clerk
clvm:eh(io-14bo)
On September 11, 1989 our Committee met with Senior Deputy District Attorney Doug Pipes and reviewed the
attached report on Child Support collections. It is particularly of interest to note that Contra Costa County's Family
Support Division's caseload is the highest of any other urban county in California. In addition,Contra Costa County
has one of the highest total child support caseloads for a county of its size. Finally,the level of collections in Contra
Costa County is among the lowest of urban counties in California,despite the increases which have been made in
recent years. We believe that the level of collections can only be increased by adding staff and automating the Family
Support Division. The District Attorney is working hard to get the Division automated and our Committee has been
working closely with the District Attorney on accomplishing this automation. The Board of Supervisors has already
provided for an increase in staff for the Family Support Division. As soon as the District Attorney is able to hire
this additional staff we anticipate seeing an increase in this revenue collection activity.
Our Committee also received a report from the County Administrator's Office regarding the status of plans to
consolidate several functions in new quarters on Douglas Drive in Martinez. This consolidation is essential in order
to free up space in the Family Support Division's quarters so this additional staff can be hired. We want to emphasize
our interest in seeing that this consolidation moves forward as soon as possible so the Family Support Division can
be expanded.
-2-
GARY T YANCEY
District Attorney
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
TO: Board of Supervisors
Internal Operations Committee
FROM: Gary T. Yancey
District Attorney
DATE: September 5, 1989
SUBJECT:
Attached, per your request, is the report from the District Attorney's Family
Support Division for the September 11, 1989, Internal Operations Committee
Meeting.
GTY:pd
SUPSI.MEM/SEP89
Attachment
OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Gary T.Yancey CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
District Attorney FAMILY SUPPORT DIVISION
L. Douglas Pipes
Senior Deputy District Attorney
Director
MEMORANDUM
Gary T. Yancey
TO: District Attorney DATE: September 1 , 1989
L. Douglas Pipes
FROM- Senior Deputy District Attorne
Director
SUBJECT: Review of 'September 11 , 1989
On July 24 , 1989 , this Committee requested the District Attorney to
report to the Committee on September 11 , 1989, on how Contra Costa
County' s child support collections for the 1988-1989 fiscal year
compare with the collections in other urban counties in California.
This report complies with that request.
The State Department . of Social Services has performed a special
computer run of its fourth quarter county reports to provide us the
fourth quarter state-wide collections statistics by county. Those
statistics are included in the attached chart of the 16 largest (by
population) counties in California.
To better understand these collection statistics , we have included
figures on the caseloads and staffing of the counties ' Family Support
Divisions . These statistics are highly revealing for Contra Costa
County in two respects .
First , they demonstrate beyond any question the need for staff
increases in the Family Support Division. Contra Costa County has the
second highest caseload per staff ratio in the largest 16 counties ,
and the disparity between Contra Costa County and the other 14
counties with better caseload per staff ratios is sizeable. Even with
the 15 new clerical positions authorized by the Board in May of 1989 ,
our caseload per staff ratio is still 410 . 61 cases per staff.
The statewide cases per staff ratio is 278 . 27 cases per staff. Two of
the three other counties whose cases per staff ratio exceed 3.00 cases
per staff (Fresno and Alameda) are highly automated, and the third
such county (Los Angeles) is described by the Legislative Analyst' s
Office of the California State Legislature as having the next to worst
child support collections record among all California counties.
�Ufary`.T: Yancey -2- September 1 , 1989
District Attorney
We have evaluated our caseload and staffing needs and have determined
that we need 61 collections officer positions. There are 44
collections officer positions now authorized and our staff shortage is
thus 17 positions . We are preparing a request to the County
Administrator ' s Office to add these 17 positions in 2 increments over
the next year to year and one-half.
The addition of these 17 positions would increase our authorized staff
to 131 . 5 positions and would bring our caseload to staff ratio down to
around 357 cases per staff.
All of these 17 positions will be revenue generating collections
positions .
Secondly, these statistics prove once again that Contra Costa County
desperately needs an automated child support collection system.
Two of the best performing California county Family Support Divisions
are Fresno and Alameda Counties . These county Family Support
Divisions achieve high collection records . Fresno County' s Family,
Support Division is the 8th largest in collections even though the
County is only 13th largest in population. Yet both of these counties
have high case to staff ratios .
Fresno and Alameda Counties are able to achieve fine results because
much of their operations do not require staff work; the work is done
automatically by the automated systems .
San Bernardino County is highly automated in all areas except for its
case management. That county, whose population is the fifth largest
in the state, is the second largest in support collections and its
collections to cost ratio ($4 . 98 collected for every dollar spent in
1987-1988) is by far the best among the 18 largest California
counties .
Contra Costa County' s collections to cost ratio in 1987-1988 was $3 . 51
collected for every dollar spent. That ratio improved in 1988-1989 to
$3 . 78 collected for every dollar spent .
Contra Costa County' s Advance Planning Document (APD) to install an
automated support enforcement system was returned without approval by
the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in June 1989. We
submitted an addendum to the APD on August 30 , 1989 , in response to
the OCSE rejection letter. We are awaiting action on the Addendum.
We are also assisting the Administrator' s Office in preparing letters
to Senators Cranston and Wilson to request their help in getting
approval of our APD for an automated system.
2%, ry-,T: Yancey -3- September 1 , 1989
District Attorney
In the meantime we continue to struggle with too many cases for the
size of our staff and too little automated equipment.
Although not requested by the Board for this report, we want to report
our fiscal condition as of June 30 , 1989.
The Board has required the Family Support Division to function as a
zero net county cost operation for many years . We have exceeded this
requirement by a substantial margin.
The following are our net operating revenues for fiscal years
1985-1986 through 1988-1989 . The figures enclosed in brackets [ ] are
negative net county costs , or profits .
1985 - 1986 [$59 ,896. 66]
1986 - 1987 [$78 , 145 . 60]
1987 - 1988 [$112, 056 . 58]
1988 - 1989 [$373, 788. 00]
These negative net county costs have been achieved despite a reduction
in the federal administrative reimbursement rate from 70% to 68% on
October 1 , 1987 . The increased profit figures are the direct result
of a marked increase in our earned incentive revenues . From July of
1985 through June of 1989 we earned the following incentive revenues :
1985 - 1986 $1 , 210 ,897. 77
1986 - 1987 $1 , 192, 842. 87
1987 - 1988 $1 ,424 , 250 .87
1988 - 1989 $1 ,815 , 902 . 00
These excess revenues , when also combined with the excess revenues
from January 1 , 1985 , through June 30 , 1985, have given the Family
Support Division Trust Fund a balance of n722 ,490 , of which $35 , 000
has been spent to purchase automated equipment for the Family Support
Division (personal computers , printers , etc. ) . We are developing a
concrete plan for the sensible use of these excess funds to meet the
statutory requirement that they be spent to further the District
Attorney child support enforcement program.
(fs3 ldp206)
Cd O CA t---e b� 61-R 6-2 6-2 6-R S� 6-e t-.� B--e Z;� 6--R B-e �2 a�2
1-r •rl CO r-4 O 00 r-4 M N %.D r- N r- %-o O M Ul \D r-I r-4
(1) � ON r-I 00 O \O r-I d O Ul Ul N 00 M Url r-1 Lr)
U N U N M CT r--1 01 00 N M r- r--1 r- O M Ol r- \O d
p N r 4 r-I r-1 Lr) rl r-1 r--1
Cl) r-I H
P-I O
U
� r- M co r-♦ \D r- N Lr) \O 00 O N \O Ln 00 %lO
N 00 O n .x Ol% O Ul Lr) M d' �' M M CT M r- r`
O U) -4 \O \O N M CT O N -�J' N � O O N � Lr,
.rl CLj
1J U \O r-1 O M d' rl r� Ol \O M M N N r-I M -:3-
1-1
Tr-1 O> Lr) N -IT -T N 00 M O> M \D N -:3- r-i M r-d
N U M rl Ln \D co r-a r--1 rl 'T r-a Lr) O r- r4 r- Ln N
r-I H N r--1 N N N N N N N M N N
O {r? <1} t!} t/} <r} c!} </} va- t5- V} {/} V} V)- V)- V)- .7
U �
'd Cl) r-1 N \0 CT M N CT r- M r-1 M N r- 00 CXR \D \0
Q) 0 7, CT .-a C)1 CO 00 O r-4 C)1 �T 00 \D \O O \O -T Ul 00
{J Q Irl I'D M co N \O \D rl r-a 01 00 -T -T -'r M r4 �
;S •r1
,0 •i-.) r- r- Ln _:t r- � M \D � Irl CO r-I M M rl
•r-4 U I 00 \O n M -�T 00 Ln d- Lr) M Ln 110 Cl -T N \O 00
�4 CV DO M r- ul 00 M CT r- ,d- r- Irl N r-1 N �
JJ r4 DO ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ft ^ ^ ^ ^
u)r-I 00 —4 O -l' -zi- tD N 00 � N %lo OIN N M O CT r"
•r-1 O CS M M N M N N -A r-a 1-4 1-1 N r--1 rA r-1
Lr)
tr}
b Cn Lr) Lr) M \O N \O N Lr) 00 Lr) Lr) N Ul CJ M 00 O
CU O O N -�r CT C3,% lO -zr O M r-q M r- r- r-1 r- r-4
41 O DO CT Ul � r- CT N I'D rl Cal Ln \D O M M r-1 \O Cn
�j •rl
,1] 1.1 -4 O \D -T O N M U) r- n N � r-♦ 1 N O> N
•rl U I r- r- N r-1 O -T N Lr) r-i ..T N O 00 Ol r--1 N r"
p Q) O Lr) O N Lr,) 00 \D N M M -T -4 \O O -T
r-
co r-4 \O O 00 N r-1 -T 00 \O �T N -T \O CT r-4 CT 00 00
•r-1 O ON M N N M N -4 r♦ r-A rl r-a rl \D
{r} {r} -T
VY
CU O _T \D co tl- M r 4 \D N 00 U') O1 M N d O r-
r-L 44 CT N M O'% Lr) r- C71, r-1 Lr) r-1 Ol N Lf) M O 00 N
44
CA Cd r 4 r� r-1 00 n 0.1 1-4 M N Lr) \D Lr) O -IT 00 00 00
Cr) •r-1 \O -T r- r-4 O r4 M O r- Ul O\ Ul \D U) 00 M r�
Cr) U) M N r-1 N N M N N -T r-1 r-4 rl M N -:r N N
Ld
U
O 9
a•rr
04LH 00 C ) M o 0 0 o CD o 0 o O CT r- o 0 0 00
'3 44 00 O rl 00 O N Lr) O r� Ul O O r� \O \O O O �
4.1 CD n M M N \D r--1 Ol� 01\ ON Lr, � O � M r- 00 CT
U) CT N M �T r- r- -:T M 0*1% N O \D � O Lrl \O r�
r--I �o N N N r--1 r-4 r-d rl rl r-4 rl r-d Lr)
•rl
M
� •r-I
W A
� b
O Cd
P.o
p,r-r ON M \O Lr) _T M M _7 rl Ul h M O 00 00 00 CT Lr)
;j (1)00 � \O \D O, n M Ul 00 r-1 CT 00 -T Ul �T r-C M r-I
U] E0 N r-1 O O1 U) \D Lo M O M r-1 M 00 N O
D,U N Ln O N \O M -T oc> tr O O'N N \O r- \O \D
rl Lr) Ul d Lr) M Lr) M N r--1 N Ul N N r4 a%
Cd •r-I
WA
O O O C5 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
•rl i O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
-W 00 M r-1 r-4 �T O> -T �' M M M i\ Ul h M \O N Ul
Cd 00 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
r-4 CT O rl O � N h Lr) -T M \D 00 r-1 00 \D O 1:3'
O r- \O M co -T r- h \O M -:r N r--1 r--1 Lr) •.T r-f
\O M N --t' N N m 01% r` r- \O \O \O Lr) �T M M
Oft ^
(14 00 N N rl r-1 r4 00
N
O
G O
•rl Cd U
U) Cd b 4J U)
r1 O Cd w CU a-1 O U O •� :j
N bD r--I b r U r4 v II' Cd
bD Q) U 1 td r I (U Cd Cd dJ Cd r-I
•rl Q) v b CA cd }1 p Cd O O U) U^
A w Cd pq U H cd �4 (sa 0 Z F: h r I (D
U) s:: w U $ >� � r~ U � A R+
O Cd �4 R1 R1 r ra w O cd CU Cd �4 a) Cd 1-1 H b
U) U cn >
H p M.y Cn
U r a N M trl \O rCXR CT O r-I N M 4-1
r-a r--I r-4 U)