Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12161986 - 2.9 2.9 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on December 16 , 1986 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson and Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: District: Attorney's Report on Child Support Collection The Board received from Gary Yancy, District Attorney, the attached December 10 , 1986 report on the efforts of the Family Support Division of the District Attorney' s office relating to child support collections. The Board hereby ACCEPTS the attached report. 1 hereby ca-tify the t:his to n true and correct COPY of an action taken and en: -rr2d or, the.-im tev of the Board of Supervisok,s on the gate ghotivn. ATTESTED: PHIL BATCHEI- 11, Cie.Y,of the Beard t of Supervisors and County Administrator { sy , Deputy cc: District Attorney County Administrator Gary T. Yarcey District Attorney Office of District Attorney Contra Family Support Division ��}a Lee Banuelos December 10, 1986 l Director County o Int y MEMORANDUM WUttly Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Gary T. Yancey, District Attorney TO: Administration Bldg. , Martinez FROM: bv: L . F. Banuelos, Pirector Attention: Renee Goldstein !1 paaw( SUBJECT: Report on Child Support Efforts -- Due December 17, 1986 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Family Support Division of the District Attorney's Office is charged with all functional aspects of support activities including but not limited to the establishment of support, the enforcement of support, the collection of support, the location of the absent parent and the adjudication of paternity. Authority for the charges is vested in Federal regulations established by the Congress of the United States as well as California statutes . From the inception of the Family Support Division within the District Attorney's Office in 1973, funding for operational costs have been provided by Federal .and/or State resources to the extent the program has cost the taxpayers of Contra Costa County zero dollars in the form of county property taxes . In fact, the program has done so well that $1 ,309,177 in excess revenue has been brought into the County Treasury during the same period of time. An interesting highlight of the support caseload of 32,547 cases is the pre- dominence of welfare type cases; the current ratio that is reflective of prior years and continues currently, is 83.3% of the caseload is welfare related and 16.7% is non-welfare types . Even more interesting is the division of collec- tions into these basic categories; the following data captures the collection amounts for each type for the past 9 nine years under the Federal IV-D Program: TYPE COLLECTIONS Welfare $41,274,243 (57%) Non-welfare 311473,584 (43%) Total $72,747,827 (100%) The administrative- cost of collection for the $72,747,827 is $24,279,087 or 33% of the collections; therefore, for each dollar spent in collections, three dollars were collected. Over the same span of time, revenue consisting of Federal reimbursement for administration costs plus Support Enforcement Incentive Fund (SEIF) payments from Federal and State sources have exceeded the cost of the program, thus creating excess revenue. Listed below are the respective values of revenue for the past 9 years: REVENUE AMOUNT Reimbursement $17,808,593 Phil Batchelor, County Administrator 2 December 10, 1986 Administration Bldg. , Martinez Attention: Renee Goldstein Federal SEIF 41765,453 State SEIF 3,014,218 TOTAL $25,588,264 Comparing total revenue to total cost of collection produces excess revenue in the amount of $1,309,177. Thus far this fiscal year, the collections trend continues and, apparently, at an increased rate. For July-October 1986, the collection amounted to $4,496,362, an increase of 4% over the preceding years collection for the same period of time of $4,332,962. Collections over the 9 year span of time have increased 253% and is reflected in the following data: FISCAL YEAR WELFARE NON-WELFARE TOTAL 1977-78 $2,628,630 (54.5%) $2,194,827 (45.5%) $ 4,823,457 (100%) 1985-86 6,810,901 (55.7%) 5,412,352 (44.3%) 12,223,253 (100%) Increase $4,182,271 (56.5%) 3,217,525 (43.5%) 7,399,796 (100%) While collections and revenue production continue to relect increases, not all collection cases are success stories . There is a minority of dissatisfied custodial parents whose cases show minimal if any collections. Unfortunately, custodial parents labor under the delusion that the District Attorney can perform miracles. It is hopeless to satisfactorily explain to them that collections are based on the availabilty of income or assets of the absent parent. If the absent parent does not work and/or is on public assistance (either on General Assistance or in an AFDC case) , collections is impossible. Frequently, the custodial parent demands the absent parent be incarcerated for violating his court order; she is unwilling or unable to accept the reality of criminal prosecution. She cannot accept the concept that law provides the requirement of "ability to pay" and the other of "willful failure to provide" . It is difficult to explain that the source of employment data from the State is normally six months behind the times and the data could be obsolete when it is received at the local level . This condition is especially applicable to the defendant who works seasonally or sporatically. It is almost hopeless to attempt to explain to the custodial parent that if the defendant lives in another State, that State provides the child support services through the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) at our request via petition and that we have no authority or control over that jurisdiction. Phil Batchelor, County Administrator 3 December 10, 1986 Administration Bldg. , Martinez Attention: Renee Goldstein The problem of paternity situations continues without abatement. Federal regulations charge the District Attorney with adjudication efforts . During the most recent 16 months, paternity was adjudicated in 986 cases, averaging 61 adjudications per month. Cases awaiting adjudication number 1625 and are cases in which the putative father is located or is unknown based on the biological mother' s inability to identify him. Another 4272 cases exist in which the identity is known but the whereabouts of the putative father is unknown; locate attempts are always a prime assignment. Additional paternity referrals are received monthly from the Social Service Department, the incoming volume being greater than the number of adjudications and/or dispositions. Efforts are continuing toward the procurement of a new automation system. The current system is not state-of-the-art; . it has been obsolete for many, s years. Automation is drastically needed for better control of cases and caseloads, to alleviate the Collections staff from mundane time-consuming tasks or projects that could be easily accomplished through automation and will permit Collections staff to concentrate on assignments that require public contact and intricate judgments plus increased ability to manage larger caseloads without requiring additional staffing. Accounts maintenance f will be increased to a more satisfactory level with increased ability to provide custodial and absent parents with daily processing and "instant" accounting. Automation should create decreased need for staff in certain personnel classifications; the lesser levels of staff will , in turn, be reached through attrition. Automation will facilitate case management and will encourage faster enforce- ment techniques and processes with regard to remedies such as Writs of Execution and Wage Assignments . At this point in time, the future of Family Support appears positive and encouraging. Collections will continue to increase with resulting increased revenues. Case management will improve to the Nth degree with a new automated system.