Board Votes to Test Privatizing Child Support System

Amid unrelenting criticism of Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti’s child support program, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors moved Tuesday to test whether private industry could do a better job collecting money that is owed to hundreds of thousands of needy children.

The board voted unanimously to hire outside contractors to collect child support in a sample number of cases. Additionally, supervisors directed staff to immediately identify other county departments that could carry out child support functions.

The moves represent a startling break with tradition in the county’s child support collection system, which under state law can only change with the consent of the elected district attorney.

A Garcetti spokeswoman said the district attorney had not seen the board’s motions and could not respond directly to them, but remained open to considering changes in his office.

During the board meeting, supervisors voiced exasperation not only at Garcetti’s operation but his lack of public resolve to address a range of problems.

“It’s time to slay the Goliath of child support enforcement . . . and alleged D.A. incompetence,” said Supervisor Mike Antonovich.

But board members said they are still unsure of how far the district attorney is willing to go to fix the nation’s largest county-based child support system.

“We are going to have to find out whether the district attorney is going to be cooperative,” said board Chairwoman Yvonne Brathwaite Burke.

Tuesday’s meeting reflected growing anger with Garcetti’s child support program, which The Times reported last month is beset by a multitude of problems, including a dismal collection rate.

While supervisors were once inclined to give the district attorney time to address the problems, Tuesday’s action made it clear their patience is wearing thin.

“What we are saying to the district attorney is . . . give us a plan,” said Supervisor Don Knabe. “This needs to be fixed.”

The board’s anger was never more apparent than when one of Garcetti’s top assistants said the district attorney would permit a private contractor to try to collect support on open cases, but not on any of the 240,000 cases that were closed by Garcetti’s office last year as uncollectable.

Those cases are significant because they represent almost a third of the county’s cases last year and according to current and former child support workers, many were closed with only nominal efforts to find the parents.

“Is Gil Garcetti saying we cannot look at closed cases?” Antonovich asked.

“Mr. Garcetti is saying he would support the motion if it is focused upon open cases,” Assistant Dist. Atty. Sharon Matsumoto replied, reminding the board that it needs the district attorney’s consent for changes in the child support program.

Matsumoto’s comments stunned supervisors.

“How do you find out some mistakes of the past to make improvements for the future?” Knabe asked.

“It’s like closing a book of history,” Antonovich said.

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky warned: “I think the district attorney . . . might want to reconsider” that position.

Hours after the meeting, Garcetti’s spokeswoman, Victoria Pipkin, said the district attorney would agree to have private contractors look at closed and open cases.

“He hasn’t had time to look at the motions [approved by the board],” Pipkin said of Garcetti, “but as he has said in the past, he is open to considering recommendations for changes in family support if these changes will improve child support.”

While supervisors were assured at the meeting that a long-awaited report from Garcetti on his child support operation would be circulated Tuesday, Pipkin said it would not be ready before Friday.

Asked why the district attorney was not present at Tuesday’s meeting, Pipkin explained that he had “other scheduling commitments.”

During Tuesday’s discussion, supervisors and others who are angry with the $100-million program routinely focused their wrath on the district attorney and his reluctance to publicly confront the problems.

Supervisor Gloria Molina said that after The Times report, Garcetti told her “don’t ask any questions, because we’re going to get you answers.” But, she noted, he has failed to speak to the board on the issue.

“I’m concerned about the disinterest of the department in trying to help us supervisors with this issue,” Molina said.

Attorney Gloria Allred, a longtime child support advocate, told the board that Garcetti had no excuse for missing the meeting.

“The lives of more than 700,000 children who are having problems collecting their child support are being deeply impacted by his failure to be held accountable,” said Allred, who noted that federal authorities have opened an investigation into Garcetti’s child support program.

In less confrontational terms, supervisors agreed not only that Garcetti’s program must be overhauled, but that he and his top staff must acknowledge the program’s problems for any reforms to be lasting and meaningful.

“If I were the district attorney, I would come before this board with a plan,” Yaroslavsky said.