2. Julie S. Paik, Director Department of Child Support Services Sonoma County August 2013 2013 CSDA Leadership Institute

3.  Performance Measures ◦ Paternity: 104.8 % ◦ Support Orders: 83.24% ◦ Current Support: 60.1% ◦ Arrears: 65.62% ◦ Cost Effectiveness: $1.96 ◦ Total Collections: $31,139,936  Caseload ◦ 18,090  Staffing ◦ 144  Priority: Customer Service ???

5.  New System: CSE  New State Director  New State Priorities/Focus  Economic Crisis/Employee Morale  Turn-over of Board of Supervisors

6.  New Director/Attorney Director  Complacency or Ignorance about Performance and what moves performance  No or unknown Priority  Employee Engagement Study

7.  Improve on Federal Performance Goals  No separate customer service goal because excelling on the performance goals is the best customer service.

8.  Know the Federal Performance Measures  Know what moves the Federal Performance Measures ◦ Goal 2: Stop opening cases ◦ Goal 3: Numerator and denominator are two independent factors ◦ Goal 4: Impact of arrears forgiveness ◦ Goal 5 (C/E): Service of process practices

9.  Know the goals  Know historical performance  Collect ideas from every possible source ◦ Managers ◦ Staff ◦ Other LCSAs ◦ Other County Departments  Have short and long term goals

10.  Remain laser-focused on priorities  Stop non-productive and redundant work – Learn to say “no”  Be strategic about customer service

11.  Don’t let a bad month get you down ◦ Study why it happened and how to prevent it  Be flexible in the late Spring/early Summer

12.  Assign all staff to strategies and/or goals  Measure against those goals regularly  Reflect participation in individual performance goals  Determine appropriate next steps for staff with performance challenges

16.  Empower Yourself and Staff!  Ask for Forgiveness, not Permission!

17.  What Goal Does this Impact: ◦ Direct Impact to Goal 5 (C/E) ◦ Indirect Impact to Other Goals Through Stream-lined Business Processes  Genesis: ◦ CSE Conversion Completed ◦ Job Classification Review ◦ Commitment to Managers Managing ◦ Outlier with All LCSAs ◦ Duplication/Unnecessary Workloads/Processes ◦ SEIU Grumblings  Risks: ◦ Staff Would Lose their Jobs ◦ Lowered Morale ◦ Performance would Plummet

18.  Impact of CE: 10¢ per annum  Staffing Levels: ◦ 2009: 144 ◦ 2010: 128.5 ◦ 2011: 114.5 ◦ 2012: 107.5 ◦ 2013: 102.5  Management Ratio: ◦ 2008: 1:5 ◦ 2012: 1:20 30% Reduction in staff

19.  What Goal Does this Impact ◦ Direct Impact on Goal 5 (C/E) ◦ Indirect Impact on Goal 2 (processing of court documents) and Goal 5 (time from enforcement workers)  Genesis: ◦ Long wait times ◦ Unhappy customers ◦ Inefficiencies in creating a model to handle phone calls ◦ Disgruntled legal processors who answered the phones ◦ Inefficiencies and delay in legal processing work ◦ Frustration by caseworkers who felt calls were not adequately screened ◦ Less expensive model offered by Alameda County  Risks: ◦ Giving up $400,000 in our budget ◦ Wait times would increase ◦ Performance would not improve

20.  Results ◦ Improved Cost Effectiveness: 7¢ per annum ◦ Deleted attrited vacant positions and made others more efficient ◦ Better wait times  went from 4 minutes 9 seconds to 1 minute 22 seconds ◦ Increased staff morale ◦ Increased adaptability ◦ Help with performance measures

21.  What Goal Does This Impact: ◦ Direct Impact on Goal 5 (C/E)  Genesis: ◦ Quickly Increasing Rent Costs ◦ Building Too Big to Meet our Needs ◦ Dark, Uninviting Environment ◦ Floor Plan Created Division Among Staff  Risks: ◦ No Easy Public Transportation ◦ Relocating Would Cause Inconvenience to Customers and Staff ◦ BOS Would All Vie to be Based in Their Districts

22.  Results: ◦ Improved cost effectiveness: 12¢ for first year ◦ Cheaper rent ◦ Nicer, more modern space ◦ More conducive to communicative work environment ◦ Allowed for incorporation of technology

23.  Hard to Change Course/Inertia is a Strong Force  Hard to Stay on Course/ Can Be Easily Distracted  Trust takes time  Must constantly refine as you go

25. Performance Measures FFY 2009-2012

26. Cost Effectiveness FFY 2009-2012

27. Ranking Year Past Performance Rankings FFY 2009-2012

29. 2008 2012 Where We Are: 2012  Performance Measures Paternity104.8 %108.7 % Support Orders83.24 %94.1 % Current Support60.1 %70.2 % Arrears65.62 %70.02 % Cost Effectiveness$ 1.96$ 2.76 Total Collections$31,139,936$28,574,419  Caseload18,09013,676  Staffing144107.5  PriorityCustomer Service Performance

30.  Humorous Campaigns  Quarterly Newsletter  Staff Recognition

32. 2010 California DCSS Directors Excellence Award 2011 9 th place statewide Overall Performance; Top Performing LCSA Medium County 2012 6 th place statewide Overall Performance; Top Performing LCSA Medium County; Most Improved County

34.  Increasing Collections - Flat-lining  Maintaining High Performance  Increasing Costs of Doing Business  Maintaining staff morale  Succession Planning  Review Organizational Chart  Goal Calculator