Board Sets Stage for Possible Child Support Reform

Leaving little doubt about its resolve to reform Los Angeles County’s troubled child support program, the Board of Supervisors took the first step Tuesday toward stripping Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti’s office of key responsibilities in that program.

At the urging of Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, the board unanimously ordered a report on the legality of having another county department, new agency or private vendor take many administrative duties from the district attorney’s office.

“I don’t know how much criticism we have to take” before taking action, she said.

Although Burke’s motion was unexpected, all of her colleagues supported it. “Something has to be done to shake up that system,” said Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, echoing the sentiment of the board.

Added Gloria Molina: “Why not look at whatever options are available to fix the system?”

In a surprise turn, Garcetti seemed willing to relinquish some of the child support responsibilities he has so steadfastly held--and defended--in the past.

“I have always said, in discussions with Supervisor Yvonne Burke and others, that my primary concern is improving the service we provide to the children and families of Los Angeles County,” Garcetti said in a statement released after the vote. “While we have made substantial improvements in our child support enforcement program, we must do more.”

As such, he added: “I am open to considering recommendations for changes to our operations if these changes would improve child support.”

The board’s action follows a Times series on a multitude of problems in Garcetti’s Bureau of Family Support Operations. The office, which runs the largest county-based child support program in the nation, is ranked as the poorest performing child support operation in the state and has taken questionable steps to improve the way it looks to officials and the public.

Although Tuesday’s action remains preliminary--the supervisors asked for a report on what options they can consider--it dovetails with efforts by state legislative leaders to reform California’s sprawling and troubled child support system, which is run by 58 district attorneys.

Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), who was assigned by the Democratic leadership to be the point person on child support in the lower house, said last week that certain child support responsibilities may need to be shifted from the district attorneys.

Other top Democrats have called for an audit of the state child support program.

Meanwhile, federal authorities have launched an inquiry into policies and practices of Los Angeles County’s program.

After the Times report last month, all five county supervisors expressed support for significant changes in the way Garcetti’s operation is run, and more than three dozen prominent attorneys and child support advocates sent the board a letter urging major reforms.

But Tuesday’s motion by Burke, a longtime political ally of Garcetti, took the matter further.

“It is a radical step,” one supervisor’s aide said, “but one that reflects the seriousness of the board in . . . improving that operation.”

Indeed, the unanimity of the action made it clear that some reforms are inevitable.

For some time, Supervisors Mike Antonovich and Don Knabe have unsuccessfully endorsed efforts to either privatize parts of the child support function or shift it to another agency.

Burke initially sought a four-month study of how to shift administrative, customer service and record-keeping responsibilities from the district attorney’s office to other county agencies.

A former family law attorney, Burke recalled practicing decades ago, when the district attorney’s only role in child support was to prosecute nonpayers and billing was handled by the court trustee.

She said she does not believe state law needs to be changed to return to a similar arrangement.

“I don’t believe that the district attorney’s office as such is able to enforce as well as keep records,” Burke said. “It’s a conflict of interest in the truest sense.”

Burke proposed that any analysis contain plans to prevent layoffs or disruption in service.

Before studying the changes, the board instructed County Counsel Lloyd W. Pellman to report by Tuesday on what parts of the operation it could legally change.

What the board actually has the power to alter remained unclear. The program is run by Garcetti, a separately elected official whose office is vested with responsibility for establishing child support obligations and enforcing them.

But Leora Gershenzon, an attorney at the National Center for Youth Law in San Francisco and a longtime child support advocate, said the district attorney does not necessarily have to run the entire operation.

“I think there would be no problem if responsibilities are transferred from the D.A.’s office to other county agencies or private vendors, as long as the D.A. is responsible for all the outcomes,” Gershenzon said.

“If the goal is to make the D.A. more accountable, it may be difficult to achieve without a legislative change.”

Past efforts in Sacramento to move the child support program elsewhere have been opposed by the California District Attorneys Assn.

Burke and Gershenzon both said that other counties have different child support arrangements, with some relying on the welfare office to disburse certain payments. San Diego County relied on another county agency to keep its records, Gershenzon said, but that structure failed because the district attorney had no control over the separate agency.

“The goal should be to change not necessarily how the day-to-day [operation] runs. . . . The Los Angeles program, as well as the state program, needs fundamental reform. And that includes complete overhaul of responsibilities,” Gershenzon said.