Child Support Report - February 1996

CSR: Why did you apply to be a GPRA site?

LA: In 1984 and again in 1988, Congress legislated new requirements on state child support enforcement (CSE) agencies, which, in particular, expanded services to non-AFDC clients. These requirements greatly increased the complexity of the CSE Program's mission and prompted a rethinking of our priorities. GPRA offered us the opportunity to rationally assess and redefine our CSE goals and objectives, to identify potential barriers to our success and ways to overcome those barriers, and to measure our results.
In program year 1994, 91 percent of Ohio's counties achieved compliance in paternity establishment.

CSR: What is Ohio's GPRA project?

LA: We call it the Quality Control Assessment Project (QCAP). It involves three specific initiatives: (1) the development and implementation of an Ohio Strategic Plan which basically mirrors the CSE National Strategic Plan adopted last year; (2) the expansion of our current internal statewide program review process to include county participation and outcome measurements; and (3) the opportunity to look at funding sources and how funding impacts program performance. QCAP is designed to positively affect paternity establishment numbers and child support dollars collected by focusing on specific performance standards, measurable corrective action plans, and funding that rewards performance based activities.

CSR: How did you develop the project?

LA: To be successful in these kinds of undertakings, all the interested parties have to be involved in the decision-making process. So, while my staff worked to develop a series of review tools, I brought together a partnership of state, county, federal, and special interest groups who meet monthly to provide direction for the QCAP project and oversee development of Ohio's Strategic Plan. The early results have been very promising.

CSR: What are the project results to date?

LA: The QCAP committee developed a statewide mission statement, as well as goals and objectives for Ohio's child support program which, as I've said, follows the national CSE plan closely. To look at paternity establishment, we tested a new program review process that focuses on outcomes and includes county child support staff as part of the review team. I am very excited to report that in program year 1994, 91 percent of Ohio's counties achieved compliance in paternity establishment. By April, 1996, we will have developed a revamped statewide review process that encompasses the new federal program requirements.

CSR: You've mentioned the need for partnerships. What are the benefits?

LA: By getting a group of interested parties together in the same room, focused on a common goal, we were able to forge a consensus on Ohio's Strategic Plan. In addition, we were able to develop a state/county commitment as full partners in the program review process. Ultimately, this strengthened relationship will help us to remove program and funding barriers. Finally, by emphasizing partnership activities, officials in Ohio and OCSE's Regional Office in Chicago have developed a stronger working relationship, evidenced by the September 25, 1995 signing of the Program Performance Agreement between the two. In fact, Ohio was the first state in Region V to enter into this historic agreement.

CSR: What are you planning to do next?

LA: We'll be expanding the partnership concept by setting up our own statewide partnership agreement sometime this spring. The QCAP committee will be completing the performance indicators that demonstrate we are meeting our strategic plan goals. Ohio will then be a pilot testing state for the performance indicators. We will redefine our existing funding structure, continue to conduct program reviews to identify road blocks to success, and develop corrective action plans to address identified program deficiencies.

CSR: Any advice to other states on developing GPRA projects?

LA: GPRA projects offer states the opportunity to revisit their missions. I know this sounds like a major undertaking and it is a time-consuming and sometimes painful process. But, ultimately, it has to be done to ensure that we provide the best possible services to our clients. I believe we are taking the right steps for continued program improvement, yet remaining flexible and in tune with our changing environment.

CSR: Thank you.

Beginning in mid-September, the campaign appeared on television and billboards and in newspaper ads and calendars throughout the State. In the public service announcement, "No Penalty for Holding," Widell holds 7-month old Morgan and says: "Being a good father is like playing football: You gotta show up for the game. Time goes by quickly, but you can score big time if your heart's in the right place. It means being there when you're needed. It means doing things and going places together."

Another billboard ad depicts humorous interaction between Porcher and his daughter, Morgan, giving a clear message that fathers need to make time to be available to their kids and involved with them. Fatherhood can be child's play. Porcher and Widell drive home the message in sports-talk young people can understand: "Fatherhood is one responsibility every dad needs to tackle! Whether you're married, divorced, or single don't drop the ball!" Appealing to all fathers--those who reside with their children and those who do not--to think about how important they are in their children's lives is a key, campaign staffers feel, to developing healthy well-adjusted children.

The support of the Detroit Lions and participation by Doug Widell and Robert Porcher, positive role models whom teenagers and young men can identify with, were critical to the campaign's success in reaching its target audience. The photos of Porcher and Widell with their daughters say all that needs to be said about a father's pride in his daughter.

The Lions plan to continue their involvement with the program in 1996. In addition, the campaign hopes to enlist other NFL teams in promoting the importance of good father/child relationships. For more information, call Eileen Schrauben, a Program Analyst with the Michigan Office of Child Support, at (517) 335-3921.

Since the beginning of 1992, 50 major state welfare reform demonstration projects have been approved in 35 states. Enormous diversity is reflected in what states have sought. The waivers that have been granted, however, build on many common themes: requiring work; time-limiting assistance; making work pay; encouraging parental responsibility; and improving child support enforcement.

It may come as a surprise to some that child support enforcement is frequently a part of this waiver granting process. This article takes a look at a sampling of specific child support enforcement waivers.

Cooperation with the Child Support Enforcement Agency
Some states are seeking ways to improve the collection of child support payments from noncustodial parents. Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Virginia are accomplishing this by imposing greater penalties for non-cooperation. Massachusetts requires that specific information about the noncustodial parent be provided, while Ohio provides a $150 bonus for paternity establishment.

Child Support Pass-Through Payments
Several states have been granted waivers designed to increase the benefit of child support collections for the family by increasing the pass-through payments and disregards. The pass-through arrangements allow families to collect from $75 per month up to 100 percent of the noncustodial parent's support contribution. In several states, only a portion of the child support distributed to the family is treated as countable unearned income.

Arizona, Mississippi, Oregon, and Virginia have increased the pass-through only for families participating in work supplementation. Colorado, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont disregard the $50 child support pass-through in the calculation of Food Stamp benefits for each AFDC family in a Food Stamp household, while North Dakota has an approved waiver to eliminate the $50 pass-through. Virginia allows continuation in JOBS and child care for up to five months for a family whose AFDC is terminated because of increased child support collections.

JOBS for Noncustodial Parents
States are experimenting with strategies to ensure that both parents contribute to the economic well-being of their children. Fifteen states allow unemployed or under-employed noncustodial parents of AFDC children to participate in work experience, job training, or education activities under the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program.

Child Support Assurance
Virginia received waivers to operate a child support assurance program. The child support assurance program guarantees a family a monthly child support payment. The state pays the difference between the noncustodial parent's child support payment and the assured amount.

For further information about waivers, call me, Martha Hudson, at (202) 401-3441.

If you're planning a meeting and want to have it listed in CSR's quarterly calendar, call Roy Nix in OCSE's National Training Center at (202) 401-5685.

In announcing the increase, DHHS Secretary Donna E. Shalala noted that "tough child support enforcement promotes parental responsibility and protects children."

Under the income tax refund offset program, state child support enforcement agencies report names of parents who owe child support and the overdue amount to the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). These persons are notified in writing of the amount which will be withheld to cover their child support debt and that amount is then deducted from their income tax refund. Parents may have their names deleted from the list by paying the full amount due, or, at state option, by entering into an agreement to make periodic payments. The delinquency may also be reported to credit reporting agencies.

"Children deserve responsible parents who provide emotional and financial support," said Mary Jo Bane, Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. OCSE Deputy Director David Gray Ross added: "We cannot and will not rest while there are parents who continue to evade their responsibilities to their children." Parents whose children receive AFDC and whose unpaid child support totals $150 or more may have their federal income tax refunds withheld. In 1994, refunds were withheld for over 846,000 families receiving AFDC. For families who do not receive AFDC, an accrued debt of $500 can activate an offset. Over 316,000 non-AFDC families benefited from the program this year.

For tax year 1994, the average collection was $713 ($748 for non- AFDC cases and $699 for AFDC). The cost of processing these cases was $7.83 per case. Collections for tax year 1994 were made after tax returns for that year were filed in 1995 and refunds requested. Collections for 1995 will begin as income tax returns are filed in 1996.

By: Joe Gloystein

---

Over the past year, since OCSE opened up its home page, we have seen tremendous growth in use of the Internet, in particular the World Wide Web (Web). The result has been increased access to basic child support enforcement (CSE) information by the public and CSE staff and better service to customers. (See the May, 1995, CSR for a description of OCSE's Web site.) Among the major categories of information now available to Web users are a facts section, which visitors can browse for basic information on profiles of state programs, as well as data on the CSE program nationally.

State IV-D programs also are increasingly providing a Web presence. Some states have expanded coverage of their CSE programs by providing several levels of information for those interested in them. Others are using the Internet directly to improve service to their customers. For an example of how Washington's CSE program did this by using already-available State Internet resources, see the September, 1995, issue of CSR.

From the "external" section of OCSE's Web site, we have established links with those state IV-D partners we have been able to identify. This enables visitors to OCSE's site to continue their pursuit of more specific information by going directly to the state program of interest.

There may be other IV-D agencies that have established their own Web sites or will soon do so and to which we could link if we knew about them. Please let us know if we have missed you and when we can link to your Web presence. We would also be glad to hear your suggestions on how OCSE's "home page" can be improved to provide better access to CSE information. Call me, Joe Gloystein, at (202) 401-6741 or send an e-mail to: jgloystein@acf.dhhs.gov.

---

Joe Gloystein, Chief, Electronic Communications Team, Division of Consumer Services, is responsible for internal child support systems coordination.

---

State Linkages
OCSE has established internet links with CSE programs in the following states: Alaska, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington.

---

Return to top of newsletter

---

Law in Brief - Enforceable Rights Under Title IV-D

By: Susan Notar

---

Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code authorizes suits by individuals against those acting under color of state law for violations of federal law and the United States Constitution. See Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980). There are at least two hurdles plaintiffs must overcome to bring 1983 suits: 1) the federal statute must create enforceable rights; and 2) Congress must not have foreclosed enforcement of the statute in the enactment itself.

A recent decision in the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals adds to the growing number of cases allowing actions under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to obtain a remedy for alleged violations of rights to services under Title IV-D. In Freestone v. Cowan, 68 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 1995), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the district court and held that a 1983 action could be maintained to enforce rights under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.

The statutory language and legislative history of Title IV-D show that it is meant to benefit needy families with children. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit noted the three-way split of authority but concluded that the better view was expressed by such courts as Howe v Ellenbecker, 8 F.3d 1258 (8th Cir. 1993), Albiston v. Maine, 7 F .3d 258 (1st Cir. 1993), King v. Bradley, 829 F. Supp. 989 (N.D. Ill. 1993), and Behunin v. Jefferson City Dept. of Social Svs., 744 F. Supp 255 (D. Colo. 1990). The Court noted that a few courts have concluded that there are no enforceable rights under Title IV-D. See Wehunt v. Ledbetter, 875 F.2d 1588 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. denied sub. nom., 110 S. St. 1472 (1990), and Mason v. Bradley, 789 F. Supp. 273 (N.D.Ill. 1992).

The United States Supreme Court has not yet considered this issue. In Suter v. Artist M., 503, U.S. 347, 112 S. Ct. 1360, 118 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1992), however, the Supreme Court did address 1983 in the context of another section of the Social Security Act, Title IV-E. In Suter, the Court ruled that 1983 provides no implied cause of action under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. Congress, however, has enacted recent legislation specifying that Suter will be interpreted narrowly. See 42 U.S.C. 1320a-10.

In Freestone, custodial parents brought a class action suit pursuant to both 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, alleging that the child support enforcement administration housed within Arizona's Department of Economic Security systematically failed to furnish them with federally mandated services. These included locating obligors, establishing paternity, and making $50 pass-through payments due families.

Charles Cowan, Director of the Arizona Department of Economic Security, moved to dismiss the suit on 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) grounds, for lack of both standing and subject matter jurisdiction, and for summary judgment for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. He argued that recipients of Title IV-D services are not the intended beneficiaries of the Social Security Act; that there are no mandated requirements upon the state creating enforceable rights under 1983; and, using the Sixth Circuit's rationale in Carelli, that the Title IV-D audit system precludes an action under 1983.

The district court rejected the defendant's first two arguments, finding that individuals such as the plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries under Title IV-D and that plaintiffs may bring the action if the remedy they request increases their chances of receiving IV-D services. The district court sided with the defendant on the third argument, relying on the Carelli decision's rationale that Congress foreclosed relief under 1983 by adopting a federal auditing plan for the IV-D program.

In its reversal of the district court's opinion, the Ninth Circuit relied upon the three-prong test in Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 110 S. Ct., 2510 (1990) to determine whether a given statute provides enforceable rights. The three elements are: (1) whether the plaintiff is one of the intended beneficiaries of the statute; (2) whether the statute imposes a binding obligation on the state; and (3) whether the plaintiff's interest is so vague and amorphous as to be beyond the competence of the judiciary to enforce.

The court applied the tests and noted that the statutory language and legislative history of Title IV-D show that it is meant to benefit needy families with children. The court also observed that the statutory and regulatory system provides specific requirements imposing certain duties on states, which must be met for the state to continue receiving funding, and that states must be in substantial compliance with such requirements. Finally, the court reasoned that the plaintiff's interest in obtaining specific services is not vague or amorphous and is judicially ascertainable.

The Ninth Circuit next discussed the district court's reliance on the Carelli decision in the Sixth Circuit. In Carelli, the court reasoned that Title IV-D contained a comprehensive remedial plan of audit provision and performance standards that precluded a 1983 action. Rejecting this argument, the Ninth Circuit asserted that the IV-D audit provisions are meant to protect federal interests--including prompt disbursement of funds--by ensuring that states meet federally prescribed standards and that the provisions are not remedies to plaintiffs of the type in the class action before it.

The Ninth Circuit then reversed the district court's opinion below it, concluding that a 1983 action is available to the plaintiffs in the class action and remanded the case to the district court to decide issues of declaratory and injunctive relief.

---

Susan Notar is an Attorney in OCSE's Policy Division.

---

Return to top of newsletter

---

UIFSA Training to be Held May 16-18

New Curriculum to be Presented at National Judicial Conference in Virginia

---

To improve the interstate establishment and enforcement of child support awards, in 1992 the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws approved the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA).

UIFSA supersedes the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), which was last revised in 1968. To date, 26 states and the District of Columbia have enacted UIFSA, which pending federal legislation would require all states to pass by January 1, 1998.

Even experienced judges need training on UIFSA. Unlike URESA, which allows de novo hearing, UIFSA has rules for determining one controlling order for prospective support. Also, it establishes rules for determining modification jurisdiction, contains an expansive long arm section for the establishment of paternity and support, and differs from URESA in its innovative evidentiary provisions.

To ensure comprehensive, uniform training on UIFSA, the State Justice Institute provided funding to the American Bar Association to develop curriculum for judicial educators.

The Project is directed by Margaret Campbell Haynes, former Chair of the US Commission on Interstate Child Support, with advice from a distinguished advisory board composed of judges, court administrators, and judicial educators.

The 2 1/2 day curriculum will be presented at a national judicial conference May 16-18 at the Ritz Carlton, Tysons Corner, McLean, Virginia. Registration is $175. The hotel room rate is $115 plus taxes.

For more information, please call Ms. Haynes at (202) 662-1751 or write to the ABA Child Support Project, 740 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005.

---

Return to top of newsletter

---

Deviation from Child Support Guidelines

---

Top 5 Reasons (by number of states)
1. Special, extraordinary, and/or unreimbursed medical expenses or needs of child or parent(s) (28 states);

2. Extended or extraordinary visitation or custody expenses, such as extended time periods (27 states);

3. Child care, day care, and/or work-related child care (26 states);

4. Special needs of child, such as disability, special housing needs, or gifted (22 states); and

5. Special, extraordinary education needs or expenses of child, such as private or post secondary (18 states).

---

Source: David Arnaudo, Deviation from State Child Support Guidelines, Child Support Guidelines: The Next Generation (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services) 1994..

---