HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11291988 - IO.9 TO- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I . 0. 9
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C=tra
November 14, 1988 `'
DATE: V`""' "J
SUBJECT: AUTOMATION OF FAMILY SUPPORT DIVISION
OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMUMATIONS
1 . Authorize the County Administrator to develop with the
District Attorney a phased program for the addition of staff
in the Family Support Division which will accomplish all of
the following objectives:
A. Maximize the ability of the Family Support Division to
respond promptly and accurately to requests for
information from clients and the general public.
B. Allow the automation of the Family Support Division in
the most cost-effective manner possible.
C. Require the allocation of no additional net County
cost.
D. Generate the maximum amount of family support funds for
those who seek the services of the District Attorney' s
Family Support Division, or who are referred to the
Family Support Division under existing federal or state
law and regulations.
E. Finance the addition of staff and the automation of the
Family Support Division with the maximum of federal and
state funds and the minimum need to draw on the
existing Family Support Trust Fund.
2 . Request the County Administrator and District Attorney to
submit a request to the Board of Supervisors for the staff
and associated costs which are deemed necessary to allow
recording of child support orders with the County Recorder' s
Office in order to place a lien on the real property of
parents who have a child support order in force against
them.
I
3 . Request the County Administrator to determine, in
consultation with the District Attorney and Data Processing
Manager, the most appropriate data processing system to
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDAT ON OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
X APPROVE OTHER � A
�
e�k;
SIGNATURE s : Sunne W. McPeak ppTom Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARD ON November 29, 900 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORRSSf ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: Listed on Page 3 ATTESTED /C/�Gtl�y�.�(� aQ I9ff
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY R L k e ,DEPUTY
M382/7-83
Page 2
3 . (continued)
install in Contra Costa County now, given the, interim nature
of any system at this point and the likelihood that the
federal government will prevail in requiring a single system
in California for all Family Support offices. This decision
must also give due consideration to whether any proposed new
system will be operational within a reasonable period of
time, the cost of the system, the ability of the system to
satisfy the data reporting requirements of the . Family
Support Program, and, the net County cost of any automation
system. This review should recognize the potential value of
leasing a system as opposed to purchasing one. Once a
decision on a new system is made, a report should be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors as quickly as
possible.
4 . Request the County Administrator to continue to work with
Congressman Miller' s office to obtain a waiver to the
requirement that any federal funding be predicated on prior
federal approval of automation plans in order to� allow
prompt automation of the Family Support Division in this
County; while the dispute between the federal and state
governments is being resolved, with federal funding to be
provided once federal approval of California' s Family
Support automation plan is approved.
5 . Request the County Administrator and District Attorney to
report to the 1989 Internal Operations Committee following
budget hearings in the summer of 1989 on the status of the
Family Support Division, in light of the recommendations
made above.
6 . Request the County Administrator to proceed to schedule the
three community education meetings which were referenced in
the Board' s Order of September 20 on this subject, but
delayed at the request of the Board of Supervisors.
7 . Encourage the District Attorney to insure that whatever
automation system is finally decided on is capable of
providing the necessary data elements so that credit
reporting of delinquent child support obligations can be
undertaken pursuant to AB 2025 (Chapter 900, Statutes of
1988) .
8 . Encourage the District Attorney to continue to. work with the
Superior Court Family Law Judges and the Family Law Section
of the Contra Costa County Bar Association on the issues of
wage assignments and payments through the County in an
effort to maximize revenue to the County and insure . that
custodial parents receive all of the support from the
non-custodial parent to which they are entitled.
9 . Remove as referrals to our Committee the June 7, 1988 .
referral relating to the enforcement of court-ordered child
support and the October 251 1988 referral relating to the
automation of the Family Support Division.
BACKGROUND-
On June 7, 1988, the issue of the enforcement of court-ordered
child support was referred to our Committee at the request of
Supervisor McPeak. Our Committee made a status report to the
Board of Supervisors on September 20, 1988. A letter from the
Director of the State Department of Social Services was also
referred to our Committee on October 25, 1988 .
] C
Page 3
We met with the District Attorney and the Director of the Family
Support Division on September 12 and again on November 14, 1988 .
We have learned a good deal about the operation of the Family
Support Division, the increasing workload faced by the Division,
the desperate need to automate the Division' s records, and the
possibilities of taking further steps to locate absent parents
who are not meeting their responsibilities toward their children
and require them to support their children to the maximum of
their ability. The above recommendations have come from these
discussions and from staff work which has been done by the
District Attorney' s Office and the County Administrator' s Office.
Attached to this report are the following documents to further
support our recommendations:
1. A report from the District Attorney' s Office dated
November 9, 1988 entitled: "Supplemental Report on
Enforcing Child Support Obligations" .
2. A report .from the County Administrator' s Office dated
November 9, 1988 entitled: "District Attorney Family
Support Division" .
3 . A report from the County Administrator' s Office dated
November 10, 1988 entitled: "Automation of D.A. ' s
Family Support Division" .
4. A letter from the Director of the State Department of
Social Services dated October 14, 1988 addressed to the
Board of Supervisors setting forth the problem the
State is having with the Federal Government in getting
California' s Plan for Child Support Automation
approved.
5 . A letter from the County Administrator' s Office to
Congressman George Miller, III requesting the
Congressman' s assistance in obtaining a waiver from the
Federal Government to the requirement that the County
have advance federal approval before undertaking any
costs for automation of the Family Support Division.
Members of the Board of Supervisors have previously received a
copy of the District Attorney' s "Report on Family Support
Services" dated August 30, 1988 .
Based on all of the correspondence referenced above, and the
staff work which has been done, we believe that the above
recommendations are justified and can be undertaken without
placing any additional pressure on the County Budget.
cc: County Administrator
District Attorney
Director, Family Support Div.
Auditor-Controller
Data Processing Manager
Director, Justice Systems Programs
Linda McMahon, Director, SDSS
Jane Owens, Director, Mgt. Information Systems, SDSS
Congressman George Miller, III
Assemblymen Robert Campbell .and Tom Bates
^A� OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Gary T. Yancey CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
District Attorney
FAMILY SUPPORT DIVISION
L.Douglas Pipes
Senior Deputy District Attorney
Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Internal Operations Committee DATE: November 9, 1988
Board of Supervisors
FROM: L. Douglas Pipes
Senior Deputy District Attorney .
Director
SUBJECT: Supplemental Report on Enforcing Child Support Obligations
This supplemental report will respond to Recommendation #3 and #4 made by the Internal
Operations Committee of the Board of Supervisors on September 12, 1988, and will serve
as an update to the report made on August 19, 1988.
RECOMMENDATION #3 (CREDIT REPORTING)
Assembly Bill 2025 was signed by the Governor on September 12, 1988, and will become law
on January 1 , 1989. That bill amends Section 4751 and adds Section 4752 of the Civil
Code. A copy of the amended statutes is attached.
Section 4752(d) allows the District Attorney of each county to implement systems for
credit reporting of support obligors prior to the statewide system of credit reporting
to be implemented by the California Department of Social Services on July 1 , 1990.
The Family Support Division is hoping to implement a credit reporting system in early
1989• To that end, we met with representatives of T. R. W. and the Contra Costa County
Data Processing Department on October 21 , 1988. The credit reporting would take place
by computer tapes produced by Data Processing. Unfortunately, the information which is
contained in our current automated records system by Data Processing lacks four elements
which T. R. W. requires for credit reporting: (1 ) An account status code (account
current, account closed, account 30 days delinquent, account 60 days delinquent, etc. ) ;
(2) A code to indicate a change of address; (3) The date of the court order of support;
and (4) The receipt date of the last payment.
Douglas Hintz of Data Processing is researching our "automated system" to determine
the feasibility and cost of adding these four elements of information to our system.
Until we receive the results of his inquiry, we cannot proceed further with our plans
to report.
We have developed a Child Support Consumer Credit Report Notification and Advice of
Rights to be sent to each obligor 30 days before we begin credit reporting, as
required by Civil Code §4751 .
Internal Operations Committee (2) November 9, 1988
Board of Supervisors
We anticipate substantial telephone calls and mail in response to our credit report
notification to our obligors. We are concerned about the impact of such calls and
mail upon our staff time. We may need additional staff authorization to cope with
this contact.
e Once we begin to report to credit agencies, we will make monthly reports to the credit
agencies and will notify only those obligors who were not part of the group that was
initially notified.
RECOMMENDATION #4 (WAGE ASSIGNMENTS AND PAYMENT THROUGH CONTRA COSTA COUNTY)
We have met with the Superior Court Family Law Judges, Judge O'Malley and Judge Libbey.
We have also met with the Chairperson of the Family Law Section of the Contra Costa
County Bar Association, Mr. Lee Pearce, and the Board of Directors of the Family Law
Section. We discussed with each person the subjects covered in Recommendation #4.
The idea of a rule of court that every support obligor be ordered to pay by an immediate
wage assignment may not be lawful. Civil Code §4701 authorizes judges to issue wage
assignments for support, but does not mandate wage assignments in all cases, except
when the custodial parent is a recipient of Aid to Families with Dependent Children,
Civil Code §4701 (1) . The statute makes the issuance of an immediate wage assignment
a matter within the Court's discretion.
A rule of court that provided for the non-discretionary issuance of a wage assignment
in every case may violate Civil Code §4701 .
The Family Law Judges are willing to implement wage withholding in family law orders,
but feel that the Board of Directors of the Family Law Section of the Contra Costa
County Bar Association should pass a resolution requesting that the Court take this
action. (See attached letter of October 20, 1988. )
We have suggested consideration be given to a rule of court that provides for issuance
of a wage assignment for support in every family law action accompanied by an order
that the wage assignment not be served on the obligor's employer unless the obligor
parent fails to keep current in his/her payments.
This approach would allow the District Attorney to quickly serve a wage assignment on
a defaulting obligor's employer without the delay of first having to request the Court
to issue a wage assignment. This approach would also help minimize the burden on
employers by requiring employers to honor wage assignments only in those cases where
the obligor fails to make direct payments.
There is one serious drawback to the idea of orders that issue wage assignments but
restrict service of the wage assignments to cases of delinquencies: it may be hard
to insure that a pro-per litigant would not serve the wage assignment on the obligor's
employer without a deliquency first occurring. The potential for abuse of the order
could be serious.
Ate.
Internal Operations Committee (3) November 9, 1988
Board of Supervisors
We recommend that the idea of issuing but not serving wage assignments be studied
further but not be implemented unless controls are developed to prevent abuse by
private litigants who arenot represented by counsel.
The second subject of discussion with the Family Law Judges and the local bar was
the idea of a rule of court requiring every support obligation in family law actions
to be paid through the Auditor-Controller of Contra Costa County.
The practice of paying all support obligations through the Auditor-Controller would
require staff increases in an undetermined amount. Moreover, unless the custodial
parent later received Aid to Families with Dependent Children, or as a non-aid parent
made an application for the enforcement services of the District's Attorney's Family
Support Division, the District Attorney would not receive federal or state incentives
on the amounts collected and we would not be able to take enforcement action against
nonpayers.
Thus, a rule of court requiring all child and child/spousal support to be paid through
the Auditor's-Controller's Office would provide only an accounting system for payments.
In the event of nonpayment, that accounting service would be useful to this office only
if the custodial parent later received Aid to Families with Dependent Children or
applied for our enforcement services.
To the extent that custodial parents in dissolution actions could be advised of the
availability of our enforcement services at the time of the dissolution, such an
action might help stimulate later applications for our services.
There are some serious drawbacks to requiring all support orders to be paid through
the county agency. Forcing non-aid marital dissolution litigants to pay and receive
support through the Auditor-Controller's Office might be viewed by many parents
(custodial and non-custodial) as an unnecessary and unwelcome governmental intrusion
into their lives. Many non-custodial parents pay their support obligations regularly,
completely and promptly. To force these law-abiding payors to pay through a govern-
mental agency could be viewed as an unnessary additional governmental expense.
Many custodial parents who receive their support payments directly and promptly from
the non-custodial parents would discover that payments made through a governmental
agency produce delay. This would be particularly true in cases where the obligated
parent is paying by a wage assignment. Pursuant to Civil Code §4701 (b) (7) the employer
has up to ten days to send in a payment after the payment has been withheld from the
obligor's paycheck. The Auditor-Controller has up to 7 days to send the custodial
parent the support check.
These steps consume time and produce delays in the ultimate payment of support moneys
to custodial parents. In cases of non-paying obligors, delay is the lesser of two
evils. But in case of paying obligors, delay would penalize the custodial parent.
Internal Operations Committee (4) November 9,, 1988
Board of Supervisors
The Family Law Judges have deferred to the Family Law Bar on whether support obligors
should be ordered to pay through the Auditor-Controller's Office, because such a process
does not affect the Court.
UPDATE ON AUTOMATION
Although not required by the Board's Resolution, we want to update our report as it
relates to our problems in achieving automation.
The federal/state logjam over approving automated systems remains unchanged. The
Statewide Automated Child Support Steering Committee (SACSS) has studied the four
leading in-state automated systems: San Francisco, Fresno, Alameda and San Luis Obispo,
and did not recommend any of these systems for a California statewide system. At the
request of the California District Attorneys Association, the SACSS Committee voted on
October 20, 1988, to study 6 out-of-state systems, including the Connecticut System
(ANACOMP) which we favor for Contra Costa County.
Now that the SACSS Committee will be studying out-of-state automated systems, the
Committee will not complete its study until January, 1989, at the earliest. The
working group studying the out-of-state systems will be traveling to those states
from November 27, 1988, through December 15, 1988, and from January 8-12, 1989• One
of our Family Support staff, Karen Welch, is part of that working group.
The working group will then submit its report to the SACSS Committee, who will then
report to the Department of Social Services and the California District Attorney's
Association (CDAA) . With the advice of CDAA, the Department of Social Services will
then prepare a California State Automation Plan and submit the plan to the Family
Support Administration.
Until the California Department of Social Services chooses a system to be the
California statewide system, the federal government will not approve the California
state plan and will continue to delay approvals of county APD's for automated systems.
Therefore, the federal stay on approving APD's appears to be a long-term problem.
To get around this dispute we have decided to take advantage of an exception in the
APD approval process. Pursuant to 45 CFR 95.611 (a) any automated system whose start-up
costs are less than $200,000 during the first year and less than $300,000 during the
life of the project need obtain state approval only; federal approval is not required.
We have decided to lease the automated system hardware. Leasing costs are considered
maintenance and operational costs and are not counted as "start-up" costs. Based upon
preliminary talks with Western Pacific Information Systems, who has purchased ANACOMP's
child support system, we believe we may be able to convert to a leased automated system
for less than the threshhold amount necessary to require federal approval.
We expect to submit our APD to the state by the end of 1988, and have obtained verbal
approval of our approach from Jane Owens, Chief, DSS Management Information Systems,
who has state approval authority for APD's for automated systems.
Internal Operations Committee (5) November 9 , 1988
Board of Supervisors
Quick action in submitting an APD for below the threshhold amounts is important, because
once the California state plan is approved for 90/10 federal/state funding, the waiver
of the federal approval requirement for low cost automated systems may be eliminated.
We are hopeful that this approach of circumventing the federal/state dispute will allow
us to have an automated system installed within six months and to then begin the process
of converting our manual records onto the automated system.
MEDICAL SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
A bill requiring the District Attorney to seek reimbursement from absent parents for
costs incurred by taxpayers of medical support only at public expense (AB 1422) was
signed by the Governor on September 12, 1988. That law, which was effective on
September 12th as an urgency statute, will result in the referral to the District
Attorney, Family Support Division, of approximately 12,000 cases per year for medical
support only enforcement. This could produce a staggering increase in our caseload
and a commensurate need for increased staffing. The Social Service Department has
not yet begun to refer these cases to us, but we are seriously concerned about our
ability to handle a large increase in our referral caseload. A copy of AB 1422 is
attached.
Respectfully submitted,
GARY T. YANCEY
District Attorney
�eOL�ugas es
4Seni D uty District Attorney
Dire r
LDP/nfh
Attachments (2)
JAMES H.LIMEY Superior Court ax;FAMILY LAW COMMISSIONER 4tate of (gMlifornittCOUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
COURTHOUSE
MARTINEZ.CALIFORNIA 94553
October 20 , 1988
TO: L. DOUGLAS PIPES, Senior Deputy District Attorney
FROM: HON. WILLIAM A. O'MALLEY, Judge
HON. JAMES H. LIBBEY, Commissioner��
SUBJECT: UNIVERSAL WAGE ASSIGNMENT/UNIVERSAL PAYMENT OF
SUPPORT THROUGH THE COUNTY
The following is intended to memorialize our discussions
of 10-19-88, regarding the above-mentioned matters and set
forth our position on them.
UNIVERSAL WAGE ASSIGNMENT
The current code provides for a mandatory wage assign-
ment when requested by the District Attorney when aid is
being paid. In non-aid matters there is a mandatory wage
assignment in cases of a 30-day support arrearage, and the
Court has the discretion to make a wage assignment in other
matters.
The state legislature tinkers with the wage assignment
legislation almost every year, but has never required wage
assignments in all cases. Although we can exercise our
discretion to order wage assignments in the absence of an
arrearage, the enactment of a local rule of court that wage
assignments would be issued in all cases would not seem to
show the exercise of discretion. Thus, it is at least
arguable that a practice of wage assignments in all cases is
in excess of our authority under the Civil Code.
That having been said, if encouraged by a resolution of
the local county bar, we would be willing to consider a Rule
of Court which would provide that wage assignments would be
issued in all cases unless extraordinary cause was shown to
prevent the issuance of the- assignment.
We would add that we would both favor and support
legislation which would compel wage assignments in all cases.
L. Douglas Pipes
October 20, 1988
Page 2
UNIVERSAL PAYMENT OF SUPPORT THROUGH THE COUNTY
This is an issue which would appear to raise many sub-
issues, particularly regarding the enforcement responsibil-
ities which might enure to the county, and issues relating to
the cost of such a program. However, as none of these issues
would appear to impact the Court, we have no position on this
issue.
JHL:nt
uNTY eA
to 9�►
O N
U p
President CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 6d a BAR ASSOCIATION
Lee C.Pearce Family Law Section ��o� Nosy 706 MAIN STREET, SUITE B
Treasurer MARTINEZ, CA 94553
Stuart I.Goldware
Directors
November 3 , 1988 (415) 372-8100
Paul R.Bonnar
R.Ann Fallon
Steven A.Greenfield
M.Sue Greicar
Jeffrey D.Huffaker
Jon Johnsen
W.Gregg Jones
Barbara Suskind
Douglas Pipes
neruty District Attorney
Contra Costa County
Family Support Division
40 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Consideration of Automatic Wage Assignments and
Collection of Support Through County Offices
Dear Doug:
Thank you for attending the Board Meeting of the Family Law
Section .of the Contra Costa County Bar Association and speaking
to us about the two proposals made regarding collection of
support.
Because this was a board meeting, we can only represent the
feelings of the Board members in attendance and we feel it would
be more useful to obtain feedback from the Family Law Section as
a whole in order to provide a meaningful response to the two
issues that you raised. We would request, if . possible, addi-
tional time to obtain such a response.
Among the Board members who were . present, the feeling was
universal that if such measures are going to be instituted to
collect child support, that they also be instituted to collect
spousal support to avoid the multiplicity of actions against the
same payor.
The proposal for routine imposition of automatic wage
assignment engendered strong and mixed feelings and therefore, we
cannot adequately state a position without consulting our Section
members as was stated above.
The proposal that payment be routinely ordered be made to
the Auditor-Controller's Office is strongly disfavored; there are
many cases where this is a good idea, but by no means true of all
cases.
Douglas Pipes November 3, 1988
To the limited extent that we have commented on the two
proposals, we have done so based on our understanding as
experienced Family ,Law practitioners of the needs of divorced
persons and was made without regard to the administrative
convenience or expense to Contra Costa County.
Ver tru ly .yours,
PAUL BODINAR
Acting Chairman
RPB/dk
cc: Lee Pearce
q)-
Assembly
Bill No. 1422
CHAPTER 806
An act to amend Sections 11475.1 and 11476 of, and to add Section
14008.6 to, the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to public assist-
ance, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
[Approved by Governor September 12, 1988. Filed with
Secretary of State September 12, 1988.1
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1422, Wright. Public assistance: child and spousal support.
Existing law requires each county to maintain a single
organizational unit, located in the office of the district attorney, for
the purpose of enforcing child and spousal support obligations in
both civil and criminal actions when a child is receiving public
assistance, and when requested to do so by the individual on whose
behalf the enforcement efforts will be made when the child is not
receiving public assistance, as specified. Existing law also requires
the county to refer all cases of nonsupport or paternity to the district
attorney for investigation immediately at the time of an application
for assistance, or a certificate of eligibility, is signed by the applicant
or the recipient, as specified.
This bill would provide that public assistance, as defined, includes
Medi-Cal benefits, thus establishing a state-mandated local program.
Existing law provides health care services and related remedial or
preventive services, including related social services to qualifying
individuals and families who receive public assistance and are
otherwise eligible, as specified.
This bill would require as a condition of eligibility for medical
services provided pursuant to the Family Economic Security Act of
1982 or the Waxman-Duffy Prepaid Health Plank Act that the
applicant or beneficiary of the services shall, among other things,
assign his or her rights to medical support and to payments for
medical care from a 3rd party and cooperate with the county welfare
department, the district attorney, and the state in pursuing any 3rd
party who may be liable to pay for care and services available under
the Medi-Cal program, as specified.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims
Fund to pay the costs of mandates which do not exceed $500,000
statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs
exceed $500,000.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that this bill contains costs mandated by the state,
Ch. -806 —2—
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to those
statutory procedures and, if the statev.,ide cost does not exceed
$500,000, shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an
urgency statute.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 11475.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code
is amended to read:
11475.1. (a) Each county shall maintain a single organizational
unit located in the office of the district attorney which shall have the
responsibility for promptly and effectively enforcing"child and
spousal support obligations and determining paternity in the case of
a child born out of wedlock. The district attorney shall take
appropriate action, both civil and criminal, to enforce this obligation
when the child is receiving public assistance, including Medi-Cal,
and when requested to do so by the individual on whose behalf the
enforcement efforts will be made when the child is not receiving
public assistance, including Medi-Cal. To the extent required by
federal law, actions brought by the district attorney to establish or
enforce support obligations in all cases, other than paternity cases or
those cases involving complex issues, shall be completed within the
following time limits: (1) 90 percent of the actions shall be completed
within three months from the date of service; (2) 98 percent of the
actions shall be completed within six months from the date of service;
and (3) 100 percent of the actions shall be completed within 12
months from the date of service. As used in this section, "service"
means the service of process required by law for the particular
proceeding. This responsibility applies to spousal support only where
the spousal support obligation has been reduced to an order of a
court of competent jurisdiction. In any action brought for
modification or revocation of an order that is being enforced under
Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, the effective date of the
modification or revocation shall be as prescribed by federal.law (42
U.S.C. Sec. 666(a) (9)), or any subsequent date. In any action brought
or enforcement proceedings instituted by the district attorney
pursuant to this section for payment of child or spousal support, an
action to recover an arrearage in support payments may be
maintained by the district attorney at any time within the period
otherwise specified for the enforcement of a support judgment,
notwithstanding the fact that the child has attained the age of
majority. The county shall undertake an outreach program to inform
the public that this service is available to persons not receiving public
assistance. There shall be prominently displayed in every public area
of every office of the units established by this section a notice,in clear
and simple language prescribed by the Director of Social Services,
that child and spousal support enforcement services are provided to
94 90
-3 — Ch. 806
all individuals whether or not they are recipients of public social
services.
In any action for child support brought by the district attorney in
the performance of duties under this section, the 'district attorney
may make a motion for an order effective during the pendency of
that action, for the support, maintenance, and education of the child
or children that are the subject of the action. This order shall be
referred to as an order for temporary support. This order shall have
the same force and effect as a like or similar order under the Family
Law Act (Part 5 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 4 of the
Civil Code).
The district attorney shall file a motion for an order for temporary
support within the following time limits:
(1) If the defendant is the mother, a presumed father under
subdivision (a) of Section 7004 of the Civil Code, or any father where
the child is at least six months old when the defendant files his
answer,the time limit is 90 days after the defendant files an answer.
(2) In any other case where the defendant has filed an answer
prior to the birth of the child or not more than six months after the
birth of the child, then the time limit is nine months after the birth
of the child.
If more than one child is the subject of the action, the limitation
on reimbursement shall apply only as to those children whose
parental relationship and age would bar recovery were a separate
action brought for support of that child or those children.
If the district attorney fails to file a motion for an order for
temporary support within time limits specified in this section, the
district attorney shall be barred from obtaining a judgment of
reimbursement for any support provided for that child during the
period between the date the time limit expired and the motion was
.filed, or, if no such motion is filed, when a final judgment is entered.
Nothing in this section prohibits the district attorney from
entering into cooperative arrangements with � other county
departments as necessary to carry out the responsibilities imposed by
this section pursuant to plans of cooperation with the departments
approved by the State Department of Social Services.
Nothing in this section shall otherwise limit the ability of the
district attorney from securing and enforcing orders for support of
a spouse or former spouse as authorized under any other provision
of law.
As used in this subdivision, "complex issues" means issues arising
in the following types of cases: (1) any case which could directly
result in a person's incarceration; (2) any case involving the right to
jury trial; and (3) any case so deemed by a commissioner, a referee,
or a superior court judge.
In counties which operate an expedited process in accordance
with Section 640.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, commissioners and
referees shall order a temporary support obligation under the
Ch. 806 — 4 —
expedited process in complex cases, as defined in this section, prior
to referring those cases to the full judicial, system.
(b) As used in this article, "enforcing obligations" includes, but is
not limited to, (1) the use of all interception and notification systems
operated by the State Department of Social Services for the purposes
of aiding in the enforcement of support obligations and (2) the
obtaining by the district attorney of an initial order for child support,
by civil or criminal process, without regard to whether the child is
receiving public assistance.
(c) As used in this section "out of wedlock" means that the
biological parents of the child were not married to each other at the
time of the child's conception.
(d) The district attorney is the public agency responsible for
administering wage withholding for the purposes of Title IV-D of the
Social Security Act. The district attorney shall seek a wage
assignment in any.case as soon as the obligor is in arrears in payment
in a sum equal to the amount of support payable for one month
pursuant to Section 4701 of the Civil Code.
SEC. 2. Section 11476 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is
amended to read:
11476. It shall be the duty of the county department to refer all
cases where a parent is absent from the home, or where the parents
are unmarried and parentage has not been determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction, to the district attorney immediately at the
time the application for public. assistance, including Medi-Cal
benefits, or certificate of eligibility, is signed by the applicant or
recipient. If an applicant is found to be ineligible, the applicant shall
be notified.in writing that the referral of the case to the district
attorney may be terminated at the applicant's request. The county
department shall cooperate with the district attorney and shall make
available to him or her all pertinent information as provided in
Section 11478.
Upon referral from the county department, the district attorney
shall investigate the question of nonsupport or paternity and shall
take all steps necessary to obtain child support for the needy child,
enforce spousal support as part of the state plan under 'Section
11475.2, and determine paternity in the case of a child born out of
wedlock. Upon the advice of the county department that a child is
being considered for adoption, the, district attorney shall delay the
investigation and other actions with respect to the case until advised
that the adoption is no longer under consideration. The granting of
public assistance or Medi-Cal benefits to an applicant shall not be
delayed or contingent upon investigation by the district attorney.
Where a court order has been obtained, any contractual
agreement for support between the district attorney or the county
department and the noncustodial parent shall be deemed null and
void to the extent that it is not consistent with the court order.
Whenever a family which has been receiving pu blic assistance,
94 144
-5 — Ch. 806
including Medi-Cal, ceases to receive assistance, including Medi-Cal,
the district attorney shall, to the extent required by federal
regulations, continue to enforce support payments from the
noncustodial parent until such time as the individual on whose behalf
the enforcement efforts are made sends written notice to the district
attorney requesting that enforcement services be discontinued.
The district attorney shall, where appropriate, utilize reciprocal
arrangements adopted with other states in securing support from an
absent parent. In individual cases where utilization of reciprocal
arrangements has proven ineffective, the district attorney may
forward to the Attorney General a request to utilize° federal courts
in order to obtain or enforce orders for child or spousal support. If
reasonable efforts to collect amounts assigned pursuant to Section
11477 have failed, the district attorney may request that the case be
forwarded to the Treasury Department for collection in accordance
with federal regulations. The Attorney General, where appropriate,
shall forward these requests to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, or a designated representative.
SEC. 3. Section 14008.6 is added to the Welfare and Institutions
Code, to read:
14008.6. As a condition of eligibility for medical services provided
under this chapter or Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 14200),
and to the extent required by federal law, each applicant or
beneficiary shall:
(a) Assign to the state any rights to medical support and to
payments for medical care from a third party that an individual may
have in his of her own behalf or in behalf of any other family member
for whom that individual has the legal authority to assign such rights,
and is applying for or receiving medical services. Receipt of medical
services under this chapter or Chapter 8 (commencing with Section
14200) shall operate as an assignment by operation of law. If those
rights are assigned pursuant to this subdivision, the assignee may
become an assignee of record by the district attorney or other public
official filing with the court clerk an affidavit showing that an
assignment has been made or that there has been an assignment by
operation of law. This procedure does not limit any other means by
which the assignee may become an assignee of record.
(b) Cooperate with the county welfare department and the
district attorney in establishing the paternity of a child born out of
wedlock with respect to whom medical services are requested or
claimed, and for whom that individual can legally assign the rights
described in subdivision (a), and in obtaining any medical support,
as provided in Section 11475.1, and payments, as described in
subdivision (a), due any person for whom medical services are
requested or obtained.
(c) Cooperate with the state in identifying and providing
information to assist the state in pursuing any third party Nvho may
be liable to pay for care and services available under the Medi-Cal
014 1 Rll
Ch. 806 —6—
program.
(d) The State Department of Health Services shall establish an
exclusive list of acts, in accordance with federal law, which shall be
the only acts deemed to be a refusal to offer reasonable cooperation
and assistance. The county welfare department shall verify that the
applicant or recipient refused to offer reasonable cooperation prior
to determining that the applicant or recipient is ineligible. The,
granting of medical services shall not be delayed or denied if the
applicant is otherwise eligible, if the applicant completes the
necessary forms and agrees to cooperate with the district attorney in
securing medical support and determining paternity, where
applicable.
(e) An applicant or beneficiary shall be considered to be
cooperating with the county welfare department or the district
attorney's office and shall be eligible for medical services, if
otherwise eligible, if the applicant or beneficiary cooperates to the
best of his or her ability or has good cause for refusal to cooperate
with the requirements in subdivisions (b) and (c). The State
Department of Health Services,in accordance with federal law, shall
establish standards for determining good cause for refusal to
cooperate.
The county welfare department shall insure that all applicants for
or beneficiaries of medical services under this chapter or Chapter 8
(commencing with Section 14200) are properly notified of the
conditions imposed by this section.
SEC. 4. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government Code,
if the Commission on State -Mandates determines that this act
contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local
agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant
to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2
of the Government Code. If the statewide cost of the claim for
reimbursement does not exceed five hundred thousand dollars
($500,000), reimbursement shall be made from the State Mandates
Claims Fund.
SEC. 5. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within
the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into
immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to comply with the newly enacted federal requirement
that California provide child support enforcement services to all
families which are Medi-Cal eligible, it is essential that this act take
effect immediately.
0
94 180
j
Assembly Bill No. 2025
CHAPTER 900
An act to.amend Section 1785.13 of, to amend and repeal Section
4751 of, and to add Sections 4709 and 4752 to, the Civil Code, and to
amend Section 683.160 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to
civil law.
[Approved by Governor September 12, 1988. Filed with
Secretary of State September 14, 1988.]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2025, Bates. Civil law: support.
Existing law provides that the father and the mother of a child
have the obligation to support and educate the child in the manner
suitable to the child's circumstances taking into consideration the
respective earnings or earning capacities of the parents.
This bill would make various changes in the law relating to that
parental obligation,including,authorizing a court to require a parent
who is in default in a child support order allegedly because of his or
her unemployment to submit a list of at least 5 different places he or
she has applied for employment to an agency, and at a frequency
specified by the court.
Existing law, the Credit Reporting Agencies Act, provides, with
specified exception, that no consumer credit reporting agency shall
make any consumer credit report containing any information
relative to suits from the date of filing and satisfied judgments which
from the date of entry antedate the report by more than 7 years,and
unsatisfied judgments which, from the date of entry, antedate the
report by more than 10 years.
This bill would instead prohibit a report from containing
information relative to suits and judgments which, from the date of
entry, antedate the report by more than 7 years or until the
governing statute of limitations has expired,whichever is the longer
period. It would delete the prohibition against a report containing
information relative to unsatisfied judgments which, from the date
of entry, antedate the report by more than 10 years.
Existing law also requires the State Department of Social Services
to implement procedures, as specified, to make available, upon
request, to any consumer reporting agency, information regarding
an amount of past due child support which is owed by an absent
parent residing in this state.
This bill would repeal these provisions on July 1, 1990.
In addi'tion the bill would require the State Department of Social
Services, by July 1, 1990, to design and develop a statewide
automated system, as specified, for the reporting of court-ordered
support obligations and delinquent payments to credit reporting
89 50
-3— Ch. 900
thousand dollars ($100,000) or more.
(3) The employment of any individual at an annual salary which
equals, or may reasonably be expected to equal, thirty thousand
dollars ($30,000) or more.
(4) The rental of a dwelling unit which exceeds one thousand
dollars ($1,000) per month.
SEC. 2. Section 4709 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
4709. A court may require a parent who alleges that his or her
default in an order issued pursuant to this title is due to his or her
unemployment to submit to the appropriate child support
enforcement agency or any other entity designated by the court,
including,but not limited to, the court itself, each two weeks, or at
a frequency deemed appropriate by the court, a fist of at least five
different places he or she has applied for employment.
SEC. 3. Section 4751 of the Civil Code is amended to read:
4751. The Legislature finds and declares that in order to comply
with Section 466(a) (7) of the Social Security Act, the State
Department of Social Services shall implement procedures which
provide that information regarding an amount of past due child
support owed by an absent parent residing in this state shall be made
available to any consumer reporting agency (as defined in Section
603(f)) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 a(f))
upon the request of that agency;except that (a) if the amount of the
past-due support involved in any case is less than one thousand
dollars ($1,000), information regarding the amount shall be made
available only at the option of the department, (b) any information
with respect to an absent parent shall be made available under these
procedures only after the parent has been notified of the proposed
action and given a reasonable opportunity to contest the accuracy of
the information, (and after full compliance with all procedural due
process requirements contained in the laws of this state), and (c) a
fee for furnishing the information, in an amount not exceeding the
actual cost thereof,may be imposed on the requesting agency by the
department.
This section shall remain in effect only until July 1, 1990, and as of
that date is repealed.
SEC. 4. Section 4752 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
4752. (a) By July 1,1990,the State Department of Social Services
shall design and develop a statewide automated system for the
reporting of court-ordered support obligations to credit reporting
agencies.
The department shall design and develop standards for the system
in conjunction with representatives of the California Family Support
Council and the credit reporting industry. These standards shall be
consistent.with credit reporting industry standards and reporting
format and with the department's statewide central automated
system for support enforcement.
(b) The standards shall include, but not be limited to, all of the
89 110
r✓x
�+
OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR NOVqsin County
com
198$
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 01 u>- O
Administration Building
Martinez, California
To: CLAUDE VAN MARTER Date: November 9, 1988
Assista my Administrator
From: EO E ire or Subject: DISTRICT ATTORNEY FAMILY
Justice System Programs SUPPORT DIVISION
On September 20, 1988, the Internal Operations Committee requested
supplemental information on the D.A. 's Family Support Unit. This report '
addresses two items contained in this request: 1) an analysis of the
District Attorney's request for additional staff and funds for
automation; and 2) the cost-effectiveness of recording all child support
orders with the Contra Costa County recorder and selected other counties.
AUTOMATION
Significant changes have taken place, since the Internal Operations
Committee considered the DA's request in September. A report by Doug
Pipes to be presented to the Internal Operations Committee fully explains
the changes. In short, the DA proposes leasing a tested automation system
pending implementation of a family support automation system statewide.
The State is beginning an analysis of a variety of systems operating in
other states, one of which is the system about to be implemented in San
Mateo County. The selection of a State system will be translated into a
plan submitted for federal approval.
Unlike the originally proposed purchase, the cost of the leased system is
eligible for 689 federal reimbursement if the start-up cost does not
exceed $200,000 and the cost over the life of the project does not exceed
$300,000. The DA contends that an automation system can be leased
without exceeding these thresholds. The balance of the cost can be
funded with federal and state incentive payments to the County that are a
percentage of family support collections.
Leasing an automated system is a reasonable approach and it is
recommended that the Family Support Unit pursue this further with the
understanding that viability of this plan hinges on timing to some
degree. Once a State plan has federal approval, it is likely that costs
for temporary low-cost automation plans no longer will be eligible for
reimbursement. This would effectively delay automation in Contra Costa
until the State implements a system statewide. At this time all county
systems will be replaced and 909 of costs for the new statewide system
will reimbursed. The DA's lease proposal permits automation now at
virtually no cost to the County.
The Data Processing Department has expressed interest in an alternative
automation approach. Staff will work with both departments to assess the
the best short-term automation solution.
Claude- Van Marter 2 November 9, 1988,
ADDITIONAL STAFFING
The Family Support Unit's caseload is vast and still growing. Workload
data can justify additional staff. Budget history. finds this unit has a
zero net county cost. In recent years they have typically generated a
surplus, with excess revenues reserved in a trust fund for family support
activity only.
The DA's staffing request would add a tremendous number of staff creating
31 new positions at a cost of $746,000 per year. The revenue projections
for the unit argue that this cost can be fully offset by federal
reimbursement (687) combined with federal and state incentive payments.
Increased staffing for the Family Support Unit should be considered to
enhance the unit's effectiveness. The positions added should be
prioritized accordingly . and requested in conjunction with offsetting
revenue to maintain the zero net county cost of the unit. The impact of
automation on staffing should also be evaluated. If the Family Support
Unit automates in the next six months, the staffing plan should take into
account the conversion process. Administrator's staff should work
closely with the District Attorney's staff to develop a staffing
augmentation plan for the family support unit.
Additional staff are requested for two program enhancements worthy of
immediate consideration - credit reporting and recording of child support
orders. Both may have long-term impact in increasing collections at a
seemingly small cost for staff support. Administrator's staff will work
with the District Attorney's Office to identify the staff positions
needed to implement these programs along with projections of offsetting
revenue.
RECORDING CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS
The recording of child support orders for liens is one of the two program
enhancements recommended for the Family Support Unit. A report prepared
by the the Director of the Family Support Unit assesses the District
Attorney' s costs of recording orders. One clerk, a copy machine and
miscellaneous services and supplies are required to implement this program.
A projected 2,500 to 3,000 child support orders would be. recorded
annually. The County Recorder's Office can absorb this workload without
significant cost increases, even given that these recordings are exempt
from recording fees. Should their Recorder's costs become excessive, it
is feasible that a Family Support clerk could be made available to' record
documents in lieu of drawing on Recorder's staff. This would allow some
cost recovery from federal reimbursements and incentive revenue for .the .
Recorder's added costs should they become more significant at a later
time. However, this accommodation is not required at this time.
The total annual cost for this program should not exceed $40,000 based on
the information currently available. The revenue impact of liens is not
immediate. With the knowledge that this is a long-term impact strategy, we
cannot anticipate offsetting this added. cost in this, perhaps not even the
next, fiscal year. But because this budget unit has a trust fund of nearly
$350,000, this additional cost can be absorbed now without net county cost
impact.
GR/jw
i
L
OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Administration Building
Martinez, California
Supervisor Sunne McPeak
To: Supervisor Tom Torlakson Date: November 10, 1988
INTERNAL OPERATIONS
From: Claude L. Van Marter Subject: Automation of D.A. ' s
Assistant Administrat 01 Family Support Division
On September 20, 1988, the Board of Supervisors adopted a report
from your Committee on the District Attorney' s Family Support
Division. One of those recommendations created a Work Group on
Federal Reimbursement . of Family Support Automation Costs,
consisting of Congressman Miller, Assemblyman Bates, the State
Department of Social Services, the District Attorney, County
Administrator, Director of Data Processing and members of your
Committee.
We have written to the involved parties suggesting the formation
of such a Work Group. As a part of this process, Assemblyman
Campbell' s Office indicated an interest in being involved in this
effort. We. have, therefore, kept Mr. Campbell' s staff informed
of each of our efforts in this regard.
Attached is a letter the Board received from the Director of the
State Department of Social Services in response to the letter
sent to Ms. McMahon by the Chairman of the Board. Following
receipt of this letter, this office has talked at length with
Jane Owens, Director of Management Information Systems for the
State Department of Social Services. In addition, we have held
several conversations with Congressman Miller' s staff and with
the Director of the Family Support Division. In the process of
these conversations we have attempted to refine exactly what the
County is asking Congressman Miller to do prior to convening a
meeting on this subject.
The attached letter of November 10, 1988 attempts to define
exactly what the County is now asking Congressman Miller to try
to accomplish. We have agreed that we cannot attempt to
influence the long-term resolution of the issues between the
State of California and the federal government. What we can do
is to ask that the federal government agree now that when it
finally resolves its problems with the State of California, it
Page 2
i
will reimburse Contra Costa County for our automation conversion
costs if we move ahead now without advance federal approval.
Until Congressman Miller has had an opportunity to determine
whether such an exception is possible, there does not appear to
be any particular value in convening a meeting on this subject.
We will continue to keep all parties advised of progress in this
matter and will convene the Work Group at the point that such a
meeting appears to be appropriate.
CLVM:clg
Attachments
5fATE 01''!(ALIFQ4NIA-HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY
'DEPARTMENT�b-t SOCIAL SERVICES - - -- — --
744 P Street, Sacramento CA 95814
J
October 14, 1988
L
Robert I. Schroder , Chairman -
Board of Supervisors r
Contra Costa County
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street , Room 106
Martinez , CA 94553
Dear Mr . Schroder :
This is written to address concerns expressed in your letter of
September 19, 1988 regarding automation of the Contra Costa
County' s Family Support Division .
The Federal Government made it .clear in correspondence received
in April 1988 that they want a State Plan for Child Support
Automation ,in California . They are not approving any Advance
Planning Documents (APD) until the State submits a State Plan and
receives approval of that State Plan. In the same letter they
informed the State -that the current plan for automation was
unacceptable. The current plan was that a County could choose an
already existing system of their choice as long as it was cost
effective and met the County' s needs and there was no duplicate
development in California .
The State formed a Statewide Automated Child Support System
Steering Committee a few years ago comprised of California
District Attorneys or their representatives and State staff.
After the Federal letter was received , the Steering Committee met
in Riverside on June 20, 1988 . All California District Attorneys
were also invited. The purpose of the meeting was to decide how
to .proceed with automation so that a State Plan could be
submitted to the Federal Government. The decision at that
meeting was a single statewide system maintained and operated by
the State. Since we know this will take three to five years to
implement , an interim plan was also approved which allows a
County without automation to choose one of 25 existing California
systems and go into single maintenance with the initial County.
This approach was also approved by the California District
Attorneys Association . It was decided at a subsequent Steering
Committee meeting that a State/County workgroup would assess the
top four systems in California . A fifth system will be assessed
since it is close to completion and is a state-of-the'-art system.
In the meantime, an interim State Plan letter is being submitted
to the Federal Government outlining our plan for automation and
asking if our approach is acceptable.
ti. 2
At the next Steering Committee meeting on October 20,E 1988 , a
detailed approach for statewide Child Support automation in
California will be discussed and voted on. With the 'California
District Attorneys Association' s concurrence, this State Plan
will be finalized and submitted to the Federal Government at the
beginning of December. We hope to have an answer from the
Federal Government by the beginning of February and at that time,
we will know whether we will receive approval for interim systems
in the Counties .
In conclusion I would like to add that I understand the
frustration that the Counties must be feeling while the State
Plan is under discussion. Your County' s assistance and support
in finalizing the State Plan at the October Steering Committee
meeting will be greatly appreciated .
I will be happy to meet with you to provide assistance in
resolving your automation problems . If you have any further
questions or concerns please contact me at (916) 445-2077 or
Dennis J . Boyle, Deputy Director , Management Systems and
Evaluation Division , at (916) 322-3216 .
Sincerely,
LINDA S. McMAHON
Director
Co u n ty.A,0.M in i s#rato r Contra Board of Supervisors
l i l Tom Powers
ounty Administration BuildingCOC`ta Ist District
651 Pine Str(fat, 1"'tit 0loor �J J tai Nancy C. Fanden
Martinez,California 94553 County 2nd District
(415)646-4080
Robert 1. Schroder
Phil Batchelor 'N' 3rd
3rd District
County Administrator Sunne Wright McPeak
4th District
Tom Torlakson
5th District
1
November 10, 1988
The Hon. George Miller, III
Member of Congress
367 Civic Drive, Suite #14
Pleasant Hill, California 94523
Attention: Ms. Carol Hatch
Dear Congressman Miller:
This letter is being written in response to several conversations
with Carol Hatch of your staff.
As you are aware, the Family Support Division of the District
Attorney' s Office is attempting to get approval to install an
automated child support system. Currently, the Family Support
Division operates as a wholly manual operation with paper case
files, a massive card index file, and very limited automated
record of payments and distributions on a system originally
developed in 1971.
As a result of the . failure to automate, the Family Support
Division is falling behind comparable California counties which
are automated in the collection of child support. This, in turn,
produces economic hardships to single-parent families of modest
means and drives up welfare costs for all levels of government.
Under current rules, if a county automates its Family Support
Division withoutrp for federal approval, the county can never in
the future recover any federal reimbursement for any of its
conversion costs or ongoing maintenance costs. Contra Costa
County would like to obtain prior federal approval so we will be
assured that we will receive federal reimbursement for our
automation costs. However, Contra Costa County is caught in an
ongoing disagreement between the State of California and the
Family Support Administration (FSA) of the United States
Department of Health and Human Services. In December of 1987 FSA
stopped approving Advance Planning Documents (APD' s) for
California counties because the federal government had
disapproved of the California State Plan for automating the child
support enforcement program in California. That stay on APD
Page 2
approvals continues and is likely to continue until the
California State Plan is revised, resubmitted and approved. That
could easily take many more months, or years.
In order to get around this logjam, the District Attorney of
Contra Costa County has decided to lease the automated system
hardware and transfer an existing and proven software program,
thereby hopefully coming within an exception to the rule
requiring prior federal approval for installation of automated
child support systems. Under 45 CFR 95. 611(a) , if our start-up
costs are less than $200, 000 during. the first year and less than
$300,000 for the total acquisition, we will not need advance
federal approval. We hope to be able to keep our costs below
these levels so as to be able to avoid the need for federal
approval and to insure that the 68% federal reimbursement will be
available to the County.
However, if we are unable to hold our costs below these
threshholds, we risk the loss of all future federal funding for
our automation costs because we did not receive it in advance.
As we have already noted, we cannot obtain federal approval at
the current time. We believe that fairness, equity and
efficiency dictate that the federal government waive the prior
federal approval rule for Contra Costa County because of the
unique circumstances with which we are faced. Failure to obtain
a waiver now will lock the County into a wasteful,
labor-intensive, manual system which does not adequately serve
the parents and children who are our clients.
What we are asking is that the federal government agree in
writing now that if we select an existing system which already
has federal approval, and if our costs eventually exceed the
$200 ,000 and $300,000 threshholds noted above, that , the federal
government will reimburse the County for those costs as if the
County had received advance federal approval once the federal
government approves California' s State Plan. 1
Any assistance you can provide in obtaining such a federal waiver
will be greatly appreciated. If you need additional information,
please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
CLAUDE L. VAN MARTER
Assistant County Administrator
CLVM:clg
cc: Assemblymen Robert Campbell and Tom Bates
Supervisors Sunne McPeak and Tom Torlakson
Jane Owens, Director, Mgt. Information Systems, SDSS
Gary Yancey, District Attorney
Douglas Pipes, Senior Deputy District Attorney
Marinelle Thompson, Director, Data Processing