THE MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE

Introduction

Accountability information describes a program's functions, effects, and efficiency. This report describes what data is, and is not, available to legislators and agency and program managers concerning the state's child support enforcement program.

The review sought to determine the adequacy of the accountability information maintained by the Department of Human Services relative to the child support enforcement program-whether the program produces the data necessary to make informed policy decisions. Primarily, the review concentrates on the department's accountability information for FY 1996, but does not speculate about information needs that could be brought about by implementation of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (i.e., the 1996 federal welfare reform act). The review's purpose was not to assess the agency's effectiveness or efficiency.

Overview

Accurate, appropriate information is critical for making decisions about a program's needs, resources, or accomplishments. In this report, PEER documents the adequacy of the information relative to policymakers' concerns so that program managers can correct data deficiencies. This report also presents examples of program data that can be solicited from the program.

In making its determination, PEER divided information needs into the following groups:

• program outputs, which address the agency's ability to provide reliable data about the program's goal-oriented accomplishments, historical trends, resource allocations, and program obstacles;
• program outcomes, which refer to data that demonstrate the program's impact on its stakeholders; and,
• program efficiency measures, which give information about the financial and processing aspects of the child support enforcement program.

Overall, DHS can provide the minimum accountability information needed to answer policymakers' (i.e., legislators and program managers) concerns. However, PEER found some accountability informational areas the agency should improve. (See Exhibit A-1, page viii, for a table summarizing PEER's evaluation of the Child Support Enforcement Division's accountability information system.)

Regarding program outputs, DHS captures most of the information needed; however, the department does not capture or monitor some data (e.g., case priorities). The department does not use a case classification scheme to prioritize its caseload (more than 278,000 cases in FY 1997). Policymakers need this type of information in readily accessible form to determine the number and types of child support cases pending and to make decisions about directing program resources where they are most needed.

Regarding program outcomes, DHS monitors some program outcome data, but the department does not maintain all of the information in a readily accessible format. The department also does not collect or monitor timeliness statistics. Policymakers need this type of information to determine the effect that the program has on its clients and the state's resources (capital, labor, and equipment).

Regarding program efficiency data, DHS captures some program efficiency data, but the department does not capture or monitor some processing statistics (e.g., average number of days to process a case to collection). Policymakers could use this information in determining how well the Child Support Enforcement Division manages its resources in accomplishing the program's intended purpose.

Exhibit A-1

Overview of peer's Evaluation of DHS Child Support Enforcement Division's Accountability Information System

Information Needed --------- System Adequacy

Program Outputs
Goal attainment ----------------------- Marginal
Historical comparisons and trends ----- Pass
Resource allocation ------------------- Marginal
Program obstacles --------------------- Pass

Program Outcome
Client service ------------------------ Marginal
State's interests --------------------- Pass

Program Efficiency
Financial efficiency ------------------ Marginal
Timeliness of case processing --------- Fail
Data integrity and security ----------- Pass

Key
Pass: DHS provided an adequate level of information about the program's aspects to make an informed decision.
Example: The Child Support Enforcement Division could provide statistics regarding the division's ability to collect child support, one element required to pass the goal attainment criterion.
Marginal: DHS provided some information about the program, but not enough to make a complete determination.
Example: The Child Support Enforcement Division could provide some data about processing statistics, but could not provide case universe data.
Fail: DHS provided little or no data about the program's attributes.
Example: The Child Support Enforcement Division could provide no information about the lack of established case priorities.

SOURCE: PEER analysis.

Recommendations

Accountability information deficiencies of the Department of Human Services' Child Support Enforcement Division could be corrected with little change and cost to the department. Many of these deficiencies could be corrected with some programming changes to the division's electronic database system.

1. The Department of Human Services should monitor goal attainment statistics (i.e., number of cases pending action and number of cases processed by major phase) through its electronic database system in order to monitor program advancement as well as program problems.

2. Using existing resources, the Department of Human Services' Child Support Enforcement Division should study, document, and implement a classification system to prioritize the state's child support caseload for use in directing resources where they are most needed.

3. The Department of Human Services should modify its child support database to monitor case aging statistics (e.g., average time for a case to receive support, average time cases are in a particular work phase) for use in identifying case management problems. 4. The Department of Human Services should require any child support contractor to report processing data similar to that maintained by the department (e.g., caseload ratios) to ensure uniform quality of services.

5. The Department of Human Services should track and monitor the timeliness of child support case processing. Timeliness reports should also include information on the average time elapsing between phases as well as the number of cases in each of several categories (e.g., the number of cases for which paternity establishment took thirty, sixty, ninety, or more than ninety days).

Download Full Text Report in Acrobat Format - (233 K)

PEER Home Page.

E-Mail