not fully reviewed by bcfmepreview
http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/justice-services/publications/pdf/Child_Support_Recalculation.pdf
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This document presents the findings of the pilot phase evaluation of the Child Support Recalculation
Service (CSRS). The CSRS annually recalculates eligible child support orders and written agreements that
have been filed in the Kelowna Provincial Court since June 2006. The overall objective of the CSRS is to
promote the objectives of the federal and provincial Child Support Guidelines by ensuring that child support
amounts are based on the updated (annual) incomes of parents.
The evaluation looked at the effectiveness of the CSRS during its pilot phase, identified implementation
issues and challenges, assessed the range and type of services provided, client characteristics and key
justice partner, client and staff satisfaction with the service. The evaluation used six methodologies
including the collection of client and case tracking data and surveys with key justice partners and clients.
Court records of registered CSRS cases were also reviewed.
RESEARCH CHALLENGES
The evaluation took place during the first year of the implementation of the CSRS. This affected the level
of key justice partner experience with the service, the number of cases processed to the first recalculation
date and the overall number of clients registered in the CSRS.
Some aspects of data design and data management and reporting were still being developed, tested or
redesigned during the implementation period and this may have affected aspects of the data. The
evaluation faced challenges related to the currency, completeness, interpretation or reliability of some of
the data. As yet, the CSRS produces no pre-designated aggregated “canned reports” which could be used
for evaluation purposes, case monitoring or case management purposes. In addition, much of the case
tracking and outcomes data was compiled in extensive notes or narrative form. This made the extraction
and aggregation of some of the data for the evaluation difficult and would likely have implications for case
tracking and monitoring.
CLIENT, CASE AND RECALCULATION DATA
Selected data was collected on all cases processed by the CSRS by the date of November 6, 2007. At this
time 222 cases had been processed by the CSRS. Of these, 47% were registered cases, 33% were
exempted at Court and 20% were later exempted by the CSRS. Eighty-four percent of the exempted cases
were exempted because of imputed income. Ninety-five percent of the cases were court orders; 5% were
written agreements.
Within the 105 registered cases, 64% of the families had one child. A third of the payors had income levels
below $30,000. Thirty-six percent of the cases had assigned rights to BC Employment and Assistance and
32% were registered with FMEP.
CSRS program data flagged 10% of the cases as having safety concerns. Half of the safety data was
extracted from CEIS records. This data was not completely congruent with safety issues reported by
recipients participating in the Client Survey.
Over half of the registered cases had child support orders ranging from $150.00 to $499.00 per month.
Fifteen percent of the cases had special expenses allocated.
Seventy-four percent of the orders from the registered cases focused only on child support and
maintenance. Fifty-one percent of the cases had previous orders.
There were thirty-one cases that were eligible for recalculation in the time period covered by the evaluation.
Of the cases that were eligible for recalculation, 87% underwent a recalculation process. In 63% of these
cases income data was provided through an automatic 10% recalculation. In 93% of the cases where a
recalculation process was completed the recalculation came into effect. In 76% of these cases an increase
in child support amounts resulted.
In four cases CSRS clients applied to change their child support orders. At the time the data was reviewed
one application to change the child support order had been approved; three were pending.
Almost all cases were processed within the one year time frame specified for the recalculation process.
The available data indicated that in only one case was the recalculation completed more than two months
after the expected deadline for reasons outside of the service.
CSRS tracking data indicated that telephone contact was made with 17% of the payors and in 42% of the
cases a search for payor contact was undertaken. In over half the cases a search was undertaken by
MELS, which had a success rate of over 80%.
FINDINGS FROM THE KEY PARTNER SURVEY
The CSRS evaluation included a survey of key justice partners, including representatives from FMEP,
FMP, MELS, the Court Registry, the Judiciary, the Kelowna Family Justice Centre and the private bar.
Twenty key justice partners were included in the survey. Sixty percent of the key justice respondents
described themselves as having direct contact with clients receiving CSRS services. Key partners were not
able to assess all aspects of the service because of its early phase of implementation.
Most key partners felt quite or well informed of central policies of the CSRS. Twenty to 30% of the key
partners felt that they lacked knowledge in some areas, for example, related to the automatic 10% increase
in the payor’s income if no income information has been provided. Although respondent subgroups were
small, respondents from the private bar seemed to have more knowledge gaps than others.
Over a third of the key partners felt that using exemption categories had limited the scope of the CSRS.
The recommendation was that the categories needed to be reviewed and some eliminated, if feasible, to
provide greater coverage by the service. CSRS staff noted that legislation limits the feasibility of amending
most exemption categories.
Many key partners felt that they did not yet have enough direct experience with the CSRS to assess
specific aspects of the CSRS. Those who did provide ratings gave high positive ratings to all aspects of the
CSRS including the timeliness of the service response and the responsiveness of staff to client concerns.
Ninety-five percent of the cases registered in the CSRS are court orders rather than written agreements.
Kelowna Family Justice Centre staff identified two barriers that they felt might affect the volume of written
agreements. These were: payor resistance to becoming involved in the CSRS or unwillingness to opt-in
and the high numbers of clients who are self employed. How self-employment affects the level of
submission of written agreements in the courts was not explored with the respondents.
Key justice partners identified many benefits of the CSRS for recipients, payors and children. Key justice
partners perceived the primary benefit of CSRS to recipients as the opportunity to participate in an out-ofcourt process that resulted in the appropriate and regular updating of child support. Not having to go to
court was also a benefit identified for payors. For children the main benefits were the guarantee of regular,
current and more accurate child support and the reduction of tensions in the family.
Other benefits of the CSRS identified by key justice partners included the efficiency and cost benefits
resulting from the CSRS in keeping child support current and the time potentially saved in tracking payors
with arrears (because child support may be kept more up-to-date).
Almost 80% of the key justice partners said that they felt it was likely that the CSRS would lead to a
reduction in court time to address child support matters. Respondents also noted that the service could
lead to the development of more (client) confidence in the family justice system in general.
The most frequent limitation of the CSRS, identified by a small number of the key justice partners, was a
possible increase in tension between parents, because the CSRS could be experienced as punitive by
payors. This concern appears not to be borne out by the results from the Client Survey which suggested
that the CSRS is perceived by recipients as having a positive impact on safety.
FMEP and FMP respondents identified areas where the CSRS had increased the workload of staff. This
was particularly noted by FMP, which has extensive documentation related to the CSRS to process. FMEP
respondents said that their clients were sometimes confused about the mandate and that this required time
to explain.
A higher use of the MELS or FMEP search mechanisms by the CSRS was also mentioned as having
implications for these agencies, although this issue was not explored in detail in the evaluation.
A second issue for FMP related to the transferring of safety information to the CSRS. Although steps have
been taken to ensure the exchange of safety information between FMP and the CSRS, an Information
Sharing Agreement (ISA) has not been signed by the FMP that could help facilitate this exchange.
Fifty-five percent of key partners assessed the CSRS as being highly effective, with 45% assessing it as
being only somewhat or not very effective. Service effectiveness was not seen as a service quality issue
but as resulting primarily from the limited scope of the service because it operates at only one court in BC
and the number of exemptions are seen to limit its scope.
Seventy percent of the key justice partners strongly recommended the expansion of the CSRS to other
court sites. Key partners would also like to see the CSRS provide more detailed information about their
mandate and policies to clients, the public and key partners, reduce the number of exemption categories (if
feasible) to enable the CSRS to engage more clients, and reduce the paperwork required and generated by
the program to make it more streamlined.
Key justice partners felt that the CSRS had been successful in meeting its objectives of providing an
automatic out-of-court method for updating child support. Almost 70% said that it was unlikely that child
support payments in Kelowna would have been kept up-to-date without the availability of the CSRS.
FINDINGS FROM THE CLIENT SURVEY
A telephone survey was conducted with clients registered with the CSRS who had a child support order
dated between June and December 2006. Seventy-two clients (in 36 cases) were identified as potential
participants for the Client Survey.
Client Survey completion rates were affected by the level of up-to-date accurate contact information for
clients. Interviews were completed with forty clients, 55% of the client group. Eighty percent of the
respondents participating in the Client Survey said that their incomes had undergone a recalculation.
Fifty-two percent of the clients said they originally found out about the CSRS through the CSRS registration
package. Eighty-two percent recalled receiving this package.
Ninety-four percent of the clients felt that the registration package provided most or all of the information
required to understand the overall purpose of the CSRS. About a quarter of the respondents described
other information they would like to have about the CSRS, including how specific situations are handled by
the service and/or further details about service effective dates
Most clients indicated a very high level of understanding of the basic mandate and requirements of CSRS.
There were two areas where they expressed somewhat less understanding – the potential to vary orders in
court if clients disagreed with the recalculated amounts and the automatic recalculation of 10% of the
payor’s income if annual income information was not submitted.
There was strong agreement by both payors and recipients that the principle of recalculating child support
is fair, realistic and important. There was also general agreement among most clients that the 10%
recalculated amount was fair although concerns were expressed by some recipients that the 10% might be
too low if payors had earned more and didn’t want to declarer the income.
Most clients (75%) were also quite or very satisfied with the mandatory requirement to submit income
information to the CSRS.
The applied benefits of the CSRS were assessed more cautiously by clients, but problems were generally
related to issues around the degree to which child support had been paid (not a CSRS issue) rather than
aspects of the service. Clients who had their incomes recalculated saw the CSRS as being more beneficial
than those who had not. Twenty-five percent of the payors said the CSRS had been beneficial compared
to 57% of the recipients.
Clients identified the greatest benefit of CSRS as helping them avoid court and reducing contact and
conflict between the parents over child support issues. The main reasons why respondents said it was not
beneficial were related to recipients not receiving child support or the new recalculated payments not being
seen to be made. These concerns appear to centre around child support payment or arrears issues;
subjects not within the mandate of the CSRS and not explored in the evaluation.
Clients said that registration in the CSRS had generally had positive impacts on the relationship between
the parents. Twenty-five percent of the respondents said that registration in the CSRS had had a positive
effect on their relationship, 60% said it had had no or a “neutral effect.” Only 15% said it had had a
negative effect.
Eleven of the twenty-eight recipients (39%) said that they had current or historical safety concerns related
to the payor. Only two of these recipients were identified as having safety concerns in the CSRS database,
suggesting that there are some limitations in the data that reports client safety concerns. Some of the data
in CSRS on safety issues was also inconsistently entered, making the best source or most accurate data
difficult to identify.
Of the eleven respondents who expressed safety concerns, 54% said that registration in the CSRS had had
an impact on their sense of safety and, of these individuals, all reported that the program had improved
their sense of safety by reducing conflict between the parents. These results underscore the value of
CSRS to parents in terms of its impact of providing a “neutral” approach to child support issues.
Fifty-five percent of the respondents said that they were aware that they could call the CSRS directly if they
had questions or concerns about the service, 54% of this group had made a direct telephone contact (30%
of all clients).
Clients gave high positive ratings for the quality of the CSRS. Staff neutrality and fairness were given the
highest ratings.
Clients were asked to suggest ways that the CSRS could be changed or improved to encourage more
payors to submit their income information. Clients suggested that it might be helpful to raise the automatic
recalculation to more than 10% or to recalculate more frequently, increase the penalties for payors who do
not provide income information, and provide clearer instructions to payors about the submission of income
information.
Recipients were asked whether it was likely they would have taken court action to keep child support up-todate if the CSRS had not been implemented. Forty percent of the recipients said that without the CSRS it
was likely they would have applied to court for a variation on their order. This finding suggests that for a
significant number of clients involvement in the CSRS may have reduced the likelihood of their going to
court for a variation of their order.
