McLean County committee approves one-year child-support contract extension with spending limit

The McLean County Justice Committee voted May 7 to extend for one year an intergovernmental agreement with the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services (HFS) and the Attorney General’s child-support enforcement program, while directing the county not to exceed the contract’s allotted payment.

State’s Attorney Reynolds told the committee the attorney general is statutorily responsible for child-support enforcement but has for decades contracted with local county offices to perform the work. Reynolds said the Attorney General’s Office sought a two‑year renewal; county staff negotiated a one‑year extension because of concerns that the state payment does not cover the county’s costs.

The committee considered three options presented by Reynolds: (1) accept the contract as written and absorb the shortfall from the county general fund; (2) accept a one‑year extension but not exceed the contract amount and reorganize staffing or convert employees to contract status to keep county costs neutral; or (3) refuse the renewal and require the Attorney General’s Office to resume the work directly. After discussion about service continuity, staffing, and county budget pressure, Member Beirne moved to accept the second option; Member Roseman seconded. The motion passed.

Reynolds said choosing the second option could require moving attorneys and support staff into the State’s Attorney’s office or shifting some positions to contracted status and that county administration would seek to re‑rent the vacated space. She told the committee the county is “almost $115,000 over budget” on current operations for the program and that, in the previous fiscal year, McLean County’s enforcement work resulted in about $8.5 million in collected unpaid child support payments distributed to caregivers. She also noted some recent counties (Sangamon and Macon) declined to continue contracting with the Attorney General in the past year.

Committee members pressed on service impacts. Member Byrne asked whether reduced staff would lengthen wait times for callers or filers; Reynolds said workload fluctuates and that the office would try to supplement coverage with part‑time contractors or by reassigning staff from within her office if needed. Member Hansen said she favored the second option to limit taxpayer impact while preserving services for low‑income and single‑parent families.

The committee’s motion directs the State’s Attorney to accept a one‑year extension under the contract’s financial terms and to work with county administration on staffing and space arrangements to avoid drawing county general funds beyond the contract payment. No roll‑call vote tally was recorded in the meeting minutes; the chair announced the motion “approved.”

The committee also discussed that the Attorney General’s Office receives funding through state agencies and the transcript records member inquiries about whether HFS or the Attorney General was deducting a portion of collected payments (members noted a statutory allowance up to 20%); HFS staff told a committee member separately that they were not currently taking a percentage from county collections.

Committee members asked staff to monitor service levels and report back if the county must change course or if enforcement effectiveness declines under the state’s direct administration.