1 / 53

PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS

PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS. Moderator: Dail Moore, Director, National Technical Assistance & Training Center, OCSE Speakers: Judge Kristin Ruth , Raleigh, NC Judge Scott Rosenberg , Nashville, TN Judge Allan Schmalenberger , Dickenson, ND. Wake County Model.

ryder-larson
Download Presentation

PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS Moderator: Dail Moore, Director, National Technical Assistance & Training Center, OCSE Speakers: • Judge Kristin Ruth, Raleigh, NC • Judge Scott Rosenberg, Nashville, TN • Judge Allan Schmalenberger, Dickenson, ND

  2. Wake County Model Child Support Enforcement & Problem-Solving Courts Integrated Solutions

  3. Wake County Model Integrated Solutions The Goals Increased Child Support Payments and Reduced Jail Overcrowding

  4. The Cycle • Parent is ordered to pay child support • Parent doesn’t pay • Parent is issued a show cause • Parent is served and comes to court • Parent is found in contempt • Parent is ordered to pay a purge or go to jail • Parent pays the purge and parent is released • Cycle repeats itself over again Ruth, K. (2006) Breaking the cycle: Alternatives to incarceration lead to collections in Wake Co., North Carolina. Child Support Report, 38 (1) 2.

  5. Wake County Model Integrated Solutions The Structure Judge-Driven Hearings and Service Integration Custody Visitation/ Mediation Electronic House Arrest Vocational/ Counseling Services

  6. Wake County Model Integrated Solutions The Process Accountability + Opportunity + Judge = Success Electronic House Arrest With Field Supervision Vocational/ Counseling With Visitation Mediation Status Hearings With Performance Reports Increased Compliance > Payments < Jail Days < Failures

  7. Wake County Model Integrated Solutions Procedure(s) Show Cause Finding of Willful Contempt Conditions of Judges Order Regular Reviews If participant violates conditions, arrest warrant may be issued

  8. Wake County Model Integrated Solutions Typical Conditions: Used Alone or in Combination Depending on the Specifics of Each Case • Electronic House Arrest: ToEstablish Daily Curfew • Seek/Secure Employment • “Working for Kids” Program • Attend Substance Abuse Classes • Address Mental Health Issues • Address Educational Needs

  9. Wake County Model Integrated Solutions Impact: Contributes to Overall CSE Collections

  10. Wake County Model Integrated Solutions Impact: Contributes to Overall CSE Purge Payments

  11. Academic Research Meredith College A Phase I study designed and led by Dr. Rhonda Zingraff, Professor of Sociology at Meredith College

  12. Child Support Sanctions and Effects on Non-custodial Parent Compliance By: Sheenagh Lopez & Jennifer McCoy Meredith College

  13. Title IV-D of Social Security Act • Created the Child Support Enforcement Program • Provides establishment of paternity and the establishment, enforcement, collection, and distribution of all child support payments Ashton, J. (2006) Child support dockets benefit from uprising problem solving court principle. Juvenile and Family Justice Today, 14 (4), 19-21.

  14. OCSE Case Definition • A parent who is now, or eventually may be, obligated under law for the support of a child or children receiving services under Title IV-D program. Ashton, J. (2006) Child support dockets benefit from uprising problem-solving court principle. Juvenile and Family Justice Today, 14 (4), 19-21.

  15. Facts about Child Support • 2004:Estimated 1.2 million child support orders in the U.S. • Child support enforcement is not cost effective; Net loss of $745 million per year (1996) • Mothers on welfare can only expect to receive $50 a month from child support payment- remaining money goes to the state to cover cost of welfare program • Only 20% of welfare mothers receive any child support at all. Hays, S. (2003) Flat broke with children: Women in the age of welfare reform. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

  16. Child Support: Scope of Need • 28% of all children under 18 live in single parent homes • 85% live with mother • Only 50% receive child support payments • Only 25% get full amount of payment I-Fen, L. (2000) Perceived fairness and compliance with child support obligations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(2) 388-398.

  17. What do we know about child support payment compliance?

  18. Divorced vs. Non-Marital • Non-marital fathers are significantly more likely to have 1 or more years of non-payment than divorced fathers • In a given year non-marital fathers who are partial payers are significantly more likely to pay nothing the following year than divorced fathers Meyer, D. & Bartfeld, J. (1998) Patterns of child support compliance in Wisconsin. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(2) 309-318.

  19. Variables Affecting Compliance • Father’s perception of fairness interacts with routine income withholding to significantly increase subsequent compliance • Income has a positive effect on compliance • Fathers are less likely to comply with orders when ex-spouses are welfare recipients I-Fen, L. (2000) Perceived fairness and compliance with child support obligations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(2) 388-398.

  20. Problem-solving Court • Problem-solving courts: dockets that bring together community resources to address a specific problem • 2004: the Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators passed Resolution 22 which supports the use of problem-solving court principles and methods in all courts • Partnerships between courts, public agencies and community-based organizations facilitate the delivery of services Ashton, J. (2006) Child support dockets benefit from uprising problem-solving court principle. Juvenile and Family Justice Today, 14 (4), 19-21.

  21. Wake County Model • Judge Kristin H. Ruth has implemented the problem solving court model in application to child support enforcement with the use of: - Electronic House Arrest -“Working for Kids” - Jail Incarceration Ruth, K. (2006) Breaking the cycle: Alternatives to incarceration lead to collections in Wake County, North Carolina. Child Support Report, 38 (1) 2.

  22. Abstract • The sanctions this research focuses on is the use of Electronic House Arrest and Working For Kids programs in increasing child support payment compliance. • The analysis of compliance focuses on payment histories of non-custodial parents placed in the programs six months prior and six months after the sanction was implemented. • The data is examined to see if the child support payment compliance sanctions have a significant effect on compliance of non-custodial parents versus the traditional use of jail incarceration as the primary or sole sanction. • These findings will form a foundation for further research that can later be used to examine and compare the validity of sanctions ordered by Wake County Child Support Enforcement.

  23. Comparisons of Payment Compliance Before & After EHA

  24. Comparisons of Payment Compliance Before & After WFK Paired Samples Statistics Paired Samples Test Paired Samples Statistics Paired Samples Test

  25. Comparisons of Payment Compliance Before & After JAIL Paired Samples Statistics Paired Samples Test Paired Samples Statistics Paired Samples Test

  26. Significance of change in payment compliance before and after EHA

  27. Significance of change in payment compliance before and after Working For Kids

  28. Significance of change in payment compliance before and after JAIL

  29. Conclusions of Study • Problem-solving court sanctions explored do impact payment compliance in terms of both consistency of making a payment and the level of payment made. • Decidedly low average payment compliance rises to medium levels with use of the community sanctions. • The importance of employment, albeit not surprising, is empirically confirmed, and the capacity of these community sanctions to modestly encourage employment is revealed.

  30. Conclusions of Study • Gains in payment compliance accomplished by court orders involving community sanctions (EHA and WFK) compare favorably to the gains observed following the Jail sanction. • The EHA cases resemble the Jail cases in terms of initial impact, but they exhibit a more stable pattern of compliance over time and they tend to show greater gains in consistency and effectiveness as well. • Cases ordered to EHA or to Jail tend to be less compliant to begin with than those ordered to WFK, suggesting distinctions most likely recognized by Judge Ruth.

  31. Conclusions of Study • WFK cases, while looking better on the front end, do not display changes as immediately as those facing more coercive controls. However, gradual changes achieved over time by WFK cases are consistently upward and notable in terms of payment consistency. • In contrast, the cases sentenced to Jail are characterized by a dramatic two-month jump in payment activity, followed by erratic and declining compliance thereafter. • Gains in employment are predictive of improve-ments in payment compliance; community-based sanctions seem to favor employment gains more than the threat and/or experience of incarceration.

  32. Implementing a Problem Solving Court One Court’s Approach

  33. Implementing a Problem Solving Court Establishing the Program • Identifying the Cases • Setting up the Staff • Identifying the Partners • Source for Cases • Developing the Docket

  34. Implementing a Problem Solving CourtIdentifying the Cases Case Profiling • Wants to pay – can pay • Doesn’t want to pay – can pay • Doesn’t want to pay – can’t pay • Wants to pay – can’t pay

  35. Implementing a Problem Solving Court Identifying the Cases Wants to pay – can’t pay Identify the barriers. • No employment history / lack of skills • Criminal Background • Underemployed / need higher paying job • Disability

  36. Implementing a Problem Solving CourtSetting up the Staff Probation / Intensive Enforcement Officer • Monitor the cases • File actions when necessary • Liaison between Court and Partner Providers

  37. Implementing a Problem Solving CourtIdentifying the Partners Identified Sources • Workforce Investment Board • Local Agencies • Goodwill • Center for Independent Living • Project Return • Mental Health Cooperative Still Seeking • Clinic to identify real disabilities

  38. Implementing a Problem Solving CourtSource for Cases • Identify cases on regular dockets • Child Support Agency direct referrals • Referral from Partner Agencies

  39. Implementing a Problem Solving CourtDeveloping the Docket • Finding the available docket time • How to conduct the docket • Different dockets for different issues • How often to schedule • How long will this last? • Identifying general timeframes with partners • 1,2,3 strikes you’re out • “Graduate Level” programs?

  40. NORTH DAKOTA PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY INITIATIVE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF EMPLOYMENT PRIDE A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT AMONG THE NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, JOB SERVICE NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTHWEST DISTRICT COURT, NORTHEAST DISTRICT COURT, AND NORTHEAST CENTRAL DISTRICT COURT

  41. GOALS • Improving support for children by securing employment for noncustodial parents. • Offering an additional option to the court when facing recalcitrant payers. • Decreasing reliance on Economic Assistance programs. • SUCCESS WOULD BE MEASURED BY • Improved payments/reduction in nonpayment of child support. • Changes in court enforcement actions. • Decreased usage of Economic Assistance programs.

  42. MISSING LINK Monitoring compliance?

  43. PROGRAM CASE MANAGER • Secret to success • Shelia

  44. PRIDE ORDER

  45. FAILURE TO COMPLY • Immediate Order to Show Cause

  46. PRIDE PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY INITIATIVE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF EMPLOYMENT QUICK FACTS

  47. EMPLOYMENT 147 Customers Enrolled in PRIDE

  48. ASSISTANCE PROGRAMSFOOD STAMPS 31.3% Decrease 30.2% Decrease 32.4% Decrease

  49. ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS TANF Number of TANF Benefit Case Months Prior toand After Referral to PRIDE 32.6% Decrease 32.7% Decrease 32.5% Decrease

  50. JUDICIARY IMPACT HEARINGS Average Monthly Contempt Hearings 6 5.7 5 4 3 2.6 2 1 0 Prior to PRIDE After PRIDE

More Related