improving engagement of non- custodial parents in...

Improving Engagement of Non-

Custodial Parents in Services: A Behavioral Diagnosis and Design Approach

August 2015

Edith Kealey, PhD

Office of Evaluation and Research

Human Resources Administration

Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services

Background

• Office of Child Support Enforcement’s Customer Service Walk-In Center (CSC) in Manhattan assists 45,000 non-custodial parents (NCPs) annually

• NCPs who are applying or recertifying for cash assistance at HRA Job Centers receive automated referral to CSC, but follow-through rates are low (~7%)

– Goal of referral: to help low-income NCPs align child support orders with resources

• Used behavioral economics lens to assess current process and identify opportunities for improvement

• Findings will help support reforms at HRA Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services

CSC Referral Process for NCPs on PA

CA application / recertification

• Automated routine matches client information to OCSE database

Automated referral packet

• If match is found, system generates informational letter and pre-populated referral letter

Packet given to client

• Worker provides packet to NCP with scripted verbal reinforcement


Referrals do not include specific time for appointment, and are voluntary. NCPs are not required to have a referral in order to visit the CSC.

Sample Referral Letter


Research Questions


1. Define problems of interest.

• Is the referral process implemented as designed?

• What barriers make it harder for NCPs to follow through?

2. Diagnose bottlenecks

• What process changes might facilitate follow-through by NCPs on referrals?

3. Design behaviorally informed solutions

4. Test new interventions

Methods

• Literature review to explore key concepts in behavioral economics and previous research on NCP decision-making

– Environmental scan using iterative search strategy and review of on-line sources

• Administrative data analysis to identify client-level factors associated with CSC visit and assess variation in referral and follow-through patterns by Job Centers

• Site visits / key informant interviews (HRA/OCSE staff) and telephone surveys (NCPs) to explore current referral process, facilitators/barriers, and suggestions for improvement


Sample and Participants

• Administrative data analysis: OCSE provided data on 12,916 NCPs applying/recertifying for CA with referral to CSC in calendar year 2014 (followed through March 2015)

• Site visits / key informant interviews:

– Purposive sample of three Job Centers (low referral follow-through, high referral follow-through, on-site OCSE staff) plus CSC

– Interviewed Job Center leadership at all Job Centers and line staff at two

– Interviewed Director of CSC

• Telephone surveys: 219 NCPs with referral to CSC between October – December 2014 and any visit to CSC between October 2014 – March 2015

– Able to reach 47 by phone; completed 29 surveys (13.2% overall response rate) → in line with response rates obtained in other studies with this population


Lit Review Findings: Low-Income NCPs

• Mismatch between low-income NCP resources and ability to pay can lead to substantial arrears

• High arrears are associated with lower payments, discourage formal employment, and may result in enforcement actions that further reduce work

• Strategies to prevent accumulation of arrears or address existing arrears have shown modest impact, but voluntary programs often have low enrollment rates (4-10%)

• Barriers include distrust of government, prioritization of employment, potential for conflict with custodial parents, and personal challenges (education, health, transportation, etc.)


Lit Review Findings: Behavioral Economics

• Addresses limits of “rational actor” model by incorporating psychological factors into economic models of human behavior

• Highlights automatic vs. reflective systems for decision-making

• Of particular importance for low-income populations and others experiencing resource scarcity

– Diminishes both bandwidth and slack

• Program design implications: incentives, default options, flexibility, timing, etc.


Sample Behavioral Terms and Definitions

Term Definition

Affective response Impact of feelings or emotions on decision-making

Cognitive load Diminishing capacity for decision-making under stress

Frame How information is presented

Hassle factor Procedural or situational details that make it more difficult to accomplish a task

Planning fallacy Underestimating requirements for task completion

Salience Whether something is perceived as important / relevant

Social influence Perceived prevalence or value of behavior among others


Results: Referral Analysis By Center

• 12,916 NCPs received referral to CSC in 2014: followed through March 2015

– 9.8% (n=1,266) had any visit to CSC

– 4.8% (n=610) visited CSC within 90 days of referral

• When analyzing response rates by HRA Job Center, the % of NCPs with referral who visited the CSC within 90 days ranged from 2.5% to 8.1%


Results: Referral Analysis, NCP Characteristics

Characteristic

NCPs with First

Visit to CSC

within 90 days

(n=610)

NCPs with Any

First Visit to

CSC

(n=1,266)

NCPs without

Visit to CSC

(n=11,650)

Age at referral, in years (median)* 43 42 39

Years in child support system (median)* 11 10 7

# of cases associated with NCP (median)* 1.5 2.0 1.0

% with any arrears* 91.8% 91.6% 58.3%

Among those with arrears, total arrears at

time of referral (median) $10,346 $9,532 $9,113

Ethnicity

Black, non-Hispanic 45.7% 45.9% 47.2%

Hispanic 26.2% 25.4% 26.1%

None listed 28.0% 26.9% 24.0%


* p < .05, comparing those with any visit to those without a visit

Results: Key Informant Interviews • Worker interaction with NCP around referral packet varied by

Center, in part due to differing populations served (family cases vs. single adults) – e.g., workers reluctant to discuss referral if NCP is there

with a new partner

• Clients either surprised that worker has information about child support case, or dispute case info on referral

• Challenges to engagement on child support issues include NCPs’ distrust of government and priority given during interview to issues associated with benefit eligibility

• CSC visits tracked in separate system → not captured in data available to Centers (will be addressed as part of reforms)


Results: Telephone Interviews of Referred

NCPs with Visit to CSC


• Respondents provided positive ratings for the convenience of the CSC’s hours and location (median rating = 8)

– However, respondents also highly endorsed locations closer to home (median rating = 9) and work (median rating =10) as changes that would make it easier to visit the CSC

• Respondents indicated that getting assistance by phone or in person was very important (median rating = 10), but rated assistance over the Internet as less important (median rating = 4)

All ratings were on a 10-point scale, with higher ratings indicating more positive rating or more agreement.

NCP Telephone Interviews

• Most common reasons for visit to CSC included reinstatement of official documents (n=8) and help with arrears (n=4)

• NCPs were already familiar with the CSC (n=7), had learned of it through OCSE resources (n=7) or word of mouth (n=6)

• Most common facilitator was easy access to subway (n=6)

→ No client spontaneously mentioned the referral letter, even though all were on record as receiving it.


Bottleneck Behavioral Reasons for Bottleneck

In some circumstances, it

is not appropriate /

possible to provide verbal

instructions at the same

time as the referral letter.

Lacking cues about the reason for or importance of the letter,

disregards as not salient.

Clients are given the

referral letter with

instructions from the

worker but do not pay

attention, do not fully

understand the

information, or do not

find it relevant/helpful.

Faces increased cognitive load due to confusing letter

Inattention to referral in the context of mandatory

appointments for CA

Experiences affective response due to arrears/amount of

child support listed, or perceived errors in case information

Perceives as less relevant due to enforcement frame of

referral letter

Puts aside due to ostrich effect for child support issues

Puts aside due to lack of defined timeframe for visit (planning

fallacy)


Hypothesized Bottlenecks and Behavioral Concepts

Bottleneck Behavioral Reasons for Bottleneck

Client decides not to visit

the CSC.

Views child support through a negative frame

Avoids thinking about child support issues due to ostrich

effect

Does not perceive relevance of visit to his/her specific

circumstances (saliency)

Client intends to visit the

CSC, but does not make

the trip.

Demonstrates inattention or lack of prospective memory to

visit CSC during operating hours

Plans to visit but encounters problems due to planning

fallacy

Experiences hassle factors involved in traveling to location or

finding time during the week

Exhibits present bias or procrastination by not taking steps to

address child support issues


Hypothesized Bottlenecks and Behavioral Concepts

(cont’d)

Planned Interventions

Based on these findings, HRA is actively planning to:

1. Revise the referral packet to reflect behavioral principles

a. Frame: focus on benefits to client rather than enforcement

b. Cognitive load: use easy-to-understand words and diagrams

c. Affective response: avoid content that elicits negative emotions

d. Salience: highlight relevant information about the CSC’s location, hours and services

2. Develop communication strategies to promote general awareness of the CSC (video clips, posters)

3. Offer OCSE services for NCPs at additional locations


Acknowledgements

• Office of Child Support Enforcement

– Frances Pardus-Abbadessa, Executive Deputy Commissioner

– David Ramm, Director, Communications and Publications

– Bharathi Veeraswamy, Executive Director, OCSE Systems Administration

– John Olinyk, OCSE Systems

• Family Independence Administration

– Jacquelyn Flaum, Assistant Deputy Commission, Division of Job Support Services

• Office of Evaluation and Research

– Kinsey Dinan, Acting Deputy Commissioner


Key References Baird, P., Reardon, L., Cullinan, D., McDermott, D & Landers, P. (2015). Reminders to Pay: Using

behavioral economics to increase child support payments. OPRE Report 2015-20. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Mullainathan, S. and Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity. New York: Times Books, Henry Holt.

Richburg-Hayes, L., Anzelone,C., Dechausay,N., Datta, S., Fiorillo, A., Potok, L., Darling, M. & Balz, J. (2014). Behavioral Economics and Social Policy: Designing Innovative Solutions for Programs Supported by the Administration for Children and Families. OPRE Report No. 2014-16a. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Service, O., Hallsworth, M. Halpern, D., Algate, F., Gallagher, R., Nguyen, S. et al. (2014). EAST: Four simple ways to apply behavioural insights. London: The Behavioural Insights Team.

Sorensen, E., Sousa, L., Schaner, S. (2007). Assessing child support arrears in nine large states and the nation. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Thaler, R. & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge. New Haven: Yale University Press.


http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/BIAS_Ohio-Franklin_County_2015_FR.pdf

http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/BIAS_Ohio-Franklin_County_2015_FR.pdf

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/bias_final_full_report_rev4_15_14.pdf

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/bias_final_full_report_rev4_15_14.pdf

http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/sites/default/files/BIT Publication EAST_FA_WEB.pdf





http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1001242_child_support_arrears.pdf

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1001242_child_support_arrears.pdf

For more information

Edith M. Kealey, PhD

Office of Evaluation and Research

NYC Human Resources Administration

[email protected]

929.221.7348


mailto:[email protected]

improving engagement of non- custodial parents in...

Documents