Garcetti Defends Child Support Unit

A combative Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti defended his office’s embattled child support program Tuesday while pledging to improve performance through whatever means necessary--including the transfer of some functions to other county agencies.

Summoned before the Board of Supervisors to answer mounting criticism of his $120-million-a-year operation, Garcetti wasted no time in dismissing critics as unfair.

“While there is substantial room for improvement, there has been much progress in the last five years and substantial progress in the last year alone,” he said.

Citing a record amount of collections last year and a rate increase exceeding the statewide average, Garcetti angrily complained that those milestones have been overshadowed by people who do not grasp the difficulty of the agency’s mission.

Despite the improvements he touted, however, his child support operation still ranks among the poorest-performing in the state and still collects the same proportion of the state’s child support as it did four years ago.

Garcetti’s impassioned 45-minute address to the board was in direct response to last month’s series by The Times about the performance and policies of his Bureau of Family Support Operations.

The Times found, among other things, that the agency fails to collect any support in nine out of 10 cases, holds on to millions of dollars that should go to families and uses hardball legal tactics against impoverished men, including some it knows are not the biological fathers.

Contending that The Times distorted the agency’s record, Garcetti told the board that his bureau’s collection rate is comparable to the 20% average nationwide and that although his office does collect support from men who are not biological fathers, that occurs only after the men fail to contest court orders in a timely manner.

Though not part of his prepared remarks, Garcetti did acknowledge to supervisors that his office at present has about $18 million in undistributed collections.

Insisting that The Times series painted “an inaccurate picture,” Garcetti touted his agency’s record total of collections this past year and said it continues to make progress.

“We need to improve. We will improve,” he said. “What I am doing here today is simply responding to the newspaper. If you have ideas, I would like to listen. . . . I am not saying no to [creating the position of] an ombudsman. I am not saying no to any of your ideas. What I am trying to convey is that this is an incredibly complex and difficult problem.”

He added: “We have made progress. We have made substantial progress. But you and I know that there is a tremendous amount of work still to be done. And I and my staff are personally committed to doing that.”

Even as the supervisors welcomed that pledge, they were openly skeptical of Garcetti’s suggestion that his agency has somehow turned the corner on problems that have been widely recognized by both public and nonprofit agencies.

“You talk the talk, but from the [complaint] mail we get daily, the department is not walking the walk,” said Supervisor Mike Antonovich. “That is why this body is frustrated.”

Garcetti snapped back: “You’re wrong. You’re absolutely wrong. . . . My staff, 1,400 strong, not only talk the talk, but they do more than walk the walk. They run the run.”

Later, underscoring the skepticism over Garcetti’s assertions, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky took issue with the district attorney’s long-standing assertion that a county hiring freeze prevented him from hiring critically needed workers.

Providing Garcetti with budget documents to the contrary, Yaroslavsky pointedly asked if the papers did not prove that the district attorney’s office has not been subject to the hiring freeze since December 1995.

“I believe that is correct,” Garcetti responded.

Although no action was required Tuesday, the session did serve as a prelude to a Dec. 8 meeting at which Garcetti has been asked to present a plan to improve his department’s performance. As such, Tuesday’s session was characterized more by sound and fury than any policy decisions.

Still, it was clear that board members expect some changes.

“I want to move forward . . . [and] all I want from you is an assurance we can sit down and we can talk about it,” said board Chairwoman Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, who extracted Garcetti’s commitment to consider all options, including transferring some of his agency’s responsibilities to other county departments.

The viability of such a move remains in question both politically and legally. Indeed, state law vests control of child support collections with district attorneys.

That reality was raised during public comment, when a variety of speakers either took Garcetti’s office to task or strongly defended it.

“I don’t think there is anyone here who disputes that there is a serious problem at [the agency],” said attorney Jenny Skobel of the Harriet Buhai Center for Family Law. The best way to fix the problem, she said, is through state legislation.

But a number of Garcetti’s child support employees addressed the board to fiercely defend their office. Managers at the child support unit had circulated memos soliciting staff to testify on the office’s behalf, although some of those who spoke said they did so voluntarily.

Talking of 12-hour workdays and their dedication to their jobs, the employees said they felt that The Times’ series and other criticisms of their operations were unfair.

“We’re doing the best we can,” said Deputy