Sacramento County Bureau of Family Support

REASON FOR INVESTIGATION

The Grand Jury received complaints alleging that Sacramento County performed poorly in child support collections compared to other counties in the state.

BACKGROUND

The Bureau of Family Support administers programs which collect child support payments on behalf of custodial parents. As of June 1995, a staff of 279 serviced 85,000 open cases. The Bureau acts to establish paternity and support orders and to locate absent parents. When payments are not being made the Bureau may attach wages, place liens on property, intercept tax refunds and place a hold on state licenses.

In Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) cases, the collections are applied against the AFDC payment, creating a savings for the county, state, and federal governments. At the request of the custodial parent, the Bureau may also act in non-AFDC cases. Such action may improve the living standards of the children affected and may prevent the need for the custodial parent to apply for AFDC. In 1995-96 Sacramento County collected $23 million in AFDC cases and $28 million in non-AFDC cases.

During the past decade many of the location, enforcement, and recordkeeping processes associated with child support have become automated. A statewide network with advanced applications is being developed, but is two years overdue. Meanwhile, counties wishing to improve their automation are limited in what they can accomplish because of the priority given to the state network.

PROCEDURES FOLLOWED

The Grand Jury interviewed the complainant and Bureau of Family Support managers, toured the Bureau offices, and obtained statistical materials from the State Department of Social Services (DSS).

FINDINGS

Through 1994-95 there were good reasons to be concerned about Sacramento County's performance. In 1994-95 Sacramento County collected $2.34 for every dollar spent by the Bureau. Except for Los Angeles County this was the lowest ratio among the 10 largest counties in the state. The highest ratio ($3.94) was found in both Alameda and Fresno Counties, a difference of nearly 70 percent. Compared to all 58 counties, Sacramento ranked 44th in this measure.

During 1994-95 Sacramento did improve in two key operational areas. Paternities established as a percentage of those needing establishment through the courts increased from 38 percent to 62 percent; and support orders established as a percentage of those needing establishment through the courts increased from 35 percent to 61 percent. After 1995-96 Sacramento ranked third among the 10 largest counties in these two areas.

These developments led to improved fiscal performance in 1995-96. Collections increased by 24 percent, the third highest growth rate among the 10 largest counties. Bureau management expects another healthy increase this year, ranging around 15 percent.

Bureau managers agree that improvements are possible but the major obstacle is automation. What is blocking automation is the failure of a statewide computer project being done under the auspices of the DSS. Originally scheduled for completion in 1995, the pilot system fails to meet the needs of larger counties and is currently being reconfigured. Sacramento County has tried to upgrade its systems since 1989 but has been unable to get the federal funding necessary for the project because of the priority given to the statewide DSS effort. Fresno County, by contrast, has long been regarded as a leader in computerization of its program, and had completed many updates before the DSS system began to be designed.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Effective operation of this program benefits children and custodial parents.
2. The Grand Jury acknowledges the Bureau's improvements in paternity establish-ment, support orders, and aggregate collections.
3. Investments in operational improvements have a payoff in terms of improved collections in future years.

RECOMMENDATION

The Grand Jury recommends that the Bureau of Family Support provide the Grand Jury a report addressing its short- and long-term goals for the improvement of child support collections.

RESPONSE REQUIRED

The Penal Code requires responses to the recommendation contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento County Superior and Municipal Courts by September 30, 1997, from:

Office of the District Attorney