CSDA / DCSS
June 18, 2014
Meeting Minutes
NAME
Alisha Griffin
Sue Turek
Ann Drumm
Vicki Contreras
Janet Nottley
Baljit Atwal
Dawn Mayer
Dr. Steven Golightly
Jamie Murray (Absent)
Keith Pepper
Laura Roth
Matt Brega
Victor Rea
Sharon Wardale-Trejo
Terrie Hardy-Porter
David Oppenheim
COUNTY
CA DCSS
CA DCSS
CA DCSS
CA DCSS
Napa County DCSS
Stanislaus County DCSS
Glenn County DCSS
LA County CSSD
Santa Cruz/San Benito Regional DCSS
Marin County DCSS
El Dorado County DCSS
Alameda County DCSS
San Bernardino County DCSS
Merced County DCSS
Sacramento County DCSS
CSDA
The meeting began with Ms. Griffin discussing her vision, what she had done so far this
week, and what she was hoping to accomplish in the coming weeks. She thanked the
CSDA Board for agreeing to meet with her and her executive staff.
Ms. Nottley shared the CSDA structure with Ms. Griffin and pointed out a number of
existing opportunities to work collaboratively together on important issues.
Ms. Griffin asked for patience as she transitions into her new role and gets accustomed to
the size and diversity of California. She expressed how impressed she is with the
passion and dedication to the program from within her new staff, and is appreciative of
the values the retired annuitants have. She stated that she plans to make county visits in
the near future.
Ms. Griffin described herself as having an open management style; straight forward, with
a focus on customer service. Her quote “we are here to make this program work for our
customers” resonated with the Board as well. Ms. Griffin described this as her “#1
central theme”. She wants to help both parents and kids and stressed how important it is
to identify parent’s ability to pay, and establish manageable, payable orders.
Ms. Griffin stated she has been finding some similarities in the states; both built new IT
systems. Both were very manual before. So far it is unclear what difference the new
systems have made to the performance in both states. Her question: “what have we
learned?”. Have work processes improved service? She doesn’t believe working reports
is the answer. She would like to invest in a business flow analysis. Ms. Griffin also
spoke about the financial situation in New Jersey; large ($850 million) deficit. Her
questions are: “How can we use staff better?”, “How do we get to the cases that aren’t
being worked?” These issues are the same in New Jersey as it is in California.
Ms. Griffin said that the New Jersey child support program built a comprehensive
training program utilizing Rutgers University. In addition, New Jersey also has a slick
mobile app and with the support of a press release from the Governor’s office, this was a
positive step for child support. Mr. Brega questioned the terms “receiver of support” and
“payer of support” and asked what New Jersey uses. Ms. Griffin agreed terminology is
an issue everywhere, and that to improve involvement of both parties, modernization of
the language we use is important.
Ms. Nottley asked “what can we do to help you?” Discussion took place on how the
State can better take advantage of what the CSDA Committees are doing. Also discussed
next year’s policy symposium, the fact that it will be held on March 4, 2015, and will be
a joint event with CWDA. Alisha explained that she had a monthly meeting with her key
welfare comrades and once per year, would have a “retreat” on a topic of mutual interest.
Ms. Griffin explained New Jersey seemed to be much more collaborative in general with
the IVA programs, as she met monthly with the head of several social service type
programs.
Mr. Oppenheim asked that CSDA be invited to help the State with collaborative Child
Support awareness program going forward.
Ms. Griffin and Mr. Oppenheim discussed the Child Support annual conference, and she
shared that the training conference in New Jersey was attended by 1/3 of the entire state’s
staff. Mr. Oppenheim explained that CSDA would love to see more state staff involved
with our training conference.
It was noted by Ms. Nottley that the head of the Finance Committee, Ms. Love, would be
contacting Ms. Griffin soon to schedule a meeting.
Dr. Golightly raised a few concerns; flat funding for the past ten years, cost increases in
the counties; the formula needs work. He also raised the issue of presumed income, and
how that process is affecting our performance. Also, the mandatory 40 hours per week
and the gap in compliance. The entire issue needs to be reviewed and reworked.
.
A general discussion ensued around California’s performance, gambling intercepts,
automation, parenting plans and the interest rate California currently charges on arrears.
In closing, Ms. Griffin welcomes the members of the Child Support Director’s
Association to work with her and her team to improve the lives of the families we serve.
MEETING ADJOURNED