Child Support Report XXIV, No. 3, 20020301

The National Conference of State Legislatures' Child Support Project recently conducted a national survey of state legislators, designed to determine the current and emerging issues in child support that are of particular concern to legislators. Policymakers are passionate and knowledgeable about child support, and hungry for more information. Their responses provide insight into the challenges of making child support policy in an increasingly complex environment. Analysis of survey data yielded eight broad categories of interest:

"It is important to develop support guidelines that make sense, that are flexible and easy for judges to understand and use efficiently." - Representative Opio Toure, Oklahoma

"Do the formulas still make sense when you think about high and middle income parents with shared custody? How do you credit time? How do you determine gross salary when a parent remarries?" - Senator Stephen Saland, New York

Most legislators considered this an area of primary concern. Policymakers are particularly concerned that the current approach to child support guidelines may be too simplistic for the ways many Americans live their lives. Respondents touched on the quandary of whether to implement clear and rigid guidelines for the awarding of support, or allow more flexibility and judicial discretion to accommodate the intricacies of modern life.

Policymakers indicated that this was an important area. Legislators voiced frustration about continuing resistance to the use of social security numbers, concerns about privacy, and difficulty in tracking and enforcing orders across state lines. They are also concerned about the risks and merits of forgiving large child support arrears amounts, balancing fairness to the child, the custodial parent and the state with the potential benefit of a one-time forgiveness of debt.

Many legislators mentioned that they felt hampered by a lack of good information. They want independent sources of current and comparative data on a number of topics. Most respondents expressed a desire for data that show success in child support enforcement, and what states have done to achieve that success. Policymakers feel there is a lot to be learned from what has not worked in other states.

"It is a problem when welfare-to-work moms finally get a child support payment but it goes to the state for past support. This needs to stop." - Senator Sheila Kuehl, California

Many respondents are concerned about the pass-through of payments from the state to the families and children intended to receive the payment. While some of this concern was about the efficiency of central distribution units, much of it was more philosophical. The practice of aggressively collecting support only to send that money to the state and federal governments as repayment, rather than to the family itself, is viewed as unfair.

"We need to stop making non-custodial parents feel like criminals, and start making policy that encourages a positive relationship between parent and child." - Senator Judy Lee, North Dakota

Although a few legislators used the term "balanced policy" to refer to more even-handed treatment for custodial mothers, most respondents concerned about this issue were referring to non-custodial fathers. Policymakers cited fathers' rights as a present or growing concern. Of particular interest was the question of whether non-custodial parents paying support have a right to know precisely how that money is being spent. Referring to it as the "accountability movement," some respondents felt that the obligor should have reasonable assurance that the support being paid was of direct benefit to the child(ren). Others were just as adamant that forcing custodial parents to account for how child support money is spent is futile, ridiculous or patently offensive.

"A key factor in child support policymaking is the relationship between visitation and child support. Policies should support relationship building, not undermine it." - Senator Kate Brown, Oregon

Legislators expressed concern for the relationship between children and non-custodial parents and the part that payment or non-payment of child support plays in building those crucial bonds. Policymakers spoke to this issue with a surprisingly singular voice: The psychological support of a child should be every bit as important as financial support in making sound policy.

"Employers are now responsible for handling most child support payments through income withholding. Soon, complying with medical support requirements will also fall to employers. How can legislators facilitate compliance by employers with the new medical support requirements?" - Representative Toby Goodman, Texas

Responses in this category were of two types: (1) the need for a better understanding of exactly what the federal government requires and what might fall under state discretion (including better information about waivers); and (2) technological difficulties in implementation, such as hardware incompatibility, lack of expertise in managing a centralized system, the often cumbersome nature of central distribution units, and the lack of trained personnel to keep the system running.

Legislators questioned where to house Child Support Enforcement within state government, and whether or not authority over CSE should be shared by more than one state department.

Child Support Enforcement (CSE) in the Georgia Department of Human Resources has created the Georgia Fatherhood Services Network (Network) to provide employment and life skills training to unemployed and underemployed noncustodial parents and thereby increase child support payments.

The Network is responsible for operating fatherhood programs through contracts with several service providers. The largest service provider, the Department of Adult and Technical Education, established a fatherhood program on each of the 36 technical college campuses throughout the state of Georgia. The Georgia Department of Labor works with the Georgia Fatherhood Program to provide Statewide job placement support.

Child Support Enforcement refers noncustodial parents who are unemployed or underemployed to the Georgia Fatherhood Program, where they receive assessment, development of employability plans, life skills training, job-readiness training and job placement. Approximately 30% of participants receive short- and long-term skills training in fields such as carpentry, computer repair, car repair and welding.

The Georgia program addresses child support enforcement, responsible fatherhood, and job counseling/training/placement and peer support. Visitation services are also available to participants through Access and Visitation.

Case managers are an essential component of the fatherhood programs and provide a wide range of services and referrals to the noncustodial parents. Length of time in the training program varies according to training needs. Most participants spend an average of 4-6 months in the program. During that time, they are required to satisfy at least 50% of their child support obligations. Case managers track participants monthly to determine employment retention for 120 days following the completion of the program.

Fourteen Child Support Enforcement Regional Fatherhood Coordinators provide liaison communications between CSE and fatherhood program services. A critical factor of the program is the frequent communication between the fatherhood staff and the participant's agent. CSE Regional Fatherhood coordinators provide case agents with constant updates of participant progress through documentation on the CSE computerized database.

A critical factor of the program is the frequent communication between the fatherhood staff and the participant's agent.

The program serves approximately 3000 noncustodial parents a year. Over 10,000 noncustodial parents have received at least one service from the program. In FY'01, 3,115 participants received services; 47% became employed and are paying their child support obligations.

A university-based evaluation team conducted research with 250 noncustodial parents at three program sites located in the metro, urban, and rural areas of Georgia. A control group of non-fatherhood participants was used for comparison.

Results indicate that participants in the Fatherhood Program had a significant gain in employment, from 30% to 66%. In comparison, the control group had no significant gain in employment. Moreover, participants in the Fatherhood Program acquired jobs with wages comparable to employed noncustodial parents in the control group. Participants in the Fatherhood Program also experienced a 14% gain in health benefits for children, from 7% to 21%. This research supports the fact that the Georgia Fatherhood Program is having an impact on employment of noncustodial parents.

Essential to the success of this program has been the consideration given to the following: data collection to demonstrate outcome and program costs; case management with adequate referral sources; service providers with an infrastructure to provide assessment and training services as well as contacts within the local communities for job leads; and partnership with a local university to provide third party evaluation and research.

Contact:

Robert Johnson, Fatherhood State Consultant

(404) 657-9222

Georgia Fatherhood Hotline

1-888-4FATHER

fatherhood@cse.state.dhr.ga.us

The Texas IV-D staff is housed in over 70 field offices, regional offices and phone banks spread across the state. To ensure that all employees have access to the training they need, the Child Support Division (CSD) is maximizing use of the Internet by placing training tools on the CSD Intranet.

All agency employees can access the site through one of two browsers on their computers. Intranet training is designed to meet the needs of both new employees who may have a case-processing question and seasoned employees who are attempting to complete the 25 hours of mandatory training/professional development required each year. The site is maintained by state office training staff in Austin.

If you have any questions, contact Rudy Williams at (512)460-6517 or e-mail to Rudy.Williams@cs.oag.state.tx.us.

Addressing the opening session of the National Child Support Association's Midyear Policy Forum and Training Conference on February 25, 2002, Dr. Sherri Z. Heller, Commissioner of OCSE, stressed the importance of, "not forgetting to see things from the point of view of the customer."

Speaking to the approximately 400 persons gathered in Washington, D. C., Dr. Heller noted that moving to the Nation's Capital does tend to change one's perspective a bit. However, she does not intend to "switch from courthouse perspective or state house perspective to beltway perspective."

Commissioner Heller listed some of the successes of the child support program, including a near doubling of the number of cases with a collection. But, the state-reported data indicate that only 42% of those who seek help from a child support office get any collection at all.

Dr. Heller stressed that this does not mean, "we are doing a bad job." Quite the contrary, she went on to say. The child support program has been "virtually re-invented." She asserted, "The National Directory of New Hires, State Disbursement Units, the Financial Institution Data Match, are just a few achievements that indicate that the program has taken a giant step forward. Even with these improvements in automation capabilities, our customers are not convinced that they are being better served." The Commissioner likened this to when banks automated their services; it took a decade for the customers to feel the benefits of such things as paying on-line or touch-tone balance checking.

"The President's budget proposal sends a clear message that the child support enforcement program is a needed service upon which families depend."

Dr. Heller noted that trying to see things from the point of view of the customer would necessitate our determining just who our customers are. Traditionally, child support workers have thought of their customers as just the two parties to the case. Looking at matters from the family's point of view, however, suggests that who makes up a case is much broader; grandparents, stepparents, and the children themselves are also our customers.

Commissioner Heller closed her remarks with a reference to the President's budget proposal. "The significance of this," she said, "is that it sends a clear message that the child support enforcement program is a needed service upon which families depend, not just the traditional message about child support as a welfare cost-recovery system." The President's budget proposal is located at http:www.whitehouse.gov/news/2002/02/20020226.html.

Dr. Heller concluded with the reminder that the families who depend on the child support program are not just welfare families. When more than 50 percent "aren't getting the help they need, this is what we should be talking about."

Minnesota's child support enforcement system has undergone many changes in the last 20 years. Returning to the child support community after having left for a side trip through the world of criminal prosecution, I was struck by all the changes that had occurred.

The most significant change, occurring in the last several years, is that government agencies working in child support have begun to recognize their common goals and join forces.

"Governmental agencies have taken the giant step of recognizing the need to work together toward the common goal of supporting children."

The Child Support Enforcement Division of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, county IV-D agencies and county attorney offices- -although recognizing and respecting their different roles and responsibilities- -are seeking common ground in order to build a stronger system. We are working to establish and enforce child support obligations efficiently, effectively and with respect for the legal rights of all the parties involved.

I recognize that we have a long way to go. Tensions that sometime exist among agencies continue to inhibit our reaching our primary goal. That goal is the orderly transfer of resources from one person to another for the benefit of a child.

We must keep this primary goal in mind when we evaluate what policies and procedures to develop and what course of action to take in any given case. We must then work cooperatively to achieve it.

It is also important to recognize what we have accomplished. The impressive statistics and numbers do not tell the full story. What is equally impressive is that governmental agencies have taken the giant step of recognizing the need to work together toward the common goal of supporting children.

Those of us working in the child support community should feel proud of all we have been able to accomplish. To be sure, there is more to be done, but, if we continue on this road of cooperation, our future accomplishments will be even greater.

Extracted from Child Support Quarterly, a publication of the Minnesota Child Support Program, Fall 2001.

Mark J. Ponsolle is Director of the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Office of the Ramsey County Attorney in Minnesota

Mail service in Washington was disrupted a few months ago and for several weeks, all mail deliveries to the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) stopped. Regular deliveries have resumed, but delays continue due to the irradiation process. It may be some time before this situation is corrected. If you have written to us recently, your letter very likely was among those delayed, and we just wanted you to know.

In what can be described as a classic interstate case, the Financial Institution Data Match (FIDM) was instrumental in allowing Washington to get full payment of a child support debt to a family.

The parties in this case were married in Florida. As the marriage was breaking up, however, the wife, now pregnant, moved back to be with her relatives in Washington and the husband moved to Oklahoma. After the child was born, the husband obtained an Oklahoma divorce, which included an order to pay $100 per month in child support. He never paid.

The husband moved to Texas where Washington's Division of Child Support (DCS) served him a support order in 1999. He objected to the order, so Washington withdrew and began working with Texas to start UIFSA processing of the case.

In 2001, the State of Washington served the non-custodial parent (NCP) with a notice of support debt and a demand for payment. The NCP hired an attorney and disputed Washington's personal jurisdiction. Washington's Conference Board ruled in favor of DCS, and the state pursued enforcement of the case.

DCS got an FIDM hit on a New Jersey account and Washington seized the full payment of $21,200. The NCP again disputed jurisdiction, contending that because he was in Texas, Washington did not have personal jurisdiction over him and could not take collection action. He then filed suit in King County (WA) Superior Court.

Meanwhile, DCS staff contacted Texas officials to ask them to speed up their processing of the case, so they could attach the funds in case Washington lost in court. DCS staff also worked closely with the Washington State Attorney General's Office. Texas scheduled a hearing that was postponed while the NCP was pursuing his Washington court case. Ultimately, the NCP and his attorney gave up and withdrew their case.

This story is especially poignant because the mother is terminally ill with cancer. Washington DCS personnel wanted to make certain that they got the money into her hands before she died, so that it could be used for the college education of her 20-year-old daughter. They did.

Wendy Gray, HHS, OCSE's Office of Automation and Program Operations.

Nearly 9 in 10 people are expected to marry sometime in their lives, according to a report released in February 2002 by the Commerce Department's Census Bureau. Most adults have married only once. About 52 percent of currently married couples had reached at least their 15th anniversary in 1996, and 5 percent of them had reached at least their golden anniversary (50 years).

The report is the Census Bureau's first comprehensive portrait of marriage and divorce in nearly 10 years and, unlike other data sources, provides estimates for men's and women's marital patterns through their lifetimes.

It uses data from the 1996 panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation. Statistics from sample surveys are subject to sampling and nonsampling error.