Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Support topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Martin County weighs contracting child support services with YoungWilliams; no decision yet
Summary
Department of Social Services presented two YoungWilliams contract options — local office retention (higher cost) and a regional hub (lower cost). The Board discussed projected net county costs and asked for further review; no action was taken this meeting.
Martin County Department of Social Services on July 11 presented options to contract child support enforcement to YoungWilliams, a private vendor that currently serves multiple North Carolina counties. The board received two draft options and discussed potential cost, service and staffing impacts but took no formal action.
Director of DSS/Transit Letecia Loadholt introduced Tammy Pearson of YoungWilliams. Option #1 would establish a Williamston office and retain local staff; Option #2 would rely on a regional hub in Beaufort County, require some travel for residents and be offered at lower cost by sharing services regionally. County Manager David Bone said Option #2 could yield approximately $36,926 in savings compared with Option #1 and could better align with statewide movement toward regional collaboration.
Finance figures presented at the meeting showed the county’s current net share to administer Child Support at $1,786,629. Under YoungWilliams’ Option #1 the projected net county share would rise to $1,916,156 (an increase of $129,527); Option #2 would project $1,879,230 (an increase of $92,601). When compared on a dollar‑for‑dollar basis (excluding cost allocation differences) current staffing cost was reported as $206,948, Option #1 as $209,571 and Option #2 as $189,170. The presenters noted that federal reimbursements are expected at 66% of contract cost and county share at 34%, and that collection incentives could offset part of the contract cost.
Loadholt said the DSS Board recommended Option #1 to keep staff local because of travel and service‑access concerns; County Manager Bone noted Option #2’s potential near‑term savings and regional efficiencies. Several operational caveats were highlighted: liability and responsibility for meeting state standards would remain with Martin County, and draft contract language would include financial penalties if performance standards were not met.
The board was not asked to vote; commissioners asked staff to continue review and indicated any contract would require affirmation by both the DSS Board and the Board of Commissioners, with a possible transition timeline in the fall if approved.
