Taking Care of the District’s Children

The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System

August 2007

A Report by: DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice Crowell & Moring LLP Kilpatrick Stockton LLP DC Appleseed Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System

A Report by: DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice Crowell & Moring LLP Kilpatrick Stockton LLP

August 2007 DC Appleseed

i Acknowledgements

DC Appleseed would like to thank our Walter Smith, Josh Levinson, Desmond partners in this project, the wonderful pro Riley, Chris Laskowski, Mary Jane Goodrick, bono legal teams from Crowell & Moring Karen Schneider, James Jones, and Tawana LLP and Kilpatrick Stockton LLP. They Stewart. Special thanks to former DC participated in shaping and conducting Appleseed staff members Dorothy Smith the research, as well as drafting, editing, and Deborah Spitz who initially staffed and designing this report. Special thanks the Child Support Project. DC Appleseed to the team leaders at each firm: Stephen Interns Erica Ban, Sean Griffith, Leah Baskin, Svetlana Gans, and Laura Mow Greenglass, Sarah Schultz, Erica Stevens, from Kilpatrick Stockton, and Marc Fred Wyshak, and DC Appleseed Volunteer Efron and John McCarthy from Crowell Sandy Shapiro also contributed to & Moring. Members of the project team the research. from Kilpatrick Stockton include: Kevin Noble, Saadeh Al-Jurf, Stewart Fried, We would also like to thank Attorney Eric Sophir, Matt Olson, Jim Mecone and General Linda Singer, former Attorney Tracie Siddiqui. Members of the project General Robert Spagnoletti, Chief Deputy team from Crowell & Moring include: Attorney General Eugene Adams, Deputy Linda Bruggeman, Shauna Alonge, Denise Attorney General Benidia Rice, and the Giardina, Mike Russell, and Amy Laderberg management staff of the Office of the O’Sullivan. Their collective generosity Attorney General Child Support Services made this project possible. We would also Division for their willingness to work with like to thank Alicia Hogges-Thomas of us and for the time they spent helping us to Bryan Cave LLP for donating her time to better understand the child support system do research for us. in DC. Thanks are also owed to all of the court personnel, DC government officials, In addition we would like to thank the community service providers, policy members of the DC Appleseed Board experts, private attorneys, and parents who who helped guide this project, Shelley shared their knowledge and perspectives Broderick, Nicholas Fels, and BB Otero, with us. as well as board members Sheldon Cohen, Gary Epstein, and Amy Rifkind who We are grateful to Michael Bonfigli (www. provided feedback on early drafts. We bonfigliphoto.com) for permission to use also want to thank the members of our some of his photographs. Advisory Panel who answered questions and provided feedback at key points in Finally, DC Appleseed is grateful the process: Eric Angel, Curt Child, Chris to the Fannie Mae Foundation, the Hart-Wright, Jeff Johnson, Angela Jones, Meyer Foundation, and the Morris and Su Sie Ju, David Pate, Paula Roberts, Judith Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, whose Sandalow, and Priscilla Skillman. generous support helped make this report possible. Many thanks go to our colleagues at DC Appleseed for their feedback and support:

ii Project Team Leaders

Stephen Baskin, Partner, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP Judy Berman, Deputy Director, DC Appleseed Maura Boyce, Program Associate, DC Appleseed Marc Efron, Partner, Crowell & Moring LLP Svetlana Gans, Associate, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP John McCarthy, Counsel, Crowell & Moring LLP Laura Mow, Partner, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP Walter Smith, Executive Director, DC Appleseed

DC Appleseed is a non-partisan, non- Kilpatrick Stockton LLP is a full-service profit advocacy organization dedicated to international law firm with more than making the District of Columbia and the 500 attorneys in nine offices across Washington Metropolitan area a better the globe: Atlanta, Augusta, Charlotte, place to live and work. We work on issues Raleigh, Winston-Salem, New York, from health care to voting representation Washington, DC, London, and Stockholm. to education reform to environmental Kilpatrick Stockton attorneys call upon concerns to jobs and housing. Working their experience in various areas of law, with volunteer attorneys, business leaders including antitrust, litigation, corporate, and community experts, we identify the construction, intellectual property, issues, conduct research and analysis, make and telecommunications, to provide specific recommendations for reform, knowledgeable and proactive counsel to and advocate effective solutions. Our companies at every stage of the business experienced staff organizes project teams cycle. Kilpatrick Stockton has also been and leverages thousands of hours of pro nationally recognized for its commitment bono time. to pro bono service. In 2006, the firm delivered 30,000 hours of pro bono work, Crowell & Moring LLP is a full-service law valued at $9.2 million. firm with more than 350 lawyers practicing in litigation, antitrust, government contracts, corporate, intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions, and more. Based in Washington, DC, the firm also has offices in California, New York, London, and Brussels. The firm contributes more than 21,000 hours annually on pro bono matters -- a more than $4 million investment - and has twice been honored as Pro Bono Firm of the Year in Washington, DC.

iii DC Appleseed Staff and Board of Directors

Staff:

Judy Berman, Deputy Director Maura Boyce, Program Associate Mary Jane Goodrick, Anacostia Watershed and River Restoration Project Director James Jones, Senior Program Associate Chris Laskowski, Program Associate Desmond Riley, Director of Development Karen Schneider, HIV/AIDS Project Director Walter Smith, Executive Director Tawana Stewart, Office Manager

Board of Directors*:

Chair: Richard B. Herzog, Harkins Cunningham LLP Vice-Chair: Patricia A. Brannan, Hogan & Hartson LLP Vice-Chair: Gary M. Epstein, Latham & Watkins LLP Secretary: Deborah M. Royster, Pepco Holdings, Inc. Treasurer: Peter D. Ehrenhaft, Harkins Cunningham LLP Past Chair: Daniel M. Singer, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP Past Chair: Nicholas W. Fels, Covington & Burling LLP Executive Committee: Jon S. Bouker, Arent Fox LLC Executive Committee: Lois J. Schiffer, Attorney Katherine S. Broderick, UDC David A. Clarke School of Law Patrick S. Campbell, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Deborah Chollet, Mathematica Policy Research Sheldon S. Cohen, Farr, Miller & Washington, LLC Annemargaret Connolly, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Bert T. Edwards, Office of Historic Trust Accounting Curtis Etherly, Coca-Cola Enterprises Bottling Companies James H. Hammond, Jr., Deloitte & Touche LLP Robert F. Levey, Journalist Edward M. Levin, Legal Consultant

iv DC Appleseed Board of Directors continued

John W. Nields, Howrey LLP James Rathvon, DLA Piper USA LLP Gary Ratner, Citizens for Effective Schools, Inc. Amy Rifkind, Arnold & Porter LLP Michael C. Rogers, MedStar Health Margaret Singleton, DC Chamber of Commerce Stanley M. Spracker, Levine School of Music Lawrence R. Walders, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP Roderic L. Woodson, Holland & Knight LLP

*Affiliations listed only for purposes of identification

v Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...... ii ■ Part I: Summary ...... 11 Executive Summary ...... 13 Summary of Findings and Recommendations ...... 60 Improving Services to Parents ...... 19 Improving the Role of the Court ...... 22 Improving Administration of CSSD ...... 23 ■ Part II: Background ...... 27 Methodology ...... 29 Report Structure ...... 32 History and Statutory Framework of the Child Support System ...... 34 Introduction ...... 34 Overview ...... 34 Paternity Establishment ...... 35 Enforcement & Collection ...... 36 Interstate Enforcement & Collection ...... 37 Medical Support ...... 38 Arrears and Modification of Orders ...... 39 Interagency Collaboration ...... 40 State Flexibility with Federal Regulations ...... 41 Automation ...... 42 Strategic Plan ...... 43 ■ Part III: Description of the District’s Child Support System ...... 45 1. Introduction to Child Support in DC ...... 47 2. Who is Served by Child Support in DC? ...... 50 3. The Child Support Process in DC ...... 54 Process Overview ...... 54 Representation ...... 57 Child Support Guidelines ...... 57 Pass-Through ...... 58 4. How is the District Doing? ...... 60

vi Table of Contents continued

■ Part IV: Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System ..63 Section A: Improving Services to Parents ...... 65 1. Outreach and Early Intervention ...... 66 Federal Mandates ...... 67 Challenges in the District ...... 68 Best Practices ...... 73 Recommendations ...... 76 2. Unemployed and Underemployed Non-Custodial Parents ...... 80 Introduction ...... 80 Federal Mandates ...... 81 Challenges in the District ...... 82 Best Practices ...... 85 Recommendations ...... 90 3. Incarcerated Parents and Ex-Offenders ...... 92 Introduction ...... 92 Federal Mandates ...... 93 Challenges in the District ...... 93 Best Practices ...... 97 Recommendations ...... 102 4. Minor Parents and Immigrants ...... 104 Introduction ...... 104 Federal Mandates ...... 104 Challenges in the District ...... 105 Best Practices ...... 107 Recommendations ...... 108 5. Management of Child Support Arrears ...... 110 Introduction ...... 110 Federal Mandates ...... 111 Challenges in the District ...... 112 Best Practices ...... 116 Recommendations ...... 117 Section B: Improving the Role of the Court ...... 119

vii Introduction ...... 120 Federal Mandates ...... 121 Challenges in the District ...... 121 Best Practices ...... 125 Recommendations ...... 129 Section C: Improving Administration of CSSD ...... 133 1. Improving Management of Child Support Cases ...... 134 Introduction ...... 134 Federal Mandates ...... 134 Challenges in the District ...... 136 Best Practices ...... 141 Recommendations ...... 145 2. Locating and Serving Process on Non-Custodial Parents ...... 148 Introduction ...... 148 Federal Mandates ...... 149 Challenges in the District ...... 150 Best Practices ...... 155 Recommendations ...... 158 3. Medical Support ...... 160 Introduction ...... 160 Federal Mandates ...... 160 Challenges in the District ...... 162 Best Practices ...... 165 Recommendations ...... 168 Conclusion ...... 171 ■ Appendices ...... 173 Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Used in the Report ...... 174 Appendix B: Child Support Data ...... 176 Appendix C: CSSD Organizational Information ...... 177 Endnotes ...... 178

viii DC Appleseed Part I: Summary

Executive Summary and Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Photo by Michael Bonfigli DC Appleseed Executive Summary y r a m m u S

Introduction

The District of Columbia is failing its children, especially children from low-income families. Because this failure is most visible in the public school system, the District government has made school reform its number-one priority. There is, of course good reason for this. As the Washington Post recently reported, the District’s public school system is among the worst performing in the nation, and the poor performance has the highest impact on children from poor families.1

While the District government focuses considerable attention on children’s educational needs, children from poor District families are also being hurt by another failure that is equally pressing - one that impacts their school performance, but has not received the critical attention it deserves: their need for parental support. A crucial element of that support is the responsibility of the District’s child support system which serves 65 percent – over 76,000 – of the District’s children. And yet today, the District’s child support system is failing to live up to its promise for three out of four children on its caseload. That failure, and the recommended response to it, is the subject of this report.

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 13 The District’s Child Support System

5 out of 6 non-custodial Flow of Child Support Money in DC parents (83.1%) are fathers Non-Custodial Parent

If employed, withheld from If unemployed or self-employed, paid paycheck by employer by check or credit card

OAG Child Support Services Division/ Child Support Clearinghouse

Custodial Parent Non-TANF on TANF Custodial Parent: (Up to $150) Total $ Received

DC Gov gets Fed Gov gets reimbursed reimbursed for TANF for TANF expenditure. expenditure Avg. Amount Ordered = $399 (2000-2003)* Avg. Amount Paid = $193 (2005)*

*Source: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ policybriefs/pb2004-02.html

The District’s child support system is required by law to ensure that a parent who is not living with his or her child provides an appropriate amount of financial support for the child.

The responsibility for making this happen lies primarily with the Child Support Services Division (CSSD) of the Office of the DC Attorney General. CSSD is focusing considerable attention on this responsibility and had made significant progress in recent years. S u m m a r y

14 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System y However, by every r important measure, a the m m u S system is failing the District’s children, and the consequences are devastating.

There are more children enrolled in the District’s child support system than in District of Columbia Public and Charter Schools combined.2 All these children deserve and need monetary support from their non-custodial parents. Yet fewer than 1 in 4 of these children – only 18,000 of 76,000 – received any payment at all from their absent parent in 2006.

The consequences of this shortfall are especially serious because 70% of the children in the District’s child support caseload are current or former welfare recipients – meaning they are already among the poorest in the city. Ensuring that these children receive even minimal child support would increase their family’s income by 20-30%. And fewer than one-fifth of the poorest children received any of the child support to which they were entitled last year.

This failure hits African-American families in the District particularly hard. These families already suffer disproportionately from poverty, unemployment, crime, incarceration, failing schools, low academic achievement, teen pregnancy, and a host of other socio-economic challenges. African American families are also disproportionately represented in the District’s child support system which serves mostly never-married parents. In Wards 7 and 8, where approximately 95% of residents are African-American, over 80% of children are born to a single woman. Over half of all the District’s children live in households headed by a single woman, and half of these have incomes below the federal poverty level.3

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 15 Not surprisingly, the District’s failure parents in their children’s lives harms to ensure child support for three those children in ways that go beyond quarters of the children entitled to it, the loss of monetary payments. Research i.e., 58,000 children, is reflected on has repeatedly shown that the receipt every important measure by which of child support benefits children not the federal government assesses child only financially, but also emotionally and support systems in this country. Though cognitively. In other words, by securing much improved, and for the first time support from absent parents, effective no longer subject to federal penalties, child-support systems improve children’s the District falls significantly below the academic performance and increase the national average on: rates of establishing chance they will finish high school and child support orders; collecting on go on to college.5 current child support orders; collecting on arrears (past-due child support); And third, because the students being establishing paternity (the pre-requisite poorly served by the public schools for establishing a child support and are often being served by the child obligation); and cost effectiveness. support system, efforts to improve the District schools will require the District These serious shortcomings in the child to address shortcomings in its child support system harm District children support system. It will not be enough in three important ways. First, as noted, simply to improve the schools, because they deprive children living in poor the children are unlikely to meet their families of much-needed income. At the potential in the classroom unless they lower end of the economic spectrum, receive the support they need from their child support orders typically range from parents. The District must therefore $100 to $300 per month.4 address both programs at once if these children are to be given the best Second, the failure to locate and opportunity to succeed. successfully involve as many as 50,000 S u m m a r y

16 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Improving the District’s Child Support System y r a m m u S

To its credit, the Office of the Attorney be a constructive model designed to assist General recognized that its system “dead-broke dads” to fulfill their financial was not serving children as it should. and other parental obligations. The Office, therefore, invited DC Appleseed to examine the workings of The fact is that the overwhelming the system and to determine whether majority of absent parents in the best practices in other jurisdictions District of Columbia are low-income, addressing comparable problems and undereducated, and tenuously connected serving comparable populations should to the workforce. They face barriers to be adopted in the District. The central employment and therefore barriers to question posed by our undertaking paying child support. Many have had was: why are so few fathers paying child negative experiences with the courts support in the District? Or, put another and with District government agencies. way, why is the child support system In order to reach the children of these shortchanging over 50,000 children? parents – again, the majority of non- custodial fathers in DC -- the child There is, of course, no single answer support system in the District must to this question. But DC Appleseed’s recognize and address these barriers, but two-year investigation of the District’s it is not now doing so. system and analysis of other, better- performing systems concludes that the Significantly, efforts to treat fathers as District’s model is primarily a punitive part of the solution rather than as part one designed to identify and sanction of the problem have been successful “deadbeat dads” when, based on the in jurisdictions like San Francisco and demographics of the District, it needs to Denver, large cities that face many of

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 17 18 S u m m a r y Taking Care oftheDistrict’s Children overcome thebarriers they faceto leverage ithastohelp these parents with non-custodialparentsandusethe use ofopportunitiestocommunicate support systemshouldmakebetter recommendations isthatthechild follow. Themainthrustofthese in greaterdetailthechaptersthat summarized belowandareexplored General. Theserecommendationsare system intheOfficeofAttorney administration ofthechildsupport role ofthecourts;andimproving to payingsupport);improvingthe low-income parentswhofacebarriers particular, unemployedandother toparents(in – improvingservices steps tobetakenfallintothreeareas Our recommendationsaboutfurther government entitiesindoingso. significant supportfromotherDistrict further. We alsobelievethatitneeds we believeitcanandshouldgomuch taken somestepsinthesedirections, District’s childsupportsystemhas their children’s lives.Althoughthe fathers’ commitmenttobeingpartof payments, buttheyhavealsoincreased undertakings havenotonlyincreased – havealsoproveneffective.Such and linkstoemploymentservices parentaleducation, mediation services, barriers topayment–likeproviding jurisdictions’ effortstoaddress and supportindoingso.These if giventheopportunity, information, fathers willparticipateinthesystem have successfullyshownthatmost these places,childsupportagencies the samechallengesasDistrict.In : The NeedtoReformDC’s ChildSupportSystem income children.Butitwillhave the well-beingorsuccessofDC’s low- child supportalonewillnotguarantee recognize, ofcourse,thatimproving recommendations inthisReport.We isthepurposeof that service parents. HelpingtheDistrictprovide tolow-income provides betterservice when thechildsupportsystem Ultimately, childrenwillbenefit family relationships. justice involvement,immigration,or are relatedtoemployment,criminal paying support,whetherthebarriers immediate attention. theDistrict’sis agoalthatdeserves the livesofDistrict’s children.It these recommendationsandtobetter work withtheDistricttoimplement consulted witharethereforewillingto community organizationswehave in whichtheylive.We andthemany home andcommunityenvironments a significantpositiveimpactonthe S u m m a r y 19 : The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Need to Reform DC’s The : Taking Care of the District’s Children of the District’s Care Taking with the challenges faced by low-income obligors, and especially by those who face barriers to employment (such as a criminal history or substance abuse problems). CSSD should also hire more staff to engage in community outreach and Child Support Services Division (CSSD) funding should work together to provide servicesto establish a non-custodial parent this unit unit at CSSD. The purpose of referrals, would be to provide information, and proactive customer services to non- address, custodial parents to help prevent, support and eliminate barriers to child compliance. The unit would recommend and implement changes in the ways that CSSD contacts and informs non- custodial parents about their child support obligations and their legal rights. Staff from the unit would conduct outreach to non-custodial parents and community- based groups that serve the non-custodial parent population. CSSD should staff the unit with individuals who have experience , families Support Services Division (CSSD) of the Office of the Attorney Attorney the of Office the of (CSSD) Division Services Support of Columbia. General (OAG) for the District parents involved in the child support system. in the child support system. parents involved the relationship and coordination between the and the court. child support agency District’s Improvements needed in the administration of the Child Improvements needed in the services that are provided to Improvements needed in the role played by the court, and ■ ■ ■ All of the recommendations are designed to help serve children. the District better summary included here, are broken into the following three sections: following three sections: here, are broken into the summary included The Findings and Recommendations in this Report, and the brief including both custodial and non-custodial the DC Council parents. The Mayor, and the Office of the Attorney General improving management of child support debt. and Early InterventionOutreach In order to better support children, the District should provide services to system and all parents; (ii) focusing particular attention on unemployed and underemployed non-custodial parents, incarcerated parents and ex-offenders, teen parents, and immigrants; and (iii) parents, many of whom face obstacles parents, many of whom face obstacles child to establishing or complying with improve support orders. The system could services in three ways: (i) to these parents interventionincreasing outreach and early to improve relationships between the Improving Services to Parents Improving system in The child support enforcement the District primarily serves low-income Summary of Findings and Recommendations and of Findings Summary make efforts to change its image in well as literacy and/or other work the community from sometimes being readiness programs, temporary child an inflexible and punitive agency to support order modification to support this one that is a resource for children investment in future economic growth, and families. Using media efforts in and “debt leveraging” opportunities (for English and Spanish, and working with example, reducing the amount of debt other government and community- owed to the District by non-custodial based agencies, CSSD should actively parents in exchange for their participation disseminate messages that stress the in approved programs). Protocols for benefits of child support to children, the referrals and monitoring should be consequences of non-payment to both developed to ensure consistency and non-custodial parents and children, and appropriate use of available resources. the services available to assist all family members. In addition, the Paternity and Child Support Branch of the Family Court Unemployed and Underemployed should develop a range of options for non- Non-Custodial Parents custodial parents who are unemployed Because so many of the parents involved -- beyond the current approach which with the child support system are is typically an order that they return to unemployed or underemployed, CSSD court with evidence of ten job searches should collaborate with the Workforce per week. CSSD should request contempt Investment Council, the Department of court orders more frequently for those of Employment Services (DOES), non- who fail either to comply with the court’s profit employment support programs employment-related orders or to report like STRIVE, and the Department earnings, and a range of punitive options of Human Services’ DC Fatherhood should be developed and implemented, Initiative to identify effective workforce including electronic monitoring and development programs that would weekend incarceration (which would allow welcome systematic referrals of parents continued employment-related activity). , from the child support system. Among Finally recipients of DC Fatherhood the work support strategies that should Initiative grant funds should be required be considered are court-ordered to work in partnership with CSSD (and participation in employment training as CSSD should work in partnership with them) in order to bring economic and emotional stability to non-custodial fathers.

Incarcerated Parents and Ex-Offenders CSSD has recently received a grant to help eligible incarcerated felony offenders modify their child support orders to prevent the accrual of child support debt during incarceration. To build on this, CSSD should also work closely with the

S u m mDistrict Department a of Corrections r and y

20 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System the DC Jail to assist non-custodial parents establishment and, because so many who are imprisoned repeatedly for teen parents experience relationship

y short periods. r Ensuring that a these non- m abuse, on the legal m protections built u S custodial parents receive information into the family court and child support about the child support process and how systems for teens who are victims of to modify an order will contribute to abuse. Teens should be given the their willingness upon release to secure option to undergo free genetic testing lawful employment and achieve stability rather than automatically signing in the community. acknowledgements of paternity. DC Council should pass legislation that In addition, offenders returning to protects the rights of teens who sign their home communities following a voluntary acknowledgements of paternity, period of incarceration face a variety of such as extending the rescission period challenges to establishing stable, law- to 60 days beyond the father’s eighteenth abiding lives. While the District seeks birthday. Judges and CSSD attorneys, to help this population through several using the latitude provided in the new agencies, it lacks the kind of integrated DC Child Support Guideline, should “wrap-around system” that such a work with teen non-custodial parents population needs. The District should to establish payment habits, even if establish a comprehensive prisoner minimal, and help them work toward re-entry program, which, among other a secure economic future, even if that things, would help newly released non- means lower payments for the short term. custodial parents address their child support issues, including their existing In addition, to properly serve the child support debt, and help repair District’s increasing Latino population, family relationships that may have many of whom face the other service suffered during the separation. Such barriers addressed in this Report, a comprehensive program requires CSSD should hire additional Spanish- collaboration among many agencies to speaking staff. CSSD also should prepare establish reliable data on existing needs, brochures and other informational an understanding of existing resources, materials in Spanish, hold community and a willingness to share both success meetings and run public service and accountability. announcements, and consult regularly with Latino community leaders to ensure Minor Parents and Immigrants that these efforts address the concerns of CSSD should work with its paternity Latino families. program contractor, Policy Studies, Inc., to design an effective approach Management of Child Support Arrears for reaching teen parents eligible The impact of high arrears on the for the hospital-based paternity compliance behavior and family acknowledgement program. The agency relationships of child support-involved should collaborate with hospital staff families is too great to manage the and prenatal clinics to educate teen problem on an ad hoc basis or within parents on the importance of paternity the limits of a small intensive program.

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 21 CSSD needs to establish an arrears policy Family Court, Paternity and Child Support that includes prevention, collection, Division. Better coordination between and forgiveness -- when appropriate and them and a redefining of their roles when designed to leverage debt into would significantly improve child support better outcomes for custodial parents outcomes. and children. As further data are generated to identify in greater detail The system first needs an increase in the the characteristics of the arrears-carrying range of options available to judges when population, the policy should be adapted a non-custodial parent is unemployed, accordingly. For now, programmatic including education, training, substance efforts should be undertaken according abuse treatment when necessary, and to current best practices for working with sanctions for non-compliance. These low-income obligors. expanded options should help the system in identifying non-custodial The court and CSSD should work parents who claim unemployment but together to design a quicker and more who are active in the underground cash easily accessible order modification economy. To better implement this process. At the very least, the process change, the DC Council should pass should be the same for custodial and legislation authorizing judges to order non-custodial parents, and equally employment and/or job training for likely to produce upward or downward non-custodial parents before arrears modifications. Information about the accrue or a contempt motion has been circumstances under which an order filed. The judiciary should consult with might be eligible for modification and the Department of Corrections on any the process for initiating a modification protocols that involve increasing use of request should be clearly spelled out in the jail for child support cases, such as written materials targeting both custodial weekend incarceration. and non-custodial parents, and on the court’s and CSSD’s websites. Federal law confers certain administrative authority on child support agencies, CSSD has indicated that it is in the including ordering genetic testing, beginning stage of developing a debt issuing subpoenas for financial leveraging program. We applaud this information, increasing monthly payment step and recommend that the program obligations when support is overdue, should be developed as one means of and ordering wage withholding, among managing arrears. The program should others. Notwithstanding this grant of strive to balance the competing interests administrative authority, the court and inherent in such a policy: it should not CSSD do not appear to agree on the reward past non-compliance but should scope or appropriate implementation eliminate obstacles to current and future of CSSD’s administrative authority. DC compliance. therefore needs legislation to clarify the scope of CSSD’s administrative authority, Improving the Role of the Court particularly in terms of the authority to establish orders. CSSD also should The Office of the Attorney General be given limited authority to enter operates the child support system in modifications to orders if the case (i)

Sconjunction u with the DC m Superior Court m involves medical a support only, r or (ii) y

22 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System where the non-custodial parent receives programs and referral protocols. federal benefits (such as social security The court and CSSD need to agree disability) that will pay the full amount of on improvements to the modification child support directly. process for child support orders. y r a Downward m modifications, m when necessary u S Procedures for CSSD’s increased use of and appropriate, serve everyone’s its administrative authority - developed in interest, including the custodial parent full partnership with the court - should who benefits from the regular payment of increase parental buy-in and satisfaction child support, even if the amount is less. with the process, and make better use of the respective resources of the courts and Improving Administration CSSD. The procedures must be designed of CSSD and implemented to ensure that (i) custodial and non-custodial parents are The District’s children would be better receiving sufficient information to make served through improvement of CSSD sound decisions about child support agency administration in three areas: (i) matters, and (ii) parents are encouraged general management of child support to participate in any activities that will increase the likelihood of successful co-parenting and regular payment of support, including mediation, parenting programming, employment and training activities, and substance abuse treatment.

Disputes over access to children and parenting styles can interfere with payment of child support. DC’s child support system should make better use of available mediation services cases; (ii) the “locate/service function,” and alternative dispute resolution which is a key step in establishing child (ADR) when parental relationships are support orders; and (iii) medical support. interfering with compliance, and should Through these improvements, CSSD can establish a set of referral protocols that better adapt its policies and practices to can be used by the court, by CSSD, and the specific needs and challenges faced by community-based service providers. by DC’s service population, including While regulations prohibit the expedited the unemployed, formerly incarcerated, child support court from making immigrant, and others who do not fit the custody-related decisions, child support profile around whom the child support systems are encouraged to make referrals system was originally conceived and to access and visitation services. An designed. effective dispute resolution process leads to greater compliance, less congested Managing Child Support Cases court dockets, and increased customer 6 As an initial matter, CSSD should satisfaction. The resources of the Court’s increase its effort to obtain data better Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division tailored to its constituent population. should be fully explored for help in Currently, CSSD reports only those data designing and implementing appropriate elements that are required by the federal

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 23 government, none of which provides improvements in the case sorting any substantive information about the process would encourage CSSD staff to District’s actual service population develop and employ problem-solving (except whether the case was initiated techniques that can result in higher through the public assistance system). rates of order establishment and For example, there is no information collection. readily available about who owes child support debt in the District, and how CSSD should continue to partner with much is owed the District versus how the District’s Income Maintenance much is owed to custodial parents. Administration (IMA) to eliminate Without good data, resources will be barriers to custodial parent targeted inefficiently - if not altogether cooperation. When a custodial parent inappropriately. applies for TANF or Medicaid, for example, she is required to cooperate CSSD should also design a meaningful with the child support system by case-sorting strategy based on DC’s providing information about the population and identity and location of the child’s the challenges father. She must also assign to the presented by the District any rights to money collected child support on her behalf. Federal law has linked caseload. A case these two programs to enable states sorting strategy to recover costs incurred providing that recognizes financial and medical benefits to the diversity of the children in single-parent homes. caseload would Currently, CSSD considers over 80 enable CSSD percent of its public-benefits referrals to maximize its to be uncooperative. In other words, capacity and target more than 80 percent of TANF its expertise to applicants have not provided full serving families that face particular information about the identity of their social and economic barriers. Lack of child’s father, have not responded to data on the caseload is a substantial requests for meetings or additional obstacle to this goal. Cases could information, or otherwise have not be sorted according to multiple-case assisted in advancing the child obligors (i.e., fathers with children by support case. more than one mother) or obligors with unverified employment, thereby Both CSSD and IMA appear to separating out potential problem understand that custodial parents cases and encouraging specialized often have legitimate reasons for not approaches.7 Alternatively, cases pursuing child support and, while could be sorted by their relationship complying with the federal mandates, to the receipt of public benefits both agencies want to give custodial under Temporary Assistance to parents as much flexibility as possible Needy Families (TANF). This would to make their own choices. The allow TANF, former TANF and agencies need to ensure, therefore, especially transitioning TANF cases that custodial parents have accurate 8 Sto get increased u attention. m These mand sufficient a information about r child y

24 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System support that would allow them the about twice as many cases per day flexibility to make those choices. (30-50) as the judge actually expects In order to engage more of these to hear. CSSD should work with the custodial parents, CSSD should develop courts and others to conduct a cost- y r a m m u S strategies for engaging non-custodial benefit analysis to explore if delivery parents in the process and ensuring that confirmation service or certified mail can they benefit from participating. If child be implemented on a trial basis in the support appears as only an unrelenting District. Concerns have been expressed grab for a non-existent paycheck, many about the unwillingness of judges to low-income custodial and non-custodial issue bench warrants for court no-shows parents will resist involvement in the based on service by mail, but no data system. Both agencies should work to exist to indicate how effective bench diffuse any antagonism that either parent warrants are relative to the expense currently feels toward the system. of personal service. Philadelphia and Prince George’s County, Maryland, both Locating and Serving Process on utilize service by certified mail and share Non-Custodial Parents many characteristics with the District’s There are increasing numbers of population. Both jurisdictions have resources available for locating non- indicated good response rates with this custodial parents, including a variety of alternative method. Personal service internet-based services. To locate people resources could be reserved for those efficiently, however, the District needs who do not respond to service by mail. computer systems that can match a list of non-custodial parents being sought Service of process should be treated with an available internet or other as an opportunity to enhance CSSD’s database. To enable CSSD to efficiently relationship with non-custodial parents. and effectively locate DC’s non-custodial For many non-custodial parents, the parents, the District should invest in introduction to the child support system reliable inter-system compatibility, takes place through service of process. with particular focus on other District CSSD should use this opportunity to agencies - Department of Corrections, encourage a positive relationship with Department of Human Services, Office non-custodial parents by including of Tax and Revenue, Department of informational materials with the legal Employment Services (unemployment notice, and encouraging non-custodial records), and Department of Motor parents to contact CSSD with questions. Vehicles. This inter-system compatibility This can be done whether service is also should be as close to real-time in person or by mail. For in-person as possible. service, other jurisdictions have trained process servers as “ambassadors” in the To establish a child support order, DC community, so that the contact they have must serve a non-custodial parent with with non-custodial parents advances the goals and messages of the child support proper notice. Only about 50 percent 9 of non-custodial parents who are system. Any such effort to encourage located are served on time, and many participation by non-custodial parents, are served, but fail to appear in court. especially early in the process, will In all, the court typically schedules benefit children through increased compliance.

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 25 26 S u m m a r y Taking Care oftheDistrict’s Children recommendations proposedinthisreport. Court andchargedwithimplementingthe Judge oftheDCSuperiorCourtFamily chaired by the Attorney General and Chief Child SupportTask Force.Itshouldbe Mayor shouldconveneamultidisciplinary To facilitatetheneededcollaboration, the District andsometimesfederalagencies. Report involvecollaborationamong Many oftherecommendationsinthis fail tofulfilltheirresponsibilities. charges andissuefineswhenemployers ordered andCSSDshouldfilecontempt liability forfailingtoenrollachildas should educateemployersabouttheir respond appropriately. Finally, CSSD can monitorchangesincasestatusand comply withtheirobligations,andCSSD a program,employerscanefficiently with adequatefollow-up.Undersuch Medical SupportNotice(NMSN)program can beusedtocreateastrongNational “clean up”itsdatabaseofemployerssoit CSSD alsoshouldcontinuetodevelopand health careprogramswhenavailable. are beingenrolledinemployer-based parent employerstoensurethatchildren follow upwithcustodialandnon-custodial cases. ordered in health insuranceisadequatelyprovidedas be paidfor, andbywhom),inpractice health insurancecoverage,howitwill (indicating whichparentwillprovide include theprovisionofmedicalsupport While childsupportordersincreasingly Medical Support 10 CSSDshouldconductsystematic only 16percent : The NeedtoReformDC’s ChildSupportSystem ofchildsupport changes intheDistrict’s to services strongly supportstheconclusionthat The experienceofotherjurisdictions cases, itisnotnowdoingso. support. However, inthree-quartersofits system shouldbedeliveringthatneeded from theirfathers.Thechildsupport lack financialandotherkindsofsupport children growupinhomeswherethey the factthatvastmajorityofDC’s poor at home.Thecrisisresultsinpartfrom the crisisthatDistrictschoolchildrenface public schoolsystem,onlyifitaddresses The Districtwillsucceedinreformingits Conclusion changes happen. with theDistricttomakethose changes. We toworking lookforward designed tobringabouttheneeded recommendations inthisReportare improve supporttothesechildren.The the AttorneyGeneralcoulddramatically administrative processesoftheOffice role ofthecourts,andchangesin non-custodial parents,changesinthe Part II: Background

This part of the Report first explains the methodology in preparing this Report and how the Project team hopes it will be used. Next, is a description of how the Report is structured. Finally, we offer background information on the history and statutory framework of the child support system.

Photo by Michael Bonfigli. DC Appleseed Methodology y g o l o d o h t e M

DC Appleseed, an advocacy organization STRIVE DC, Jeff Johnson of the National that works on issues affecting the daily Partnership for Community Leadership, lives of those who live and work in the Angela Jones of DC Action for Children, District of Columbia area, organized a Su Sie Ju of Bread for the City, David Project Team to research and analyze Pate of the Center for Family Policy the District of Columbia’s child support and Practice, Paula Roberts, formerly system and prepare this Report. The of the Center for Law and Social Policy Report was prepared in cooperation (CLASP), Judith Sandalow of the with District officials responsible for Children’s Law Center, and Priscilla administering the child support system Skillman of the Council for – in particular the Child Support Services Court Excellence. Division of the Office of the Attorney General. The Project team is grateful for Interviews and Focus Groups that cooperation. The DC Appleseed Child Support Project Project Team Team interviewed approximately 170 individuals, including former Attorney A team of pro bono lawyers at the law firms General Robert Spagnoletti, CSSD of Crowell & Moring LLP and Kilpatrick Director Benidia Rice and unit mangers Stockton LLP partnered with DC at CSSD. Among the 170 interviewees Appleseed to perform the research for were many nationally-recognized experts and writing of this Report. A lawyer from on child support policy and government the firm of Bryan Cave LLP also provided officials managing child support systems pro bono services to research a topic in other jurisdictions. Unfortunately, outside of the expertise of the Project due to our inability to overcome Team. DC Appleseed staff, board, and objections by their union, the Project Advisory Council members participated Team was unable to interview CSSD line on the Project team. staff workers.

Advisory Panel The Project Team also conducted approximately 21 court observations DC Appleseed assembled a special pro in a little over one year. Proceedings bono Advisory Panel to advise the Project were observed for each magistrate judge Team in conducting the research and assigned to the child support calendar, formulating recommendations. The including paternity establishment and members of the Advisory Panel are contempt cases. During many of these Eric Angel of DC Legal Aid Society, visits, Project Team members interviewed Curt Child, formerly of the National non-custodial and custodial parents. Center for Youth Law and now with the This was done with the assurance of California Assembly Human Services anonymity. In addition, the Project Committee, Chris Hart-Wright of Team held meetings with several

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 29 magistrate judges to further clarify the any limitations of our analysis based on the court’s role and obtain perspective on child unavailability of some of these materials. support matters. Best Practices Custodial and non-custodial parents were also contacted through local community Throughout, this Report refers to “best service providers. The Project Team practices” from jurisdictions around the interviewed them to learn about their country. These best practices are derived experiences with and impressions of the from the U.S. Department of Health and child support system. Human Services Office of Child Support Enforcement publications, interviews with Lastly, Project Team members attended an child support officials in other jurisdictions array of informative meetings, including: and academic scholars, and attendance at national child support enforcement two National Child Support Enforcement conferences, locally held training sessions training conferences. In addition, our by government agencies and community review of grant reports, policy memoranda, service providers, and meetings of local and program evaluations contributed to our non-profit groups working with populations selection of best practices for the various impacted by child support and related topics addressed in this Report. In all cases, issues (such as employment and training). we strongly considered their applicability to The Project Team was also instrumental in the District and the District’s population. convening meetings of local community service providers to learn about their Review of the Report perspectives on the child support system. DC Appleseed received comments on Document Review drafts of this Report from numerous individuals, including members of the The Project Team reviewed a substantial Project Team, the Advisory Panel, the DC number of documents, reports, legislation, Appleseed Board of Directors, District government officials, District magistrate judges, and other interested individuals and organizations. The content of the final Report reflects feedback from these individuals, but any errors are our responsibility alone. Endnotes

The endnotes in this Report refer to interviews by category of interviewee and not by name of individuals in order budgets, policies, and meeting minutes. to protect confidentiality. The Project Some relevant documents were not Team makes an exception where we refer available until very late in our research to national experts and government process, and still others were not received officials from elsewhere in the country. All as requested. The Project Team regrets interview notes are on file at DC Appleseed. Methodology

30 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Terminology may warrant additional attention. The

y g o l o Project Team d chose o to focus h on those t areas e M This Report often uses ‘father’ to refer to most directly related to the system’s case non-custodial parents because five of every management practices and the impact of six non-custodial parents are fathers (83.1 policies and practices on the District’s low- percent) and only one in six are mothers income families. The Project Team did (16.9 percent).11 This is not a comment not investigate the interstate system – how on whether fathers are treated fairly in the system responds to requests from other terms of custody assignments, but rather states to establish or enforce orders bearing is a reflection of the current state of child on non-custodial parents under District custody and the challenges facing the child jurisdiction, or how it serves custodial support system. The Project Team hopes parents whose obligors are located outside that any efforts to improve services for non- the District’s jurisdiction. The Project custodial parents benefits fathers as well as Team did not look at the new child support mothers, both those who have custody of collection and distribution process, now their children and those who do not. managed for the District by a contractor. Glossary

Attached as an Appendix to this Report is a glossary that defines terms and acronyms used herein.

Intended Use of the Report By all accounts, the new process represents Our primary purpose in preparing this an improvement and, while there is always Report was to investigate and, when more that can be done, this issue would appropriate, recommend changes in the seem to lend itself better to an auditing District’s child support system – with the process rather than the kind of research hope of improving the circumstances that we are best equipped to contribute. of thousands of District children. Our And, while The Project Team considered secondary purpose was to assemble in a many implications of the new child single account a description of how the support guideline, enacted last year and child support system works in the District implemented in April 2007, The Project for use as a resource by the public and by Team did not undertake a complete those who are served by the system, work independent review since such a review in the system, and make decisions about had only recently been completed.12 The the system. team hopes that the next review will take place as required within four years, Scope of the Report and that as previously, an appropriately constituted commission will be charged While this Report is extensive, it is not with the task. exhaustive, and there are several areas outside the scope of this project that

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 31 Report Structure

The Report is divided into four parts: (1) Summary, (2) Background, (3) Description of the District’s Child Support System, and (4) Findings and Recommendations Concerning Improvements to the District’s Child Support System. Briefly, the elements of these four parts follow. Part I: Summary

■ Executive Summary. Explains the major challenges facing the child support system in the District and why the system urgently needs to be reformed. ■ Summary of Findings and Recommendations. Provides a summary of the key findings and recommendations in the Report. Part II: Background

■ Chapter 1: Methodology. Describes how the Report was developed. ■ Chapter 2: Report Structure. Describes the parts of the Report. ■ Chapter 3: History and Statutory Framework of the Child Support System. Provides context for the DC child support system through an overview of the development of federal laws governing child support enforcement. Part III: Description of the District’s Child Support System

■ Chapter 1: Introduction to the District’s Child Support System. Provides a thematic introduction to the dynamics and challenges of child support enforcement in the District. ■ Chapter 2: Who is Served by Child Support in DC? Examines the child support system’s target population in DC and how child support relates to federal and state government anti-poverty efforts. ■ Chapter 3: The Child Support Process in DC. Describes how child support orders in DC are established, modified, and enforced. ■ Chapter 4: How is the District Doing? Describes how DC’s child support performance is measured, and how well the system is performing.

Part IV: Findings and Recommendations Concerning Improvements to the District’s Child Support System

Part IV is divided into three Sections: improving services to parents, clarifying roles and improving relations between CSSD and the court, and improving administration of CSSD. Each Section contains one to five Chapters. Each Chapter describes the background for findings, lists the particular challenges facing the District, discusses best practices, and then presents our

Reportrecommendations. Structure

32 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System e r u t c u r t S t r o p e R

■ Section A: Improving Services to Parents. Parents are the “customers” of the child support system. How parents are treated by this system impacts how they respond to the demands the system places on them. The Chapters in Section A examine the “customers” of the DC child support system and the services they need to best fulfill their child support obligations. Section A addresses general strategies that will help create better working relationships with parents, and particular strategies for working with unemployed or under employed non-custodial parents, incarcerated or formerly incarcerated non-custodial parents, minor parents, and immigrant families. Section A also includes a Chapter on helping parents manage child support arrears. ■ Chapter 1: Outreach and Early Intervention ■ Chapter 2: Unemployed and Underemployed Non-custodial Parents ■ Chapter 3: Incarcerated Parents and Ex-Offenders ■ Chapter 4: Minor Parents and Immigrants ■ Chapter 5: Management of Child Support Arrears ■ Section B: Improving the Role of the Court. The District’s child support system is based on a judicial model, and requires a cooperative relationship between CSSD and the court. Section B explains the current roles and responsibilities of each of these two entities, and ways in which practices can be improved to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the child support system. ■ Section C: Improving Administration of CSSD. The three Chapters in Section C consider how CSSD manages its caseload of over 76,000 cases. Chapter 1 looks at the case management structures in place at CSSD. Chapters 2 and 3 provide recommendations for improving the strategies used to locate and serve process on non-custodial parents, and improving the establishment and enforcement of medical support. ■ Chapter 1: Management of Child Support Cases ■ Chapter 2: Locating and Serving Process on Non-custodial Parents ■ Chapter 3: Medical Support

Taken together, the recommendations in Part IV are presented in the hope that support for the District’s children can be significantly improved. Appendices

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms. This Glossary contains specialized terms and acronyms associated with the child support system. Appendix B: Child Support Data. Data describing DC’s child support performance for 2004, 2005, and 2006. Appendix C: Organizational Structure of CSSD. A brief description of the current organizational structure of CSSD.

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 33 History and Statutory Framework of the Child Support System

Introduction for the program decreased. In 1950, the first federal act passed requiring The United States has had some form of state welfare agencies to notify law child support system since its inception. enforcement officials when providing Based on English “poor laws,” early public assistance to a child abandoned American communities supported single or deserted by a parent, creating a women and children – and typically closer link between the administration made them work – and were permitted of public assistance and the collection to try to recover costs for this support of child support.18 Such a practice from the women’s and children’s continues today, demonstrating relatives.13 In the nineteenth century, the valued link between assisting norms were shifting away from women underprivileged children and child and children as laborers toward a view support enforcement. of women and children as dependents in need of support. By the end of the A negative sentiment towards nineteenth century, several states had government assistance for mothers both civil and criminal laws concerning when the father was alive and available desertion and non-support of women influenced subsequent federal and children.14 In the twentieth reform of the system. The Child century, the Social Security Act of 1935 Support Enforcement and Paternity created a relationship between the Establishment Act (CSEPEA) of federal government and the states to 1975 addressed the population of support families with children who met men intentionally avoiding their certain criteria, including having an responsibility to support their children.19 absent parent not providing support.15 CSEPEA required custodial parents Following is a brief summary of this who received welfare to sign over to partnership and the evolution of the federal role in child support law. Overview

In 1935, the federal government created a welfare entitlement program that eventually was called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).16 This cash-assistance program supported families with only one parent due to the death of or abandonment by the other parent. The creation of AFDC during the Depression aided an increasing the state the right to sue the father of number of widows and single mothers.17 the child and receive child support As the number of divorced mothers payments on the custodial parents’ using AFDC increased, public support behalf.20 This “cost recovery” provision History and Statutory Framework of the Child Support System

34 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System History and Statutory Framework of the Child Support System Support Child the of Framework Statutory and History allowed the government to recover the cost of benefits provided for children, Child Support Legislation thus shifting the burden of supporting children in single parent-families from the Year Name Acronym public to the parents.21 Later legislation 1935 Social Security Act served to strengthen this shift and, even Uniform Reciprocal today, applications for welfare or Medicaid 1950 URSEA benefits automatically initiate a child Enforcement of Support Act support case. Social Security Act, Title IV, Part D established the Child Support Enforcement Beginning in the mid-1970s, the increasing 1974 number of unmarried, divorced, or (CSE) program and created separated mothers, along with an the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) increasing number of children in poverty, encouraged the federal government to Child Support Enforcement pass additional legislation focused on 1975 and Paternity Establishment CSEPEA Act paternity establishment and child support Medicare-Medicaid Anti-fraud enforcement. In 1974, Social Security 1977 Amendments22 added Part D to Title IV of & Abuse Amendment Child Support Enforcement the Social Security Act. The new Part D CSE 1984 Act (Child Support mandated federal matching payments to Amendments states for child support enforcement for Amendments) AFDC cases and created a new unit within 1986 Bradley Amendment the U.S. Department of Health, Education, Uniform Interstate Family and Welfare (now Department of Health 1992 UIFSA Support Act and Human Services) to establish standards and assist state programs.23 In 1975, 1993 Omnibus Reconciliation Act federal regulations regarding the child support system were adopted. Through the Personal Responsibility 1996 and Work Opportunity PRWORA 1970s, the federal child support program Reconciliation Act dedicated its efforts to children receiving welfare, and it was not until 1980 that the 1997 Balanced Budget Act federal government began to offer financial 1988 Family Support Act FSA rewards to states for providing enforcement services for non-welfare cases.24 Deadbeat Parents Punishment 1998 Act Paternity Establishment Child Support Performance 1998 CSPIA and Incentive Act of 1998 Legislation enacted during the 1980s focused mainly on increasing 2005 Deficit Reduction Act DRA determinations of paternity so that orders could be established for children who were entitled to child support payments.

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 35 The Child Support Amendment of Enforcement & Collection 1984, also called the Child Support Enforcement Act, required states to The mandates governing enforcement enact laws that permitted paternity to and collection reflect a shift in focus be established until a child’s eighteenth to stricter enforcement and stronger birthday.25 A 1988 law established collection mechanisms. The 1984 a civil procedure in contested cases Amendment also required states that required states to provide genetic to establish improved enforcement testing upon request and provided methods, particularly an expedited federal funds to pay 90 percent of process for establishing orders and laboratory costs for processing genetic collecting support.29 Of particular testing in public assistance cases.26 The note was that these services had to be Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of equally available to welfare- and non- 1993 required hospital-based programs welfare-recipient families, and states independent from the child support were required to implement mandatory agency for voluntary acknowledgement wage withholding for delinquent of paternity immediately before or after cases.30 Along with the additional birth.27 Such programs were designed paternity establishment requirements to increase paternity establishment from the Family Support Act, the early and thereby lay the groundwork focus on enforcement was designed to for seeking a support order without the further strengthen efforts to collect on need for additional legal proceedings. established orders. The Amendment also required that each state develop The 1988 Family Support Act revised a guideline to determine the amount the 1993 reform by strengthening of support to be paid by non-custodial mandatory paternity establishment parents [in order to increase the standards, and including financial fairness and uniformity of orders].31 penalties on states linked with TANF for States established their own complex failure to achieve such standards. These mathematical formulas and procedures new standards required that 90 percent for enforcement of a guideline. Some of children born out of wedlock in the formulas took into account the incomes state have paternity acknowledged or of both parents, some accounted established, up from a previous standard for only the non-custodial parent’s of 75 percent, to avoid the financial income, and still others were based on a penalties. The Act also included combination of ability to pay and shared provisions to streamline the process to parenting arrangements.32 Judges are make a higher rate possible.28 These required to provide justification for any reforms were intended to increase deviation from the state guideline.33 benefits to the child, not punish the father, by imposing sanctions on To address the ever-increasing numbers states that failed to establish sufficient of cases, the federal government numbers of paternities. took steps to improve service and enforcement. In 1988, the Family Support Act again strengthened enforcement of AFDC child support History and Statutory Framework of the Child Support System

36 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System History and Statutory Framework of the Child Support System Support Child the of Framework Statutory and History cases with regulations requiring This system, operated by the U.S. triennial reviews of the guidelines Department of Health and Human used to set orders, ordered states to Services Office of Child Support require paternity testing in contested Enforcement (OCSE), assists state cases upon request of any party, and child support agencies to enforce and encouraged non-criminal procedures modify orders as well as locate non- for enforcement.34 The Family Support custodial parents. In some special Act also altered previous legislation by cases, the FPLS is used to enforce child requiring immediate wage withholding custody or visitation orders. Welfare for all new and modified orders, not Reform expanded the FPLS to include just delinquent cases, and the use of the National Directory of New Hires automated statewide tracking and (NDNH), a central repository of monitoring systems.35 employment, unemployment insurance, and wage data, and the Federal Case The beginning of the 1990s saw a Registry (FCR), a national database series of federal legislative activities containing information on individuals that continued the focus on stricter in child support cases and child enforcement measures. The 1996 support orders.42 These databases aid Personal Responsibility and Work state child support agencies through Opportunity Reconciliation Act automatic locate functions and allow for (PRWORA) authorized states to confidentiality of information. receive block grants under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Legislation also continued to focus if the state child support programs on stricter enforcement mechanisms. met federal mandates.36 Efforts to The passage of the Deadbeat Parents strengthen income withholding, Punishment Act of 1998 created federal paternity establishment, enforcement of criminal penalties for willful failure orders, and use of central registries were to pay past-due child support.43 The all included.37 In cases of willful failure Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act to pay child support, criminal penalties established two new categories of were placed on overdue obligations38 federal felonies with penalties of up to and stricter enforcement consequences two years in prison, thereby involving were put in place for missed payments the courts in enforcement of child - such as suspension of driver’s licenses, support delinquencies. reporting unpaid child support to credit agencies, and the ability to seize and Interstate Enforcement & force sales of property.39 Collection

The 1996 welfare reform aimed at Enforcing child support orders when maximizing the efficiency of the the non-custodial parent and child 40 system. This included improving live in different states creates distinct the Federal Parent Locator Service obstacles for child support agencies. (FPLS) - a computer matching system The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement that locates non-custodial parents of Support Act (URESA), created primarily for child support purposes.41

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 37 in 1950 and revised in 1952, 1958, and significant in PRWORA was the creation 1968, provides a system for interstate of the Federal Case Registry and National enforcement in which the support orders Directory of New Hires; these help track can be enforced without requiring the delinquent parents across states lines, custodial parent to go to the state in which support the establishment of paternity, and the non-custodial parent resides.44 By virtue facilitate the establishment, modification, of long-arm statutes, a non-custodial parent and enforcement of orders across states.48 can be subject to another jurisdiction by In the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, Congress committing an act in that jurisdiction, such gave State child support agencies access to as non-compliance with a child support new sources for obtaining Social Security order.45 States are mandated to aid each numbers, thereby improving available other in child support enforcement. enforcement techniques and increasing Interestingly, while federal law requires collection opportunities.49 a state to enforce another state’s order with interstate income withholding, no Medical Support federal mandate exists to ensure that interstate income withholding procedures The inclusion of medical support as part are uniform.46 The lack of a federal of child support began during the 1970s mandate can create problems with proper income withholding across state lines. The 1984 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Amendment allowed for new funding to support the development of automated systems to aid efforts such as interstate enforcement. with the establishment of a medical support enforcement program under the Medicare- The Uniform Interstate Family Support Medicaid Antifraud & Abuse Amendment Act (UIFSA), enacted in 1992 and revised of 1977.50 Medical support refers to in 1996 and 2001, was designed to deal provisions in child support orders that with desertion and non-support by creating address which parent will enroll the child uniform laws across all states and the in and/or pay for public or private health District. By effectively tracking interstate insurance. States can require Medicaid cases using the long-arm statute, UIFSA applicants to assign to the states the eliminated interstate jurisdictional disputes applicants’ right to medical child support,51 and increased interstate collections. The and IV-D agencies and Medicaid agencies 1996 revision of UIFSA, under PRWORA, can enter into cooperative agreements to required child support agencies to enforce pursue medical child support to collect UIFSA, including a provision called DCO reimbursements. Further legislation (Determining the Controlling Order) required all child support cases to include which eliminates multiple child support orders for health insurance in the most orders in interstate cases.47 Perhaps most feasible manner, though these efforts met History and Statutory Framework of the Child Support System

38 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System with only limited success. Under the 1996 Services and the U.S. Department of LaborSystem Support Child the of Framework Statutory and History welfare reform law, child support agencies work jointly to develop the mechanism are now required to include a provision by which states could enforce medical for health care coverage either through support orders. Now, when a medical private health insurance coverage or support order is established, the NMSN through payments towards public health is sent to the obligated parent’s employer insurance, as long as the cost does not who must either indicate why insurance is impede the non-custodial parent’s ability not available, or complete the process of to pay child support.52 The Omnibus enrolling the child in the health plan. The Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 had NMSN also requires employers to notify already made employers legally responsible the child support agency if the employee is for health insurance for children, even terminated.55 if the child was not living with the employee.53 Further federal legislation Arrears and Modification (the Balanced Budget Act of 1997) aimed of Orders to increase health benefits to children receiving child support by establishing When a non-custodial parent fails to meet the State Child Health Insurance his child support obligations, arrearages accrue on the child support case. In 1975, Congress authorized the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to collect child support arrearages if obligors were Program (SCHIP). SCHIP authorized delinquent on federal taxes, but only if payments to states to initiate and expand the IRS could feasibly recover the money the provisions of child health assistance and the delinquency was at least $750.56 to a larger number of uninsured low- In other cases, the collection of arrears 54 income children. This also allowed for fell to the states, which could use available coordination with other sources of health enforcement tools such as withholding, benefits coverage for children. restricting, or suspending licenses of all types, as well as reporting information to More recently, the National Medical credit bureaus. Agencies were required to Support Notice (NMSN) was introduced have an employee designated to perform to provide uniformity to the process such actions.57 of procuring employer-based health insurance coverage for children. The The 1986 Bradley Amendment prohibits NMSN was established as part of the Child state courts from retroactively reducing Support Performance and Incentive Act child support obligations.58 Non-expiring of 1998 (CSPIA). CSPIA required that the liens are automatically triggered whenever U.S. Department of Health and Human

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 39 a child support payment becomes past was to prevent the build-up of large due, and overrides the state’s statute arrearages. The Federal Consumer of limitations or any discretion on the Credit Protection Act limits the part of judges.59 The Amendment also garnishment of wages to 50 percent requires payment regardless of the of disposable earnings for non- capability of the non-custodial parent custodial parents who are supporting to pay. The Amendment was intended other dependents or spouses and 60 to disallow non-custodial parents percent for non-custodial parents who from running up large arrearages and are not supporting a second family.63 then finding a sympathetic judge to This increases by five percentage dismiss the debt.60 While this change points when payments are more may have succeeded in forcing some than twelve weeks overdue. The use wealthy debtors to pay off their of the percentages places a larger arrears, it caused hardship among burden on low-income obligors whose low-income non-custodial parents. earnings can be reduced to below Insurmountable child support debt subsistence level. An Amendment can interfere with their willingness and in 1984 requires states to notify ability to pay current support. employers of their liabilities and rights regarding wage withholding.64 There The Bradley Amendment has had are exceptions to the requirement other unintended consequences. of withholding, including a written For example, a released war hostage agreement signed by both parents.65 was arrested upon release for arrears that accrued during the time he was a hostage, and another man was required to pay retroactive support despite DNA evidence that he was not the father. These cases demonstrate the negative affect law changes can have by limiting the authority of agencies to conduct individual case management.61 While these are more extreme situations, they reveal a disconnect between the stated CSE objective of promoting family self- sufficiency and the ability of agencies to account for the needs of individual families. The 1984 Amendment was also intended to increase collections Interagency Collaboration by authorizing withholding of an obligor’s state income tax refunds up To enable IV-D agencies to collect to the amount of overdue support.66 from working obligors, the Family This required cooperation between Support Act of 1988 (FSA) expanded state departments of revenue and wage withholding to all state-enforced child support agencies, with child new and modified orders.62 The intent support agencies responsible for History and Statutory Framework of the Child Support System

40 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System giving notice to the non-custodial The Family Support Act of 1988 System Support Child the of Framework Statutory and History parent of the impending offset and his required states to pass legislation ability to contest the action. The 1984 making the state child support Amendment also required states to guideline a “rebuttable presumption” enact laws and implement procedures in any judicial or administrative to initiate liens against real property for proceeding to establish the order the amount of overdue support owed amount.72 This offered more to a custodial parent who resides in authority to child support agencies to the same state or who owns property set procedures that would optimize in the state.67 It also obligated states to their efficiency. The state guideline, establish procedures for non-custodial required to be reviewed every four parents to post security, bonds, or some years, focuses on increasing adequacy, other guarantee to secure payment for consistency, predictability, perceived overdue child support.68 Additionally, fairness, and ease of administration the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation of child support awards.73 The 1984 Act of 1981 required states to review Child Support Amendment permits unemployment compensation rolls states to limit the role of courts by to identify those who owed child implementing an administrative or support.69 These requirements judicial expedited process. States attempted to aid child support have discretion to design the process collection rates, but without regard for to maximize effectiveness and meet the non-custodial parent’s federally mandated time standards.74 ability to pay. Federal regulations require that 90 percent of cases are processed within State Flexibility with Federal 3 months, 98 percent of cases within Regulations 6 months, and 100 percent of cases within 12 months.75 Agencies can order The Bradley Amendment does not genetic testing, issue subpoenas, and provide states flexibility in retroactively obtain access to vital statistics (such changing orders, though states do have as tax records) without an order from discretion in other areas. PRWORA an administrative agency or judicial provided states some flexibility in tribunal. The 1996 reform added paternity establishment procedures. modification of support orders to this 76 While federal law mandates that list of procedures. Taking advantage no state may allow a man’s name of this authority can greatly increase an and signature to appear on a birth agency’s rate of setting and processing certificate unless he signs a paternity orders. acknowledgement form, states can create their own acknowledgement Several provisions govern assignment forms to establish paternity.70 Federal and distribution of child support law also requires that those signing collections on a federal and state the form have their rights and level. These provisions determine responsibilities explained to them, both distribution of money paid by the 77 orally and in writing, before signing.71 non-custodial parents. The 1996 Each state determines how best to fulfill Welfare Reform Act required states to this mandate. “pass-through” to the family the first

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 41 fifty dollars of child support collected Automation on behalf of orders to TANF-recipient families.78 This was later repealed and Automation of child support systems has states can instead decide how much received substantial federal funding. In to pass through directly to families 1980, Congress authorized a 90 percent receiving TANF and whether and how funding match for states to design and much to disregard any child support the implement automated data systems.83 family receives when determining TANF These systems were supposed to control, eligibility.79 account for, and monitor all aspects of enforcement, collection, and paternity Title VII of the Deficit Reduction Act of determination processes. In 1984, 2005 (DRA), the most recent federal child Congress made the 90 percent match support legislation, requires the federal available to pay for computer hardware government to pay 66 percent of the basic and necessary software to support the costs of a state’s child support program.80 automated systems.84 States were also States must provide the rest of the funding authorized to use federal matching funds and, as of October 2007, may no longer for development and improvement of use incentive funding (a performance- their income withholding procedures.85 based bonus provided to states discussed in Chapter 4 of Part III) as part of this 34 While automation does increase available percent. This new law may create financial staff time to focus on more difficult cases, difficulties for states that currently rely it has limitations. Some state technology heavily on federal incentive money. systems are not automated and are Identical bills have been introduced in therefore unable to share information both the House and Senate (The Child with the automated federal technology.86 Support Protection Act of 200781) to repeal Additionally, non-automated states this provision of the DRA. Additionally, can gain information from the federal Congress has retained high performance system, but might not be able to access standards for paternity establishment rates information within the state due to lack but now limits the eligibility pool from of automation or compatibility. In 1988, which to meet those standards.82 Thus, Congress required states without an ample before passage of the DRA, states could statewide automated system to submit count toward their Paternity Establishment a system planning document to OCSE Program (PEP) rates of all children in the for certification.87 There was difficulty state born out-of-wedlock up until the time approving states’ plans as they struggled they reached eighteen. In some states, this to produce functioning systems. Systems led to PEP rates over 100 percent. Now were directed to produce the requisite states can count only those paternities data for federal reporting, calculating established for children who enter the the state’s performance, and controlling child support system. This may not be completeness of data. realistic for many states to accomplish, and therefore federal-incentive money The 1996 welfare reform law allowed based on this standard may be increasingly state child support agencies to operate harder to earn. a centralized, automated unit for History and Statutory Framework of the Child Support System

42 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System collection and distribution of child receive meaningful medical support, System Support Child the of Framework Statutory and History support payments.88 The Child Support (3) early intervention should be used Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 to prevent the build-up of unpaid provided the Secretary of Health and support, and (4) state agencies should be Human Services with the authority to accountable to meet the standards refrain from imposing a 100 percent set out.94 penalty on states that failed to comply with automated system requirements if they The strategic plan identifies some were making a good faith effort to comply key approaches for accomplishing its and had submitted a “corrective action objectives. It emphasizes prevention and plan” demonstrating how they would early intervention, such as taking prompt achieve compliance.89 Both of these steps for missed payments, working rulings provided states with more leeway with parents to resume payments, and in developing their automated systems providing information and education to than the original legislation offered. parents about the impact of marriage and However, two state systems have still not single parenting on the financial security been certified by OCSE. The District was of children.95 Additionally, it encourages initially certified in 2000.90 proactively managing cases and communicating consistently with parents Strategic Plan to ensure reliable payments, establishing appropriate orders and closing cases when Indicative of a continuing evolution necessary, and using debt-leveraging.96 of the child support system, the latest Other measures stressed are simplifying strategic plan from the OCSE addresses distribution of collections in order to the agency’s desire to move towards more pay parents promptly, ensuring health family-friendly practices. The previous care, eliminating multi-state case barriers, strategic plan expressed a desire to “crack using collaboration protocols with other down on those parents who can but refuse agencies for data exchange and specific to support their children,” while the customer service for TANF clients, current plan takes a much more flexible and developing more effective locate tone.91 The plan for 2005-2009 focuses on procedures, service of process, and order being a “family-first program, intended to establishment tools, while also improving ensure families’ self-sufficiency by making enforcement and collection tools.97 child support a more reliable source of income.”92 These guiding principles align Implementation of these requirements with OCSE’s overall mission to “enhance at the state level will require increased the well-being of children by assuring resources. In 1984, Congress voted to … assistance in obtaining support….”93 make Section 1115(a) demonstration Distinguishing it from other strategic grants98 available to encourage and plans, the four central tenets of the fund pilot programs to test innovative current strategic plan are that (1) child approaches in child support. This funding support should be a reliable source of has begun to wane and many of the income for families, (2) children should pilot programs have failed to produce

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 43 successful results. Total funding for each and impede satisfactory performance project is divided between the grant on updated federal standards. Beyond award (29 percent), regular Title IV-D limited grant money, no increase in federal matching funds (66 percent), funding or administrative support was and the state share (at least 5 percent).99 made available to states to accompany the Only one million dollars has been new objectives covered in the strategic allocated over the next two years, enough plan for 2005-2009. In fact, the funding for only eight new projects nationwide.100 cuts in the DRA have been estimated at The limited funding opportunities $4.9 billion over the next ten years, or for child support agencies restrict $1.6 billion over five years.101 improvements in many jurisdictions History and Statutory Framework of the Child Support System

44 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Part III: Description of the District’s Child Support System

The Chapters in Part III explain the operations of the child support system in the District. Part III begins with a general introduction to the system, followed by a description of the children and families served by the system. Next is a description of how the child support process works. Finally, is an assessment of how effective that process is in serving the District’s children.

Photo by Michael Bonfigli. DC Appleseed 1. Introduction to Child Support in DC s Child Support System e t s y S t r o p p u S d l i h C ’s t c i r t s i D e h t f o n o i t p i r c s e D

The child support enforcement system in one-fifth received any child support in the the District of Columbia serves children last year. The resulting increase in child whose parents do not reside together. poverty is a scourge that the District The system is designed to enforce cannot afford. Children who live in the legal obligation of non-custodial poverty are at great risk of a host of social parents to contribute to their children’s problems, and those problems follow financial and health-care related needs, them into all of the District’s institutions, regardless of the current relationship including schools, courts, prisons, between those parents. This support welfare programs, and future families. is particularly important in the District where the vast majority of children in the The reach of the child support system child support system live in a low-income in the District is vast. With over 76,658 household headed by a single mother.

In DC, the vast majority of children with cases in the child support system are born to never-married parents. Many divorced or separated parents opt to make their own payment arrangements as part of their separation or divorce agreements, and avoid the formal child support enforcement system as long as the informal arrangements are working. While never-married women can make their own formal or informal child support arrangements, never-married women with children are among the children in its child support caseload,103 most likely District residents to live in the Office of the Attorney General poverty102 and to become involved in the (OAG) Child Support Services Division child support system through application (CSSD) is responsible for the welfare of for public benefits. more children than are in the DC Public schools and Public Charter Schools In fact, 70 percent of DC’s child support combined. While no data was available caseload consists of current or former to track the specific children that these welfare recipients – over 53,000 children two systems have in common, we know out of the 76,000 on the child support that the demographics are remarkably caseload. The child support system similar: largely African-American, and a represents a potential pathway out of substantial majority living in households poverty for these children. Yet, less than with annual income 200 percent below

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 47 the poverty line.104 For children in be poor, and … are also much more these low-income households, child likely to do poorly in school and twice support, if paid would constitute an as likely to drop out of school.”106 average of 30 percent of the family’s income. Similarly, a 2002 study from Oxford Furthermore, schoolchildren who University in England found that receive the child support to which they the benefits of father involvement in are entitled are more likely to finish a child’s upbringing include better high school and go to college than educational attainment, a decreased children who are entitled to support likelihood of trouble with police, and but do not receive it. Significantly, decreased likelihood of homelessness.107 this positive educational effect is independent of the amount of support Although an effective child support received. Regardless of the dollar system may be as important to the amount, the very fact of receiving child District’s children as an effective school support from an absent parent, in system, it is quite clear that our child practice, helps a child do better support system is not as effective as it in school. should be and therefore not properly

This latter fact illustrates the importance of child support as a form of father-involvement. Father involvement is not limited to residing with a child, but applies to virtually all forms of regular contact between fathers and their children. Research has demonstrated the importance of father involvement to children’s well-being. According to Stephen Baskerville of Howard University, “Virtually every major social pathology has been linked to fatherlessness: serving the District’s children. As violent crime, drug and alcohol Chapter 4 of Part III will detail, DC is abuse, truancy, teen pregnancy, well below the national average on all federal suicide -- all correlate more strongly performance measures. For example, the to fatherlessness than to any other District’s success rate in establishing single factor.”105 In Turning the Corner support orders for eligible children on Father Absence in Black America, is only 45 percent, compared to 70 The Morehouse Conference on percent nationwide. Of the 45 percent African American Fathers notes that, of absent parents issued an order, “compared to children with both parents only half actually made payments at home, children who live apart from on the order. When compared to their fathers are five times as likely to other medium-sized cities, DC does Description of the District’s Child Support System

48 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System s Child Support System e t s y S t r o p p u S d l i h C ’s t c i r t s i D e h t f o n o i t p i r c s e D not perform as well. From 2000-2002 to take the steps that other jurisdictions (the latest years for which this data is take to bring these non-custodial parents available), the District provided child into the system. support to 10 percent fewer custodial families than other medium-sized The District’s child support system cities.108 must do a better job of serving District children by reaching low-income non- Although this Report examines several custodial parents and creating a bridge explanations for such unfavorable to responsible parenthood. While statistics, the primary explanation is progress has been made in improving that the District essentially approaches the District’s system, its performance all absent fathers as deadbeats to be remains unacceptable in light of the punished rather than as parents to crucial role that child support plays in be sought out and involved with their children’s lives. children. As a result, the District fails

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 49 2. Who is Served by Child Support in DC?

Even though the DC child support system percent who have no high school diploma does not report specific demographic or or GED.111 The low-skilled, low-income income data on its service population, we population has even greater employment are able to describe that population based challenges in DC than elsewhere in the on other available data from the local and country. The District’s share of jobs national welfare system, as well as other requiring post-high school graduate data concerning DC’s population. education is more than triple the national average (9.9 percent compared CSSD receives about 70 percent of its to 3.3 percent nationwide), while jobs referrals of children in need of child requiring entry-level high school skills support through the Income Maintenance are a significantly smaller share of District Administration (IMA) of the District Department of Human Services, the local administrator of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Both of CSSD and IMA are creations of Title IV of the Social Security Act, and are often referred to by their titles and section numbers: child support agencies are known as IV-D agencies, and welfare agencies are IV-A agencies.

In 2005, 61,498 cases, 72.2 percent of CSSD’s 85,177 cases, involved current or former recipients of public assistance. employment than the nation as a whole These 61,498 cases include 29.5 percent (41 percent compared to 55.21 percent). who are current TANF recipients which Only 23.1 percent of District job growth is is almost twice the national average of forecasted in high school graduate entry- 15 percent.109 In 2006, the child support level categories versus 47.9 percent for the caseload dropped to 77,651, including nation and 48.5 percent for the region.112 27.2 percent current TANF recipients, 43.3 percent former TANF recipients, and only TANF recipients are not evenly spread 29.4 percent that never received TANF. throughout the District. Wards 7 and 8 have the highest concentrations of TANF, In DC, these TANF and former TANF Food Stamps, and Medicaid eligibility, recipients are very low income individuals, as well as the highest rates of births to with one-third living below 50 percent single mothers. This makes residents of of the poverty line.110 TANF and these Wards significantly more likely to former TANF recipients are a group of be involved in the child support system. custodial parents with multiple barriers Single mothers represent 78 percent and to employment, including nearly 38 76 percent, respectively, of the births in Description of the District’s Child Support System

50 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System s Child Support System e t s y S t r o p p u S d l i h C ’s t c i r t s i D e h t f o n o i t p i r c s e D

Wards 7 and 8, compared to the District and “deadbeat dads” for whom the average of 54 percent and the District child support enforcement system was low of 6 percent in Ward 3. Wards 7 optimally designed. Married couples, as and 8 are also among the Wards with a population, tend to be wealthier and the highest unemployment. In 2005, better educated, and divorced fathers are the District’s unemployment rate more likely than never-married fathers to was 6.5 percent, exceeding both the remain involved with their children for national and regional unemployment longer periods of time.118 Thus, CSSD’s rates (5.1 percent and 3.4 percent population of non-custodial parents respectively).113 Yet, the highest levels is more likely to be “dead broke” than of unemployment were concentrated deadbeat. Furthermore, many of these in Wards 5, 6, 7, and 8, with Ward 8 “dead broke” men are or have been having the highest unemployment rate involved with the criminal justice system. at 15.3 percent.114 Though specific data This impacts not only their ability to stay is unavailable, CSSD staff suggest that current on child support payments, but most of their caseload comes from Wards has implications for future employment 7 and 8, which is consistent with the and stability in the community as well. concentration of TANF recipients and out-of-wedlock births in those Wards. The increased likelihood that many non-custodial parents in DC have This demographic analysis strongly been involved with the criminal justice indicates that the population being system is supported by research from served by CSSD is a low-income, the Sentencing Project, a national undereducated and under-skilled black research and advocacy organization that population.115 In the District, 97 percent of Ward Ward City City City TANF recipients are 7 8 Average Low High African American and 82 percent of births Population, Black, Non-Hispanic, 2000 97.0% 93.0% 61.0% 6.2% 97.0% to single mothers in Poverty Rate, 2000 25.0% 36.0% 20.0% 7.5% 36.0% the District were to Unemployment Rate, 2000 14.0% 22.0% 11.0% 6.6% 22.0% non-Hispanic black women.116 Overall, the Persons without HS diploma, 2000 29.0% 34.0% 22.0% 4.0% 34.0% unemployment rate Female-headed families with children, 2000 67.0% 68.0% 52.0% 12.0% 68.0% for male and female African Americans in Children in poverty, 2000 37.0% 47.0% 32.0% 2.9% 47.0% DC is 14.5 percent.117 Births to Teen Mothers, 2000 18.0% 16.0% 11.0% 0.9% 18.0% This is a population Change in Avg. Family Income, 1990-2000 -4.2% -4.8% 9.7% -4.8% 21.0% very different from the middle class population Reported Violent Crimes, 2005 (per 1,000 pop.) 18.0 20.0 14.0 1.8 20.0 of divorced mothers

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 51 focuses on criminal justice system reform. There are several reasons for this According to the Sentencing Project’s unwillingness. For example, a custodial research, African Americans in DC are parent may not pursue support because 29 times more likely to face incarceration she knows that the father is not working than whites.119 Further, according to and will be unable to pay. Or, she may the US Department of Justice Bureau of already receive support informally whether Justice Statistics, nearly one in three (32 monetary, in-kind, or both. In that case, percent) of African American men will she would rather not jeopardize her enter State or Federal prison during their relationship with or existing support from lifetimes.120 Accordingly, CSSD estimates the father by bringing the formal system that one in four of the African American into their arrangement. Alternatively, men in the CSSD caseload are or have been she may be afraid that, if she pursues incarcerated.121 child support through formal channels, she or her children will suffer harm from It is not only the demographics of the the father.122 She may want no further population served by the child support relationship with the father and is worried system that needs to be considered. The that, if required to pay child support, he structure of the relationship between the child support system and its customers is equally important. The District is often in the position of pursuing child support against the wishes of the parent with custody. This plays out in several ways.

First, a custodial parent who applies for TANF benefits is required to provide identity and contact information for the father or “alleged father” (if legal paternity has not been established) of the child. The custodial parent must also assign rights to the state to any support will then be entitled to visitation. She collected from the father on the child’s would rather forego the income than allow behalf. A custodial parent who is required the father access to the child. It is also to cooperate with CSSD to be eligible for possible that a custodial parent may have welfare benefits is not a customer who is no information about the father, though pursuing child support by choice. While anecdotally such instances appear in some TANF recipients may be ignorant the minority. about their right to support, many have actively decided against pursuing an order Second, the custodial parent may not be on their own. It can be difficult to get aware that the public assistance and child paternity information from these unwilling support systems are linked. By applying customers. for TANF or Medicaid the custodial parent automatically opens a child support case. Description of the District’s Child Support System

52 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System She also may not be aware of the nature she could, in fact, prevent the formal s Child Support System e t s y S t r o p p u S d l i h C ’s t c i r t s i D e h t f o n o i t p i r c s e D of the linkage – or that information that is system from successfully functioning. shared between the systems. The Project team heard from custodial parents whose Without the assistance of custodial parents former partners were surprised and angry who may be the only ones who know for when they received notice of the child sure the paternity of their child, pursuing support case, not realizing that, when child support can be very difficult indeed. the custodial parent applied for public Yet CSSD reports that 83 percent of TANF assistance, a child support case would be applicants do not cooperate with the initiated. The team has also been told child support system in identifying and of instances where the mother denied locating the father, establishing paternity, any knowledge of the father to the child or collecting support. The idea that this support intake worker when, in fact, there system is supposed to be providing a was a Voluntary Acknowledgement of helpful and family-supportive service runs Paternity on file with the District Office of counter to the experience of custodial Vital Records, to which the child support parents who are forced to participate in the system has ready access. system against their will.

Finally, since TANF recipients ordinarily do The system’s structure is not conducive to not expect to see any benefit directly from optimal performance. At the same time, child support (and may even be afraid of though, the children living in families harm), they are not invested in helping that receive TANF benefits are among the system function well. The system is the most vulnerable of District youth and built around the idea that custodial parents the most in need of the financial and benefit and therefore want to collect child other benefits of child support. While all support, as most separated and divorced children deserve to receive the support of parents do. In DC, however, where most both parents, TANF recipients are among cases involve never-married parents and the poorest women and children in the 70 percent of the total caseload is initiated District. Children of TANF recipients are through mandatory referrals, this notion likely to suffer the worst consequences of does not ordinarily apply. Until recently, growing up without a father since they are TANF recipients received no child support also facing the challenges associated with money since the money was collected by family and neighborhood poverty, such the District as reimbursement for benefits. as substandard housing, poor nutrition, A $150 “pass-through” was lack of access to health care, enacted for FY06 allowing inadequate schools, violence, the first $150 collected each and teen parenthood. It is month in child support incumbent upon the District to be passed to the child’s government to find ways to household.123 If the custodial make the child support system parent receives any assistance work for these children. from the father informally or wishes to avoid him entirely,

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 53 3. The Child Support Process in DC

Process Overview can change before an order is ever put in place). CSSD has recently begun to Administrative and Judicial Systems describe its practices as administrative; According to a 2002 report by the in a questionnaire made available on the Lewin Group,124 child support programs Office of Child Support Enforcement operate in what can be best understood website to facilitate interstate as a continuum from administrative transactions, CSSD describes the system as “judicial with administrative consent to judicial practices. Some programs 126 are highly administrative - minimal process.” This description means that involvement of the court, minimal orders reached by consent of the parties involvement of attorneys, and the use can be established administratively but of administrative hearings for contested still need judicial approval. Whether cases. Other programs are highly this accurately describes the process is judicial – substantial involvement of the not clear, since judges typically require courts, an order establishment process hearings even when the judges are based on the court calendar, substantial presented with consent orders. The involvement of attorneys, and routine question of the extent and effective use court hearings for both contested and of CSSD’s administrative authority is non-contested cases. Another group, addressed in Part IV, Section B of which the Lewin Group Report refers this Report. to as “quasi-judicial,” borrows some elements of each. Case Initiation DC child support cases originate Most states tend towards the judicial, in one of three ways. The first is with 24 states scoring 14 or above on a direct referral from the Income a scale of 4 (highly administrative) to Maintenance Administration (IMA) of 16 (highly judicial), and only 7 States the Department of Human Services, scoring 6 or below. DC has a score the agency that administers public of 16, making it one of the most highly judicial jurisdictions. The Lewin Group research concludes that either type of system, if implemented well, is acceptable. Some experts have pointed out that judicial procedures tend to be slower, which can impact their child support agency’s success rate,125 especially in a population that lacks stable employment and Source: Administrative and Judicial Processes for Establishing financial security (the location and Child Support Orders, Lewin Group, June 2002. Description of thefinancial District’s Child situation Support System of the parties

54 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System s Child Support System e t s y S t r o p p u S d l i h C ’s t c i r t s i D e h t f o n o i t p i r c s e D benefits programs like TANF, Food paralegals meet with the non-custodial Stamps, and Medicaid. The referral parent prior to entering the courtroom occurs through an automated data to review documentation of income, sharing system between IMA and CSSD apply the guidelines to calculate the whenever a custodial parent initiates a amount of support required (which TANF or Medicaid case. The second is is based on both parents’ aggregate self-referral; applications for services are incomes), and present the court their accepted from any DC resident. For a recommendation for a child nominal fee, CSSD will provide paternity support order. establishment, locate and service of process, order establishment, order Establishing an Order enforcement, or any combination of DC Superior Court Family Court has these services. The third is by request an Expedited Child Support Division from another state via the Uniform which consists of three magistrate Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), judges whose caseload consists entirely which requires states to cooperate of paternity and child support cases. In in establishing and enforcing orders the courtroom, the judge will review the that originate in other jurisdictions recommendation made by CSSD, concur if the originating state can establish or raise questions depending upon what personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state is presented, and sign the order. If the parent.127 non-custodial parent is unemployed or lacks documentation of income, the Upon receiving a referral or application judge will typically sign a temporary for services, CSSD first locates the non- child support order and require the custodial parent using the Federal non-custodial parent to return to court Parent Locator Service (FPLS) or in a few months time with additional other automated and non-automated paperwork, including proof of job - information sources, and files a motion search activity if appropriate. with the court to establish paternity (if necessary) or a child support order. The Once an order has been signed, and if court calendars the case and issues a the non-custodial parent is employed, Notice of Hearing and Order Directing CSSD follows up by sending wage Appearance (NOHODA), which CSSD withholding orders to the employer is then responsible for serving on the of the non-custodial parent’s. If the non-custodial parent. (In TANF cases, non-custodial parent is ordered to because the custodial parent is a witness provide health insurance through and not technically a party to the case, his employer, the employer will also she is not ordered to appear.) In receive a National Medical Support court, if paternity has not been legally Notice (NMSN). CSSD is responsible established, the non-custodial parent for providing copies of the order to the will be given an opportunity to sign a custodial parent, and/or advising them voluntary acknowledgement or the judge whether additional court appearances will order genetic testing. If paternity will be necessary. In addition, CSSD is is not in question, CSSD attorneys or responsible for maintaining case records

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 55 and safeguarding information to ensure both parties, writing and filing motions accuracy and integrity. CSSD contracted to establish or modify orders, or charging out their responsibility to manage the delinquent non-custodial parents with collection and disbursement of funds contempt, conferencing with the non- to Systems and Methods, Incorporated, custodial parent about the order amount, beginning in late 2004. representing the District in court,130 and communicating with the custodial parent. Enforcement – Court and CSSD Roles CSSD is also responsible for conducting For court-ordered child support, CSSD is triennial reviews of the public assistance responsible for identifying cases of non- caseload, and moving for upward or payment and filing motions for contempt. downward modification of orders CSSD may file motion for either civil or as appropriate. criminal contempt,128 though, according to CSSD staff, CSSD is significantly more The court’s role is to calendar the likely to use the civil option than the cases, adjudicate paternity if not yet criminal option.129 Each judge has a established, evaluate and establish orders weekly contempt calendar in which the (whether based on the child support judge hears these non-compliance cases guideline, agreement by the parties or on both “first appearance” and review recommended by CSSD) and determine bases. CSSD must provide evidence when sufficient information is available of non-payment, a calculation of the for an order to be made permanent, arrearage amount, and is typically asked for an ex-parte order to be issued, and/ to recommend a course of action. or a bench warrant issued for failure Specifically, CSSD is asked to recommend to appear. The court also determines whether the motion for contempt should responses to contempt filings. In addition be held in abeyance to give the father an to these judicial responsibilities, the court opportunity to comply with an agreed has also entered into a Memorandum of upon payment plan, or if incarceration Understanding with CSSD governing the or other intervention is warranted. CSSD use of conferencing space, availability of is working to implement by the end of office space and computers, and other the current fiscal year an automated logistical matters. case screening process to refer cases for contempt when appropriate, without the Although the court is involved in need for the custodial parent to request adjudicating contempt hearings and this action. Additionally, CSSD plans to to some extent in regularly reviewing incorporate as a part of the new contempt temporary orders,131 enforcement is process a final attempt to invite the non- exclusively managed by CSSD. The custodial parent to CSSD office to create a division of responsibilities within CSSD payment plan prior to the hearing. is not well understood by parents. For In summary, CSSD is responsible for example, at the resolution of a contempt conducting intake with the custodial case, a non-custodial parent whose parent, locating and serving the non- driver’s license has been revoked will custodial parent, verifying income for frequently seek the court’s help in having Description of the District’s Child Support System

56 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System s Child Support System e t s y S t r o p p u S d l i h C ’s t c i r t s i D e h t f o n o i t p i r c s e D it re-issued, only to be told that the process support guideline every four years. 134 is handled at CSSD’s office and the court Child support guidelines were initially has no role in the license revocation. adopted by the DC Council in 1990.135 A Child Support Guideline Commission was Representation created in 2003 to review the guideline and make recommendations to the Mayor for In order to resolve potential conflicts of changes based on, among other things, interest stemming from the complexity the changing demographic of the District of family relationships in its cases, CSSD and changes in federal law. Chaired by determined to stop representing parents the Interim Administrator of the Youth in child support matters. Instead, CSSD Services Administration of the Department now represents the District in its “interest of Human Services, the Commission in ensuring that children are adequately included judges, representatives of the DC supported.”132 Under this policy, custodial Council Judiciary Committee, the private parents are no longer considered “clients” bar, community-based social services, entitled to the confidentiality and other and legal services organizations, several privileges of attorney-client relationships. with experience working directly for Custodial parents instead became the child support system. CSSD offered “customers.” In practice, this change comments and assistance to the Guideline in policy often has little practical effect, Commission. From 2003-2004, the especially because the interests of the Guideline Commission worked to review custodial parent often align closely with the 1990 Guideline, with the following CSSD, i.e., requiring the non-custodial goals in mind: parent to pay child support. ■ Address the needs of children Child Support Guidelines and ability of parents to pay. ■ Provide more consistency and A key factor in child support matters predictability in child support is the child support guideline. These orders. state-legislated guidelines are used in ■ Propose a new Guideline that establishing just orders, and were required would appear to be fair. by federal law in order to limit the ■ Ease the administration discretion of the courts in determining required of child support cases the amount of support owed by non- in establishing and modifying custodial parents.133 The guideline is a orders.136 numerical statement of child support policy articulating, among other things, After a series of public feedback how income should be calculated and what opportunities and commentary kinds of costs are included in parents’ on proposed changes, the final financial obligations to their children. recommendations of the Guideline Commission were released in July 2004. The federal Family Support Act of 1998 These recommendations were enacted requires states to review their child (with slight variations) by the DC Council

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 57 as the Child Support Guideline Revision While the New Guideline is an essential Act of 2006 (New Guideline), and went component of child support policy into effect on April 1, 2007. and practice, the Project team did not separately analyze its substance in this The New Guideline provides a formula Report. The Project team believes that the which is applied to both parents’ income. Guideline Commission did a commendable The New Guideline attempts to better job in developing its recommendations, address the realities of low-income and the Mayor and the DC Council did non-custodial parents and account for their part in turning the recommendations non-custodial parents with incomes into legislation. There was some dissension above $75,000.137 For example, the in the community concerning whether 1990 Guideline was silent on whether the Commission recommendations means-tested public assistance counted were sufficiently attentive to the needs as income while the New Guideline of low-income custodial parents (who, explicitly excludes this income. The for example, do not have the option of New Guideline includes a “self-support setting aside a self-support reserve before reserve” for non-custodial parents so that considering the needs of their children). the lowest-income non-custodial parent This is an important concern. It remains can maintain at least a minimum income. to be seen how the New Guideline will be The New Guideline gives judges leeway implemented, and whether it will result to vary from the guidelines (down to $0) in fairer orders. As policy, however, it if the non-custodial parent’s income is represents a dramatic improvement over less than 133 percent of poverty.138 It also the 1990 Guideline insofar as it takes better limits the total amount of income that account of economic realities for low- can be withheld to pay child support. income families as well as providing better The federal Consumer Credit Protection guidance for upper-income families. Act (CCPA) limits the percentage of aggregate disposable earnings that can Pass-Through be withheld from an individual for child support to between 50 to 60 percent. The In a step very much supported by child Commission recommended and the DC and poverty advocates, the District recently Council adopt a cap on child and medical enacted a $150 child support pass-through, support payments at 35 percent of the making it the first jurisdiction in the non-custodial parent’s gross income, which Nation to increase its pass-through and is roughly equivalent to the 50 percent income disregard above $50 a month since CCPA net income threshold.139 Unlike the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act the 1990 Guideline, which calculated a of 2005.140 Under this enactment, the first presumptive amount along with a high and $150 per month collected by the District low variation, the New Guideline provides on behalf of a TANF recipient goes directly a dollar figure and a number of factors that to the family instead of to the District to judges are permitted to consider in varying reimburse it and the federal government from the New Guideline amount. for TANF and Medicaid expenditures. Description of the District’s Child Support System

58 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Any amount above the $150 is still withheld also encourage payment m e t s y S by t r o p p non-custodial u S d l i h C ’s t c i r t s i D e h t f o n o i t p i r c s e D by the District for that purpose. The pass- parents who resent being compelled to through went into effect April 1, 2006, and make child support payments that never was retroactive to October, 2005. The fiscal reach their child’s household. analysis of the bill putting the cost of the program at $1.47 million suggests that this The pass-through policy and the self- pass-through would affect approximately support reserve instituted by the New 700 to 1,000 families out of the 21,000 Guideline put DC in the forefront of currently receiving TANF.141 This pass- progressive policy on child support. There through is significant not only because it have also been changes at the Office of potentially provides more resources to this the Attorney General that have raised small number of single-parent families, but the internal profile of the Child Support also because it can change the dynamic Services Division and suggest a shift in between the child support system and focus. These include elevating the status the compelled customer population.142 of CSSD to a division of its own; another While CSSD intake staff report that was to rename the agency. Instead of Child implementation of the pass-through has Support Enforcement Division (CSED), not had much impact on the cooperation the agency became the Child Support of those who want nothing to do with Services Division. Substituting “services” the formal system or who expect that the for “enforcement” is part of an effort to formal system will not work, it may help reframe the CSSD’s role and align it with CSSD keep better track of custodial parents the direction of the federal OCSE. so that they can receive their full payments directly upon leaving TANF.143 It may

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 59 60 Description of the District’s Child Support System Taking Care oftheDistrict’s Children “incentive pool”allocated byCongress. assistance cases);and(3) thedesignated and weightedtowardcurrent andformer (a calculationbasedon statecollections attained; (2)thestate’s “collection base” is as longaminimumperformance resultsinhigherpayment performance indicators: (1)performance, Incentive paymentsarerelatedtothree medical support. standard relatedtoprovisionof toaddasixth There areplansunderway incentives andpenaltiesarebased. reliability ofthedataonwhichthese States undergoregularauditstoensure targetareasfollow: performance two whichareincentive-basedonly. The either incentivepaymentorpenalty, and five areas,threeofwhichcanresultin standardscover federal performance or subjecttofinancialpenalties.The to beeligibleforfundingincentives evaluated againstfederalstandards enforcement agencieslikeCSSDare As mentionedabove,childsupport 4. HowistheDistrictDoing? ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Costeffectiveness(dollars Percentageofcaseswith Percentageofcurrentcollections Percentageofopenchild Paternityestablishment(which (incentive only). collected relative to dollars spent) (incentive only). collections onarrearages amount owed. on openordersrelativetothe established. support caseswithorders child supportcaseload). or amongchildrenwithinthe all childrenofnon-maritalbirths, can bemeasuredeitheramong : The NeedtoReformDC’s ChildSupportSystem 144 i.e. , better following minimums. on thestandards,statesmustachieve In ordertoreceiveincentivepayments within theirrespective states. jurisdictions the poorer-performing typicallyrepresent around thecountry medium tolargecities, urbanareas marital birthsthatoccur inthenation’s the demographics and high levels of non- suburban, andruralgeographies.Given entire states,withtheirblendofurban, jurisdictions, DCismeasuredagainst standards appropriateforlargeurban than beingcomparedtoandheld the Districtatadisadvantage.Rather Thisstructurehasplaced performance. evaluated andcompensatedfortheir the strictstandardsbywhichstatesare withstates and in thiscloseinterface Federal childsupportlawisunique increase 4percent, between 45percentand49must previous year;stateswithperformances by3percentover the its performance percent and74mustimprove had apreviousrateofbetween50 paternity establishment,astatethat example, toavoidbeingpenalizedfor must demonstrateimprovement.For for thefirstthreestandards,states In addition,inordertoavoidpenalties 40percent ■ 40percent ■ 50percent ■ 50percent ■ ■ Costeffectiveness:2.00+( ArrearageCollections: CurrentCollections: Orderestablishment: Paternityestablishment: every $1.00spent) every at least$2.00collectedfor etc . 145 Butthe i.e ., DescriptionDescription ofof thethe District’sDistrict’s ChildChild SupportSupport SystemSystem 61 form of any : The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Need to Reform DC’s The : Again, though, this is well Again, though, 147 Taking Care of the District’s Children of the District’s Care Taking stagnated. The collection rate has gone from 51.22 percent in 2004, to 52.89 percent in 2005, to 52.5 percent in 2006, though this masks the fact that only 23 percent of cases received payment, suggesting that a small number of orders account for a significant portion among the different service populations. is 30 percent The order establishment rate cases, 44 percent for for current TANF cases, and 61 percent for former TANF has cases in which the custodial parent This suggests that never received TANF. performance is worse where the need is greater. Other performance markers have DC has also improved its order also improved DC has percent, up from rate to 45 establishment 2004 and 39.6 percent 34.9 percent in in 2005. average, which in below the national percent. The District 2005 was 75.87 this year because will avoid a penalty improvement in its of the 5.4 percent but will not receive establishment rate, because the rate an incentive payment It should also be is below 50 percent. percent noted that approximately four to a of the increase can be attributed case reduction in caseload through closures. In addition, the 45 percent average includes significant variation The Paternity Establishment 146 percent. Program in DC has been contracted to Policy Studies, Inc., a Denver-based organization, since 2005. measures. DC is no longer subject to penalties for its paternity establishment rate, which has gone from 64 percent in 2004 to 78 percent in 2006. Even so, this percentage is much lower than the national average, which in 2006 was 97.87 diminishes long-term performance capacity. DC has made some significant improvements in the stated federal on how time-consuming and difficult on how time-consuming and difficult it is to apply for and manage federal to meet grants. With a system struggling performance goals in even the most basic to procedural operations, the inability pursue additional resources only further grants, run and evaluate demonstration grants, run and evaluate demonstration engage projects, study best practices and in other functions that serve to enhance and improve overall performance. The current CSSD Director has commented such networks than others to administer such networks than others to administer or operate the programs. State whether they are the offices, however, operators or administrators, typically their have much greater capacity than manage local counterparts to write and performboth local and the functions of Most states operate state jurisdictions. network with a local or regionally-based of child support service agencies, with to some states granting more autonomy that raises the statewide performance.that raises the statewide DC or suburban areas to has no such rural provide balance. in many arenas governed In addition, as DC must and local law, by federal, state, rural and suburban and smaller urban smaller urban suburban and rural and create a balance states ordinarily areas of 62 Description of the District’s Child Support System Taking Care oftheDistrict’s Children DC’s childsupportsystembasedon the indirectly impactsthefinancial viabilityof comparison tostates,and thiscomparison It istruethatDCtends tosufferunfairlyby families andchildren. District’s numbers, itwillgenuinelyhelp custodial parentswillnotonlybringupthe Removing barrierstocompliancefornon- attention towhoisnotpayingandwhy. there ismoretobegainedinpayingbetter themwithprocess, parents andserving functions, likelocatingnon-custodial this liesinassessingandimprovingbasic Whilesomeoftheremedyfor served. end, childrenarenotbeingsufficiently not raisingthecollectionrate,then,in is raisingtheorderestablishmentrate,but link betweenthemeasures.IfDistrict missing here,however, isrecognition ofthe gets counteddone.Whatseemstobe extent. Asinallevaluationsystems,what system guidesthetoasignificant evaluation The childsupportperformance number shouldgobackup. made toimprovethesystem,butthenthat number wouldgodownasinvestmentsare expected thatthecosteffectiveness dollarspent.Itmightbe for every in 2006wasapproximately$4.58collected The nationalaverageforcosteffectiveness ratesearlierinthedecade. performance in 2004to$2.532006,similarthe cost effectivenessdeclinedfrom$3.14 2006, theaveragewas60.07percent.And 41.7 percentin2006.Forallstates 43.68 percentin2005,butthenfellto gone from42.33percentin2004,to Arrears collectionsfortheDistricthave 60.35 percent. collection rateforstatesin2006was of thecollections.Thenationalaverage : The NeedtoReformDC’s ChildSupportSystem District’s inferior performance onthese District’s inferiorperformance system. Theclearmessagefromthe support system, andinadequatereentry poorly coordinatedworkforcedevelopment rates, andahighcostofliving,aswell high unemployment,incarceration income African-Americanfamiliesfacing functioning childsupportsystem–low- in particularthosemostneedofawell- the childsupportcaseloadinDistrict, population. Thepointistobetterserve on expectationsofadiversestatewide the federalstandardswhicharebased not tocalluponCSSDbetterserve The pointofthisReport,however, is system offederalincentivesandpenalties. these children. can andmustdomuchbetterinserving Part IVofthisReport–isthattheDistrict –presentedin analysis ofthisperformance are receivingnopaymentsatall.Our 50,000 childreninthechildsupportsystem Infact,asearliernoted,over well served. children inthispopulationarenotbeing federal measuresisthatfartoomany Part IV: Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System

Part IV of the Report contains our specific findings and recommendations for improving child support outcomes in the District of Columbia. Chapters are broken down according to general categories: relations between the child support system and parents, relations between CSSD and the courts, and issues that are internal to CSSD. Although there is overlap, these areas are addressed separately.

Photo by Michael Bonfigli. DC Appleseed Section A: Improving Services to Parents

Chapter 1: Outreach and Early Intervention

Chapter 2: Unemployed and Underemployed Non-Custodial Parents

Chapter 3: Incarcerated Parents and Ex-Offenders

Chapter 4: Minor Parents and Immigrants

Chapter 5: Managing Child Support Arrears

Photo by Michael Bonfigli. 1. Outreach and Early Intervention

Introduction intervention to promote better child support compliance is, as even CSSD One of the most powerful myths acknowledges, a work in progress, not operating in the child support system only because of time pressure, limited in the District of Columbia is that all resources, and case management non-custodial parents want to evade structure but because of the lingering their obligation to pay child support. effects of the historic belief that CSSD Belief in this myth largely determines principally serves custodial parents and how the non-custodial parent is initially is adverse to non-custodial parents. This approached and treated by the child belief has its origins in the adversarial support system. This belief also leads justice system in which CSSD is situated, CSSD to impose the child support a system that has never been the most obligation as forcefully as possible, appropriate place to manage family using the “strong arm of the law” to gain matters which are rarely as simple as cooperation, and a variety of “after-the- “us” vs. “them.” To further complicate fact” enforcement mechanisms to gain matters, the DC Superior Court Family compliance from delinquent obligors. Court has been reluctant to trust CSSD The problem with this approach is that, to engage non-custodial parents outside while it works well in some cases, in of a judicial setting, citing concern that many cases it works against building the the interaction might be perceived as kind of relationship that can encourage coercive. Missing from this perspective the consistent, reliable child support is the recognition that assisting non- payments that custodial parents want and custodial parents actually serves children that children need. It also counteracts and custodial parents, and vice-versa, and the benefits that contact with the non- the failure to assist non-custodial parents custodial parent can have for the child. constitutes a disservice to children and Experience in other jurisdictions has custodial parents. While CSSD does helped to dispel this myth, providing not currently have the resources to evidence that many, if not most, non- provide intensive case management custodial parents will approach their services to non-custodial parents who are child support obligation willingly, if unemployed and facing multiple barriers invited and supported in doing so.148 to employment and stability, it can and And the converse is true: when non- should provide friendly, informative custodial parents are not approached in services specific to the child support this supportive way, they are often lost to process and referrals to related services. the system and the children are the losers. Successful child support agencies in other jurisdictions have adopted The idea of conducting outreach, an outreach and early intervention providing information, and using early approach,149 and although CSSD has Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve

66 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System made strides in this regard, including This Chapter discusses the various ways creating a Paternity and Outreach Section in which child support agencies can in 2005, significant room for improvement successfully conduct outreach and provide remains. Other more successful agencies information and services to custodial and try to engage non-custodial parents early non-custodial parents. The Chapter also in their child support payment cycle addresses the impact of these practices on to help them become familiar with the child support collections. It looks at ways expectations of the system, as well as in which the District of Columbia’s child alerting them to their options should support system could continue to improve their circumstances change. Since most its performance by adopting some of the child support is recouped through wage strategies from other jurisdictions, and withholding, many non-custodial parents ways in which the court and CSSD can work never actually write a check to a child together on this issue. support agency, or do it only once or twice before wage withholding goes into effect. Federal Mandates Therefore, getting non-custodial parents to comply with child support orders requires There is minimal guidance in Federal law a deeper understanding of the obstacles to regarding the need to conduct outreach. compliance for non-custodial parents. The Current regulations, 45 CFR § 302.30, issues that can and do interfere with the require states to provide in their State regular payment of child support include, Plan that they will use public service without limitation, the following: how the announcements to publicize “regularly order was established, how the amount of and frequently” the availability of support the order was determined, the relationship enforcement services. According to the between the custodial and non-custodial federal regulations, publicity must include parent, the relationship between the information on any application fees for non-custodial parent and the child, the the services and a telephone number or appropriateness of the child support mailing address where further information enforcement tools to the individual obligor, may be obtained. Intervention for non- the employability of the non-custodial payment is required to occur “within no parent. Many child support agencies in more than 30 calendar days of identifying other jurisdictions are beginning to address a delinquency or other support-related these issues, focusing their efforts on the non-compliance with the order.”150 If front-end of the process through which the service of process is required, enforcement orders are established and the relationship action is required within 60 days.151 If between the agency and the non-custodial parent. the enforcement action fails, the child By doing so, these other child support support agency is required to examine agencies have frequently secured more the reason and determine when it would consistent, reliable child support payments be appropriate to take further action.152 for the custodial parent and child. These enforcement criteria are among

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 67 those required to be assessed in the Annual But CSSD’s community reputation is also State Self-Assessment Review and Report.153 partly a result of well-known systemic problems at CSSD. These include a very Challenges in the District low collection and disbursement rate among public assistance cases, a low Outreach rate of successful process service, and an With minimal guidance from federal law, approach to non-custodial parents that, at the District has discretion to determine least in the eyes of the community, focuses the value it places on outreach and any Recent Newspaper Headlines: early intervention “Deadbeat Parent Sweep Yields 20 Arrests” WYFF4.com, SC, May 4, 2007. activity that is not explicitly part of “Child Support Deadbeats Nabbed” Lake County News-Sun, IL, February 14, 2007. “enforcement.” Thus “Man sentenced on 18 charges of criminal non support” Bedford Bulletin, VA, February 14, 2007. far, CSSD has made “Arrests orders for parents owing support” Patriot-News, PA, July 3, 2007. limited but not nearly “Deadbeat Parent? Take the Bus” KCPW, UT, January 18, 2007. sufficient investment “Find a Way to Make Deadbeat Parents Pay” Morning Sentinel, ME, June 18, 2007. in these areas. “Deadbeat Dads Arrested on Father’s Day” Heartland News, Cook County, IL, June 18, 2007. For example, the “Ad Nabs 2 Child Support Debtors” Philadelphia Daily News, PA, June 8, 2007. agency has only two employees working “Deadbeat Dad Gets Prison on Child Support Charges” North Country Gazette, NY, April 21, 2007. in its Paternity and “Deadbeats Feature Monthly” The Enquirer, OH, May 22, 2007. Community Outreach Section, which has primary responsibility for overseeing the almost exclusively on punitive enforcement Paternity Establishment Program contract. measures.

Our research indicates that the absence Treatment of Non-Custodial Parents of a deliberate and well-funded outreach At CSSD, beyond areas related to paternity strategy has left the child support system establishment, there are virtually no with a poor reputation among both systemic services available for non- custodial and non-custodial parents. It custodial parents. The initial contact is generally perceived as being unfair to that non-custodial parents have with the fathers and ineffective for mothers.154 child support system is often via service of These impressions are, in part, a public process which includes the admonition that relations issue insofar as CSSD has not failure to appear can result in a warrant for taken charge of the message it should be arrest. CSSD thus misses an opportunity communicating to its DC audience; in fact, to provide non-custodial parents with one staff member of OAG indicated that supplemental materials at the point CSSD relies on news coverage of “deadbeat that they are the most receptive to the dad roundups” in other local communities information155 and instead provides them Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve to communicate its message. additional information after the order has been established.156 As a result, non- custodial parents are unlikely to reach out

68 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System to the system to ask questions until their members of the service population do not first appearance in court. Recently, CSSD have positive experiences with the legal began an initiative to invite non-custodial system or with public benefits systems in parents to receive process in its office general,160 they are likely to perceive the and to have questions answered, but the child support experience negatively unless imitative’s success is yet to be evaluated. the system takes affirmative steps to address When they do come to court, non- these perceptions. custodial parents, who are not usually represented by counsel, meet only briefly Although CSSD expends substantial time with a CSSD attorney or paralegal who and effort in the establishment process calculates the order amount according to (intake, locate, service, hearing), it typically a strict application of the Child Support is uninvolved following order establishment Guideline, leaving minimal room (or unless the non-custodial parent misses time) for discussion or negotiation. Non- multiple payments.161 In those cases, custodial parents are not entitled to the non-custodial parent is warned that, counsel and are generally uninformed unless payment is made immediately, his about child support, about how the driver’s license will be revoked. If the guidelines work, or about their rights and revocation is in error, it is incumbent upon options.157 Because CSSD is not seen as an the obligor to prove the mistake. Such ally by non-custodial parents, when those actions naturally create an antagonistic parents need help, they frequently do not relationship from the outset.162 Even contact CSSD. non-custodial parents who have been completely compliant are advised in court In fact, non-custodial parents report feeling that, if they fail to appear for their next that they are being “interrogated” and court date, a warrant may be issued for “bullied” by CSSD staff, particularly by their arrest. As required by federal law, the attorneys.158 According to community CSSD sends an annual letter to all obligors, service providers, the attitude at CSSD regardless of their payment history, is even worse with respect to Spanish- advising them of the various enforcement speaking clients.159 Given that many techniques that CSSD has at its disposal.

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 69 70 Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System Taking Care oftheDistrict’s Children custodial parents.OAG, likeallDistrict to non- no effortstoimproveservices This isnottosaythatthere havebeen Customer Service parents’ children. because doingsowillbenefitthose the sakeofparents,butrather relationships withnon-custodialparentsfor and District needstoimproveitsservices perceptions. Thepointhereisnotthatthe experience inordertochangepublic must bebolsteredbypositivecustomer parents, butthesecommunications additional informationtonon-custodial efforts toincreasecontactandprovide jurisdictions. CSSDhasrecentlybegun that haveworkedeffectivelyinother CSSD toimproveitsoutreachinways there aresignificantopportunitiesfor it. Asexplainedinsubsequentchapters, a non-threateningwaytoparentswhoneed could providechildsupportinformationin faith-based ornon-profitagenciesthat groups, based organizations,jobservice broadly oreffectivelywithcommunity- cities, CSSDcurrentlydoesnotpartner support.Unlikeotherstatesand monetary despite thefactthathepaidlittlein was activelyinvolvedwithhischildren to paychildsupport.Thisparticularfather parental rights)sothathewouldnothave should “giveuphisrights”( for example,wastoldbyhisfriendsthathe well-informed. Onenon-custodialparent, contact withpeerswhoarenotnecessarily their timeincourt,theyarelikelytohave contact withthesystembeforeorevenafter While non-custodialparentshavelimited non-custodial parentsfeellikecriminals. can havetheeffectofmakingevenpaying These heavy-handedpunitiveapproaches : The NeedtoReformDC’s ChildSupportSystem i.e ., terminate room toaddresstheneedsofwalk-in staff willbeassignedtotheofficewaiting Liaison Unit.”TheCustomerUnit initiativecalledthe“Customer service recently committedtoanewcustomer is cleanandcomfortable. and ensuringthattheofficewaitingarea bridging internalandexternalaffairs, management wouldbemorefocusedon and establishmentunits)sothatits (which includestheintake,locateservice, unitoutof“Operations” customer service efforts includetherecenttransitionof CSSD’simproving itscustomerservice. administration, putsubstantialeffortsinto agencies underformerMayorWilliams’ automated service. Customerscomplain automated service. other informationprovided throughthe and raisesquestionsabout theaccuracyof This inaccuracyispotentiallyconfusing orientation). as symbolicofanewservice Division change toChildSupportServices CSSD pointswithpridetothename Support EnforcementDivisionalthough or thedivision(itstillreferstoChild to theOfficeofCorporationCounsel) the namechangeatOAG(itstillrefers system wasneverupdatedtoreflecteither The CSSDgeneralofficenumbervoicemail Despite theseefforts,problemscontinue. qualityandcustomersatisfaction. service GPRA istopromoteanewfocusonresults, (GPRA). and ResultsAct Government Performance through theimplementationof of ChildSupportEnforcement(OSCE) Office U.S. HealthandHumanServices’ bythe on improvedcustomerservice complementsafocus to customerservice Thelocalattention continuity ofservice. to customerlastnameincrease customers andwillbeassignedaccording 163 Oneofthekeypurposes

CSSD hasalso 164 Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System 71

167 : The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Need to Reform DC’s The :

Taking Care of the District’s Children of the District’s Care Taking And only limited materials are available in Spanish and none are available in any language other than Spanish or English. CSSD recognizes the benefit of survival kits targeted to non-custodial parents but therefore kept informed. Materials Outreach CSSD had few Until very recently, brochures or other written materials in any explaining the child support system non- detail. Materials directed towards at custodial parents were not available CSSD or elsewhere in the community. Community advocates have serious concerns about the ability of non-custodial and parents to understand the system CSSD has what is required of them. While recently compiled a Customer Survival Kit, the materials in the kit appear to have been designed primarily for custodial parents (many implicitly address themselves to a custodial parent audience) and tend to be difficult to read. None of the materials address the meaning of or the benefits of responsible fatherhood participating in the child support system. are not informed about court dates and court dates and informed about are not one For example, events. other important informed that her child’s parent was never was arrested on a non-custodial parent CSSD appears to expect bench warrant. will be proactive in that custodial parents Custodial parents, in seeking information. expect that CSSD will contrast, generally and enforce orders proactively establish informed. This contributes and keep them as reputation in some quarters to CSSD’s otherwise,an agency that keeps records but do as one parent said to us, “doesn’t custodial anything.” CSSD maintains that of petitions parents are sent courtesy copies are for paternity and/or support and

165

166 parents feel that they do not have an advocate for their case and frequently somewhat different. They complain that they are not kept sufficiently informed years Months or even about case activity. will go by without custodial parents being advised about the status of their case. Without a specific contact person, custodial any variations based on who answered the phone or whether an answering machine identified the individual. The concerns of custodial parents are we fully support CSSD going forward with would require so, however, do them. To tone and particular attention to both the spoken content of written materials and to the team messages. The script provided for the phone contact did not include dates. While the court has expressed dates. While the court has expressed might be some concern that these contacts are some perceived as coercive, and there have privacy concerns, other jurisdictions and implemented such practices effectively, To improve the likelihood that non- improve the To in court, custodial parents would appear friendly CSSD has proposed drafting a a notice letter and implementing the telephone contact process to advise court non-custodial parent about any secured funds to make the necessarysecured funds to the system. Procurement, enhancments to and, in the is “running its course” however, meantime, inaccuracies persist. This is particularly likely when the call is This is particularly such to the caller, not especially urgent of the call is only as when the purpose of address. CSSD to provide a change need for a new Automated recognizes the System and has apparently Response Voice of difficulty in reaching a staff person, and a staff person, in reaching of difficulty giving up entirely. report some customers 72 Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System Taking Care oftheDistrict’s Children it importanttomychild toestablish Support Orders,”followed by“Whyis that beginswithtexton “Establishing the linkforPaternityleads toawebpage the websiteisillustratedbyfollowing: The poororganizationofinformationon also commonplace. which arenotquicklyfixed custodial parents insufficient detailtobeofusenon- to custodialparents support payments,thesectionisaddressed of themeansCSSDusestoenforcechild while itdoescontainbriefdescriptions random information. described asahodgepodgeofseemingly designed andcontainswhatcanonlybe the targetpopulation.Thesiteispoorly location withinOAGisnotself-evidentto General’s (OAG)webpage,CSSD’s accessed fromtheOfficeofAttorney a directlink.Whilethesiteismoreeasily government homepagedoesnotcontain friendly. TheDistrictofColumbia CSSD’s webpageisequallynon-user adapted tothepopulationbeserved. a goodfirststep,buttheyneedtobebetter and uninformed.CSSD’s recenteffortsare non-custodial parentstofeeloverwhelmed representation areanearguaranteefor materials combinedwithalackoflegal support systemneedstoreach,complex low-income populationthatthechild illiteracy inDC,particularlyamongthe expenditure. Giventhehighlevelsof kits wouldprovetobeaworthwhile uninformed, providingsuchsurvival parents whocurrentlyfeelignoredand their benefittoeducatingnon-custodial pamphlets (CSSDsuggests$7000)and Given therelativelymodestcostofsuch cites lackofresourcestoproducethem. . Reportsofbrokenlinks : The NeedtoReformDC’s ChildSupportSystem 168

and contains For example, 169

parents needtoknow, whatnon-custodial by audience(forexample,whatcustodial in relationtotheprocedures,ororganized is alphabeticalratherthanchronological paternity testandwhopays?”).Themenu be expectedtoask(suchas,“howdoIgeta basic proceduralquestionsthatusersmight does thesitedirectlyaddressanyof to findtheabovereferencedtable.Nor Works,” whichiswhereonemightexpect there isnolinkto“HowtheGuideline helpful, itisbasicallyhidden.Forexample, While allofthisinformationispotentially according tothechildsupportguideline. the percentageofincomeowedperchild, paternity?” followedbyatablethatcharts and theSuperiorCourt’s FamilyLaw Self- providers are available.Community service libraries andothersites wherecomputers personal computers,they dohaveaccessto populationdonothave in theCSSDservice court orgovernmentworkers.Whilemany representatives), employers,andother non-custodial parents(andtheiralliesor access it-includingcustodialparentsand the differentaudiencesthatarelikelyto support thisandencourageinputfrom capacity formoreinteractivity. We fully to creategreaterfunctionalityandthe CSSD hasproposedupgradingitswebsite information. internet skillsandisinneedofclear, basic isunlikelytobesophisticatedin served remembered thatthepopulationtobe technical andoverlycritical,itmustbe maysoundhyper-While theseobservations parents canfillinonlineandprintout. is theOnlineChildSupportPacket,which information willbefoundthere.Another but again,thereisnowaytoknowwhat akin toaFrequentlyAskedQuestionslink, highlights isthe“tips”section,which parents needtoknow).Oneofthefew Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System 73 These 173 of non- : The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Need to Reform DC’s The :

171

174 Less than 30 percent Even before service of process, 172 Taking Care of the District’s Children of the District’s Care Taking obtained a 70 percent response rate prior to formal process service, and 88.5 percent of those contacted through all methods participated in the establishment process. The EPIC default rate was only 11.5 percent compared to 64.7 percent for the matter. the matter. servicecustodial parents have required of process using this approach. followed informational sessions are often found by informal hearings. The agency it very advantage of important to take early opportunities when they have the full attention of non-custodial parents to communicate information and establish a good relationship. The success of the EPIC program was impressive. Using a variety of pre-service outreach efforts, the San Francisco Department of Child Support (DCSS) in customer service such as the agency’s servicein customer the agency’s such as receive. receptionists process serverThe role of the is essentially go ignore it – this stuff won’t to say “don’t and they’ll help you Just give a call away. out.” the non-custodial the agency contacts that they tryparent and requests resolve to Karen M Roye, Enhanced Parental Involvement Collaboration (EPIC) Roye, Enhanced Parental M Karen Report, Final Project (2005-2006) (Oct. 13, 2006). San Francisco ., prior to establishing e.g EPIC’s goals were to reduce EPIC’s 170 re-drafting documents to use simpler and less aggressive language, and use of process servers who received specialized training the child support service agency uses with clients. default orders and increase the likelihood of payment. This more client-friendly, focus included customer-service-oriented Pre-service Outreach. Enhanced Parental Involvement County’s Collaboration (EPIC) was an eighteen- month program during 2005 and early 2006 that focused on altering the approach collection rates. These results occur collection rates. These results are better because non-custodial parents perceive informed, less antagonistic, and greater fairness in the child support process. and fostering better relationships and fostering better relationships an with them. These practices involve front end investment of resources at the of the process ( that an order or shortly thereafter) and better results in more accurate orders A variety of practices have been A variety of practices have been that established in other jurisdictions can serve to assist CSSD in as a model establishing a more customer-friendly parents environment for non-custodial the unique needs of those the unique needs being served. Best Practices accessible using Social Security numbers, a accessible using number (PIN), or personal identification While the District other unique identifier. for its award-winning has been recognized attention needs to be web portal, greater of individual pages and paid to the quality Help Center could make use of it to help use of it to help could make Help Center were information if individual case clients, to decrease the rate at which orders were being issued by default, i.e., without input or participation by the non-custodial parent. The goal for CSE was to base more of its orders on accurate and current information, as well as to improve its image and relationship with non-custodial parents.

Colorado recently used a

Source: Karen M Roye, Enhanced Parental Involvement Collaboration demonstration grant to test its (EPIC) Project Final Report, (2005-2006) (Oct. 13, 2006). efforts in Denver and Jefferson County, a large suburban county. the control group.175 Among EPIC cases, Like the District of Columbia, collections were 15.96 percent higher, Colorado has a high percentage of low- 178 collections on cases with arrears were 13.55 income non-custodial parents, and percent higher and support distributed Denver County is highly urbanized with a to custodial parents was 5.32 percent large population of currently or formerly 179 higher.176 DCSS, recognizing the success incarcerated men. CSE enhanced its of the EPIC program, created a fulltime locate efforts, including asking custodial EPIC team, and all new cases requiring parents for non-custodial parents’ cell establishment orders use the EPIC phone numbers and using Accurint, 180 process. 177 an electronic locate system. CSE also increased efforts to contact non-custodial Reducing Default Orders by Increasing parents prior to the initial conference via 181 Outreach. Colorado’s Department telephone calls and first class mail. CSE of Human Services Child Support translated its documents into Spanish Enforcement Program (CSE) also wanted and set up a Spanish language version of Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve

74 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 182

its customer service voicemail system. the likelihood that parents would feel that Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System Agency officials were surprised to learn CSD is a partner and not an adversary.190 how frequently the Spanish version was Former Deputy Attorney General for Child requested and presume that many bilingual Support, Cynthia Bryant, strongly stressed individuals, while competent in English, the importance of using intensive outreach prefer to get their information in their and information in order to change public native language.183 While other changes and client perceptions of the agency.191 to CSE’s voicemail system included setting In her view, the system is not about up an automated notification system, establishing orders, but obtaining regular the benefits of these changes remains payments from non-custodial parents. She unclear.184 CSE also added incentives to believes this is most easily accomplished encourage appearance in court, such as through a change in an agency approach waiving fees and not pursuing retroactive to address the root causes of problems with support on TANF cases.185 Colorado non-custodial parents.192 attempted to address the poor perception that parents had about CSE through Texas has therefore conducted broad education, making changes to its website, outreach efforts using public service making referrals to employment training, announcements, newspapers and and establishing a Work and Family Center brochures to communicate the concept to help parents manage their child support that child support benefits both parents.193 obligations.186 CSD trains its staff to view non-custodial parents as part of the solution rather than CSE’s efforts have resulted in the reduction the problem. CSD has partnered with of default orders by more than half, community-based organizations that work from 33 percent to 14 percent.187 CSE with low-income families and non-custodial discovered that most alleged fathers were parents.194 As discussed earlier in the responsive when contacted informally context of alternative dispute resolution, and seemed to appreciate the personal Texas has initiated a “collaborative contact.188 Anecdotal evidence indicated negotiations” process in order to attempt that there was some increase in payments to achieve agreement on orders prior from non-custodial parents contacted in to court proceedings. Critical to this this manner, though hard data has not collaborative process is intensive staff yet been made available.189 In light of the training and customer education.195 Ms. similarities between Colorado’s CSE and Bryant stressed that devoting 30 minutes to the District’s CSSD, especially in Denver, one hour with parents is critical to ensuring some of the lessons learned there can be that they understand the process and are applied in the District of Columbia. willing to cooperate and comply with any agreements.196 Texas’ view of these changes Changing Public and Client Perceptions. is long-term in nature, since changing the Several years ago, the Child Support public image of a child support agency Division of the Texas Attorney General’s takes time and requires it to focus on the Office (CSD) revised its intake and root causes of its problems.197 Preliminary outreach processes in order to improve results, however, are good. Customer

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 75 satisfaction in Texas has increased from a payment.200 Though NHHSS had no rate of 51 percent to 63 percent, with an contact with the control group, NHHSS overall improvement of 24 percent.198 sent to one of the experimental groups brochures and other materials with Providing non-custodial parent-specific information about responsibilities services within the child support agency. and how and where to get additional In Cook (Chicago) and St. Clair (East St. support. NHHSS sent these same Louis) Counties, Illinois, non-custodial mailings and also used scripted phone parents with children receiving TANF contact to communicate with a second who are unable to pay child support due experimental group.201 The results to unemployment may utilize services indicated that the non-custodial parents provided by the Non-Custodial Parent in the experimental groups performed Services Units (NCPSU) to prepare better on payments, including reduced them for employment.199 Participants arrears and higher payments for may be referred by the Court, by an accumulated debt. The data supported Administrative Hearing Officer, or the conclusion that intervention had through a self-referral process (although to be early, because after 90 days had services may be limited for this category). elapsed contact was less successful due to Each individual is given an employability changed phone numbers, and because assessment to determine eligibility. Once non-custodial parents had become eligibility has been established, each generally less interested in the child participant is given an individualized support process.202 service plan and assigned a Service Coordinator. Based on the participant’s Recommendations level of eligibility, the non-custodial parent may engage in employment- The research and best practices from related services such as Earnfare, a other jurisdictions suggest that the supervised job search, referrals to most effective customer service model community-based organizations for squarely addresses issues of importance employment and training (Cook to non-custodial parents early, and County only), or referrals to contracted encourages voluntary compliance.203 Welfare-to-Work program providers. All It also suggests that a service delivery participants, regardless of eligibility, model is more effective than an receive information regarding child enforcement model.204 Improvements in support and other related programs. customer service may lead to “increased information sharing, improved Early follow up to increase payments. relationships with the agency, and Nebraska’s Health and Human Support increased trust.”205 It is also of critical System (NHHSS) conducted a controlled importance that the agency be properly experiment at its statewide customer and effectively trained to implement service call center regarding whether any new models, as well as re-trained on providing information to non-custodial portions of existing models that parents within 30 to 60 days after entry are retained.206 of a support order had an impact on Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve

76 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System i. Create a non-custodial parent services experience working constructively with Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System unit within CSSD. those who face barriers to employment In order to support children, CSSD such as a criminal history or substance should focus more on providing services abuse problems. This unit would be to families, and that includes both expected to assist non-custodial parents custodial and non-custodial parents. The in addressing barriers to child support Mayor, DC Council, and CSSD should compliance. work together to provide funding to establish a non-custodial parent services ii. Improve case sorting. unit at CSSD. The purpose of this CSSD should review and consider unit would be to provide information, revising the separation and treatment referrals, and proactive customer services of cases in order to target enforcement to non-custodial parents. This new unit techniques and services based on should be empowered to recommend different types of non-custodial parents. and implement changes in the ways Low-income, unemployed parents, or that CSSD contacts and informs non- those with sporadic work histories, might custodial parents about their child require more intensive resources early support obligations, as well as their in their case history in order to establish rights under the law. Staff from the a more regular pattern of payment. For unit should work with the Paternity further discussion, see Part IV, Section C, and Outreach Section to conduct Chapter 1, Improving Management of Child outreach to non-custodial parents and Support Cases. community-based services that serve the non-custodial parent population. iii. Significantly improve functionality of Staff from the unit should attend court CSSD’s website. to receive immediate referrals from The Office of the Chief Technology CSSD legal staff and/or judges and Officer (OCTO) needs to work with provide, at least, some personalized CSSD to make urgently needed referrals based on identified need. We improvements to its website. Some can recommend that CSSD seek to staff be easily implemented. For example, the unit with individuals who have CSSD’s primary address can be changed

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 77 to an address which is likely to attract obligors are contacted or how the contact more “hits” than its current address, www. is received by them. In addition to these cssd.dc.gov. Additionally, having a direct enforcement measures, CSSD should assign link on the DC Government’s homepage staff from the non-custodial parent unit is an easy way for the DC Government to to monitor new cases, to contact them the demonstrate the importance of the child first time they miss a payment in order to support system. CSSD should also bring prevent an obligor from falling behind, broken links to the attention of OCTO to and to assist with appropriate procedures. fix them quickly. CSSD should also use any contact opportunities to ensure that non-custodial OCTO and CSSD can also make substantive parents understand the order modification changes to the website, including adding process and encourage them to use it links to all brochures, forms and other when appropriate. materials in English, Spanish and possibly other languages. The current site should v. Improve written materials. be reorganized, with informative menu CSSD should develop improved written options and links that address what they materials to be distributed with process purport to address. There should be service, at community sites, in the individual pages dedicated to non-custodial courthouse, and at CSSD. These materials parents and custodial parents, as well as should clearly address the issues affecting employers. Future changes should include parents, and CSSD should ensure that making individual case information and brochures and other information are management available online (payment disseminated to non-custodial parents histories, change of employment and in their native tongue, using easily change of address, and requests for understandable language at a reading modifications), as well as a quicker more difficulty level no higher than sixth grade. efficient link with employers to address the pace of wage withholding. vi. Create videos to supplement the written materials. iv. Encourage non-custodial parents to CSSD should create and provide make initial payments shortly after orders informational videos about the child are entered. support process, ideally ones that promote CSSD should devote substantial efforts to the central role of the child. These videos making sure that non-custodial parents can be shown in CSSD’s waiting room, are current from the time payment orders as opposed to showing regular television are entered. CSSD should implement programming. Informational videos a process like that used in Nebraska for can also be shown during information following up with non-custodial parents sessions for parties whose cases are due to and for providing information. CSSD be heard in court. Finally, DVDs can be currently assigns enforcement staff to inexpensively copied and distributed to contact non-custodial parents 60 days after clients on an as needed basis. a late payment. No information was made available about how many delinquent Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve

78 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System vii. Expand community outreach. viii. Improve customer service for Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System CSSD should hire more staff to engage custodial and non-custodial parents. in community outreach. Using media CSSD should take steps to ensure that efforts in both English and Spanish, CSSD custodial and non-custodial parents are should disseminate its message about the informed of all court dates, including those services it provides and the benefits of that do not concern required appearances. child support for the individuals as well as CSSD should also periodically advise all for the community. CSSD needs to work parents of the status of their cases, provide with other agencies to support a pro-child parents with access to case updates and support message, including disseminating attempt to dispel CSSD’s image as a record information regarding the benefits to keeper that “doesn’t do anything” by children and the consequences to both explaining such processes as the automated non-custodial parents and children locate mode (which runs quarterly matches from non-payment. with the Federal Parent Locator System).

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 79 2. Unemployed and Underemployed Non-Custodial Parents

Introduction

“The current system requires less-educated men to meet their child-support obligations without enabling them to do so, and that is unreasonable. That doesn’t mean we should lower those requirements. However, we should provide reasonable supports so that these young men can live up to that responsibility. With the same level of persistence with which we pursued welfare reform, we should develop effective jobs programs for less-educated men.”207

Despite increases in paternity half of DC’s children live in households establishment rates, black children are less where no parent has full-time, year-round likely to receive the child support payments employment.214 due to them than their white counterparts. Economist Ronald Mincy has studied this While it is certainly not the primary role discrepancy and determined that racial of the child support system to engage in differences in child support payment workforce development or job readiness and receipt can be fully accounted for by and training activities, the deficits in these differences in job stability. Nationwide, areas clearly affect the ability of the child young less-educated black men experience support system to perform optimally. the highest levels of job instability.208 This And that effect is felt on a daily basis as is highly significant to the District’s child unemployed non-custodial parents appear support system where the child support in court and their cases are continued caseload consists predominantly of while they are ordered to search for black families. employment. This occurs in as many as one-third of the cases for which hearings are Unfortunately, despite well-intentioned held.215 In addition, it is not known how policies like First Source209 and a network of one-stop career centers,210 DC has not been particularly effective at moving DC residents, especially individuals with barriers to employment, into the workforce. Even with a growing District economy, the unemployment rate in DC runs as high as 15 percent in Ward 8 (compared to only 1.4 percent in Ward 3).211 The number of jobs in DC has grown steadily in recent years from a 1998 low of 613,400 to 691,000 in June 2006. At the same time, the number of employed DC residents has fallen from a Source: Fannie Mae Foundation, Housing in the Nation’s Capital, 2006 high of 292,000 in 2000 down to 277,000 in (Supplemental Appendix) 2005.212 Low-skilled workers face particular challenges in DC. In 2000, employees many non-custodial parents fail to appear with a Bachelor’s degree or higher held in court because they know they lack the 54 percent of District jobs compared means to support their children. Nor 213

Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve with only 28 percent nationally. Nearly is it known how many custodial parents

80 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System fail to follow through in establishing an for Needy Families (TANF) benefits to Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System order because they know the non-custodial participate “in such work activities…as the parent lacks the means to pay. court…or the State agency administering the state [IV-D] program …deems There is no question that helping non- appropriate” if the parent has fallen custodial parents acquire stable, legitimate behind in his payments.220 “Work activities” employment will increase child support are defined according to the rules under collections. As a result, the federal rules TANF and include a limited amount of governing child support allow for state education and training as well as subsidized spending in this area.216 At the same time, and unsubsidized employment.221 helping to “smoke out” non-custodial The link to employment is further parents with cash income would also articulated through a variety of federally- benefit custodial parents and children.217 mandated mechanisms, the most In cases where arrears are owed for significant perhaps being mandatory wage- children who receive or have recently withholding in most circumstances.222 received public benefits, parents can be Federal law also mandates creation of State ordered to pay or participate in work- Directories of New Hires which feed into related activities.218 Nevertheless, given the the National Directory of New Hires,223 clear relationship between steady increased which, in turn, is part of the Federal employment and increased child support, Parent Locator Service (FPLS).224 FPLS is the District should focus on the former to a composite locator resource available to improve the latter. Jurisdictions around states that includes all state new hire and the country, with and without financial child support registries, as well as address support from the federal Office of Child and asset information available through Support Enforcement (OCSE), have several federal agencies. (Medical support experimented with linkages to job training is also intrinsically linked to employment.) and employment services, as well as to The National Medical Support Notice ancillary services like case management was designed specifically to secure and services to address barriers to employment-based health care coverage for employment like literacy programs and children from non-custodial parents who substance abuse treatment.219 This Chapter have such benefits.225 (See discussion of this addresses the impact of unemployment and issue in Part IV, Section C, Chapter 3: Medical underemployment on the child support Support.) system, and ways in which the stakeholders in the child support system – including, In addition, OCSE has long recognized but not limited to, CSSD – can and should the importance of linking Title IV-A address it. Welfare-to-Work initiatives with Title IV- D child support initiatives. OCSE Action Federal Mandates Transmittal AT-00-08 states, in part, as follows: The federal child support system recognizes the important link between “Many non-custodial parents employment and child support but stops are unemployed or have short of requiring that all parents pay or low-wage, intermittent work. States are allowed to order a parent employment. Helping these whose child receives Temporary Assistance parents find and keep jobs

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 81 and increase their earnings is Further complicating the problem for critical to the well-being of t under- and unemployed parents is the heir children.”226 District’s labor market, which includes a significant demand for highly-skilled Challenges in the District and well-educated individuals and minimal demand for low- and unskilled Workforce Development workers. Furthermore, job creation in the Whatever individual challenges the under- outer suburbs has outpaced District job and unemployed population faces in our development.228 The Brookings Institute community are exacerbated by the state recently reported that the District does of the District’s employment services not have a city-wide “strategy to increase system. In “Red Tape Ties Up D.C.’s the skills, job readiness, employment Unemployed,” published on February 13, and earnings of less-skilled, un/under- 2006, Washington Post reporter Neil Irwin employed residents” that would be geared described the District’s job programs, toward the region’s growth occupations.229 which then-City Administrator Robert C. The report also noted the lack of Bobb characterized as “beyond shameful.” education and training in the District, a Irwin reported that 61 government serious problem in light of the fact that programs administered by 24 federal and the “vast majority” of District residents District’s agencies are intended to assist have no education beyond a high school District residents to prepare for and find diploma.230 Even more problematic, the report points out that “[l]ess than 10 percent of DC jobs in occupations that are most accessible to the least skilled (food preparation and building and grounds cleaning maintenance) pay wages . . . sufficient to put a single mother with two children above the low-income threshold” of $31,470 per year.231 CSSD has indicated that it would enthusiastically partner with a service- intensive employment program 232 Source: Brookings Institute, Reducing Poverty in Washington, DC and if one existed in the District. The lack Rebuilding the Middle Class from Within, 2007; Tabulation of 2005 American Community Survey PUMS of an obvious nexus for these two systems represents a significant failure on the part a job, but that the overall job assistance of the District to provide for low-income program is plagued by poor management, families. a dysfunctional bureaucracy, a lack of coordination, and little if anything in the Welfare and Child Support way of information management systems. Studies have shown that poor children The article also described difficulties – i.e., children eligible for assistance experienced by District residents in under the Temporary Assistance to Needy obtaining training through the eight One- Families (TANF) program – typically have Stop Career Centers.227 fathers with below-average earnings and Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve unstable employment histories.233 Not

82 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System surprisingly, non-residential fathers with having a two-parent family, and funding is a high income are more likely to provide available to states through TANF to provide child support than those with lower limited services to non-custodial parents. incomes, and the most important factor in The Welfare to Work (WtW) program, determining whether non-custodial parents authorized under the Balanced Budget will pay child support is the number Act of 1997, was enacted to complement of weeks per year the non-custodial PRWORA and help the hardest to employ parent works. For example, a recent US TANF recipients as well as non-custodial Department of Health and Human Services parents to get employment, training, and study reported that non-custodial parents support services.235 WtW did not serve who worked between 40 and 51 weeks in a nearly as many men as women.236 Ten years year were 7 percent less likely to pay child later, the issues that led to the development support than those employed for a full year, of the TANF and WtW programs with and non-custodial parents who did not their emphasis on employment are now work at all were 33 percent less likely to being raised specifically in terms of men, pay child support.234 especially in the context of the current administration’s Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Initiative with its emphasis on “healthy marriage.” A recent op-ed piece in the Washington Post calls for “Welfare Reform for Men,” a similar combination of “help and hassle” or subsidies and demands that helped significantly reduce the welfare rolls for women.237 Whether or not support takes the form of a federal government benefits program, the point is that under- achieving men – and especially those Source: Elaine Sorensen and Helen Oliver, policy reforms are needed to increase who face barriers of discrimination based Child support from poor fathers, 5, The Urban Institute April 2002 on race and/or criminal history - need assistance to become the family providers that the child support system expects them The Personal Responsibility and Work to be. And providing that assistance will in Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA turn benefit their children. - the legislation that created TANF) eliminated some of the anti-father, anti-marriage policy implicit in its predecessor, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, but stopped well short of providing equivalent services to custodial and non- custodial parents. Unlike AFDC recipients, TANF recipients are not automatically disqualified by Source: Not Enough to Live On: DC’s TANF Benefits Are Among the Least Adequate in the Nation, DC Fiscal Policy, Institute , March 14,2006.

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 83 84 Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System Taking Care oftheDistrict’s Children attitudes about childsupport,leaving had minimalinformation ornegative worthwhile. they donottakehome enoughtomakeit so muchoftheirincome isgarnishedthat men avoidlegitimateemployment because providers makethepointthat Service the childsupportsystemmightseizeit. not wanttoputmoneyinthebankwhere failed becausethemendid a credithistory designed tohelpmenestablishsavingsand and recipients.Forexample,aprogram providers impact onDCFI,bothservice The childsupportsystemhasalarge basic needsmet. not willingtowaitthatlonggetthose providersfindthatmanymenare Service employment, andotherbasicneeds. before theycanbeassistedwithhousing, a seriesofgeneralclassesonfatherhood specific needs.Menarerequiredtoattend abstract programgoalsandnotfathers’ time, theprogramswerestructuredaround obligations totheirchildren.Atthesame meet theirfinancialaswellemotional conceived andfundedtohelpfathers perspectives, however, theprogram was From thefederalandlocalgovernmental incarceration fornon-paymentofsupport. have largearrearsandwhofearfurther recipientsareex-offenderswho the service the fathersfearedandresented. concert withthechildsupportsystemthat trust, theydidnotwanttoactinovert on thefathersandneededtogaintheir providerswerefocused Because theservice conflict aroundtheissueofchildsupport. the outset,DCFIhashadsomeinternal funding wasdedicatedtoplanning.)From (Thefirstyearof year ofprovidingservices. (DCFI). Thatinitiativeisnowinitsthird to expandtheDCFatherhood Initiative Fatherhood CommunityAccessProgram from DHHS’s PromotingResponsible The Districtrecentlyreceivedfunding 240 Most of the service providers Mostoftheservice 239 : The NeedtoReformDC’s ChildSupportSystem

238 Manyof percent ofpoverty. ThePaternityand custodial parent’s incomeisbelow133 from theGuidelineformulawhenanon- provides judgestheoptionofdeparting is aprovisionoftheNewGuidelinethat on payments.The“self-supportreserve” non-custodial parentswhostaycurrent child supportpaymentsforemployed Credit (EITC)isavailabletohelpoffset orthatanEarnedIncomeTaxreserve” Support Guidelineincludesa“self-support aware, forexample,thatthenewDCChild providers andtheirclientsmaynotbe tend toemphasizethenegative.Service through informalchannels,whichalso the fatherstogetsysteminformation benefits. DCFIdoesnot encouragefathers more stableandlessreliant onpublic intended tomakelow-income families the purposeofchildsupport, whichis this informalsupport. Thisundermines can resultinthecustodialhouseholdlosing support actionsagainstthesefathers,which required tofilepaternityand/orchild to jeopardize.Childsupportofficialsare informal supportthattheydonotwant though notcohabitating,theyarereceiving for TANF benefits).Itisalsopossible that, which couldaffectthefamily’s eligibility background involvingdrugs(eitherof involved withsomeonewhohasacriminal they donotwanttorevealthatare to disclosetheadditionalincome,or them becausetheydonotwanttohave their boyfriend/partnerislivingwith will sometimesnotreporttoTANF that functioning implicitlyatodds.Women TANF, childsupport,andDCFIareoften in supportoftheircommongoals, Rather thancoordinatingtheirefforts are needed. but morestructuredanddeliberateefforts inroads intheresponsiblefatherhood area, Outreach SectionatCSSDhasmadesome Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System 85 : The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Need to Reform DC’s The : . Virginia’s “Barriers . Virginia’s since the use of nearly tripled for non-custodial parents who parents for non-custodial complete substance need to abuse treatment. parents mediation to help and visitation work out custody might be challenges that interfering to with motivation support work and/or make payments. Mediation – referrals to Taking Care of the District’s Children of the District’s Care Taking incarcerated non-custodial parents are ready to enter the work program. barriersIdentifying and addressing to child support compliance Support Child of Office federal a is Project” Enforcement-supported initiative that uses oversight and case management efforts increase in “purge payments” made increase in “purge payments” to avoid incarceration or release from or avoidance of electronic monitoring, with the attendant significant savings in costs associated with incarceration. County is still waiting for specific Wake data on the results of the employment Judge Ruth component. In an interview, are said she believes that work programs support essential in dealing with child enforcement because the non-custodial parents do not know where to begin. Under her program, caseworkers are in the courtroom to help those parents begin also Judge Ruth the process immediately. believes it essential to use all available community services to aid in improving increasing levels of education, and literacy, finding shelter for non-custodial parents. Judge Ruth makes the decision as to when ■ Compliance with child support County Wake in obligations payment has electronic monitoring. Use of an this model has also resulted in . In Wake County, North Carolina, North County, . In Wake services and helps non-custodial parents overcome barriers to employment. The program is also ordered as a second phase and other restrictions on activity and movement. For Kids – an Working employment program for non-custodial parents that provides case management an alternative to incarceration for non-payment cases that allow the non-custodial parent to continue working or searching for work while subject to curfews Arrest – sanctions that serve as Electronic Monitoring/House ■ or in combination depending upon the or in combination depending the circumstances of each case, include following: ■ program Judge Kristin Ruth uses a problem-solving non- court model to address chronic principal payment of child support. The alone components of the model, used coerced into non-cooperation by her coerced into non-cooperation father. child’s Best Practices Court partnership with an employment in cooperating – a practical approach that in cooperating some of this conflict, may implicitly address to help a struggling but that does little family become financially independent has been or help a custodial parent who because, in its experience, CSSD lacks the because, in its experience, interest to help negotiate ability and/or the for these struggling workable solutions pursue solution is to actively men. CSSD’s for those support more aggressively who are truly interested custodial parents to deal directly with the child support child support directly with the to deal or other problems address arrears system to 86 Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System Taking Care oftheDistrict’s Children network. Thisnetworkincludesgroups fatherhood throughacommunitypartners’ custodial parents,DCSEisalsoadvancing tonon- by providingselectedservices was tobringabilitypayintofocus, While theimpetusforBarriersProject institutional statusasa“DCSEcustomer.” of arrearagerelativetoincome,and between parents,vocationalissues,size non-residential parents:visitation,conflict identified fivecommonbarriersfacing and DomesticRelationsCourts)initially (Spotsylvania andWestmoreland Juvenile the familycourtsinthatjurisdiction Fredericksburg DistrictOfficeand of ChildSupportEnforcement’s (DCSE) unable, topay.” StafffromtheDepartment generally becharacterizedas“willing,but to payingsupport.Theseparentscan assistance toovercometheir“barriers” that somenon-custodialparentsneed are “deadbeatdads,”theProjectfound perception thatthemajorityofnon-payers child supportpayments.Whilethereisa to appearincourtforfailuremake to theProjectarethosewhoordered support. Non-custodialparentsreferred their irregularornon-paymentofchild to focusonnonresidentialparentsand : The NeedtoReformDC’s ChildSupportSystem $96,262. in paymentsconstitutinganadditional was aremarkable the finalperiodofProject,there the sixmonthsbeforeenteringit. after enteringtheProjectcomparedto were entered theprogrammadepaymentsthat finding wasthatnon-custodialparentswho on theBarriersProject. issued anevaluationandfinalreport 2006,DCSE opportunities. InFebruary technical trainingandothereducational training ofincarceratedindividuals, education, mediation,conflictresolution, or organizationsthatprovideparent Share soughttoincreasethelikelihood support obligations. receiving welfarewhocannotmeetchild with non-custodialparentsofchildren Corporation toteststrategiesforworking Manpower DemonstrationResearch demonstration projectdesignedbythe Share Demonstrationwasanational income non-payers Targeting intensive resources forlow- additional payments. annual benefitwouldhavebeen$3.37in if theProjecthadbeencontinued,net 106 percent greater 243

Finally, foreach$1 ofthecost 823 percent improvement . TheParents’Fair 245 244 Parents’Fair inthesixmonths

241 Asignificant 242 In

Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System 87

This 248 249 The Georgia : The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Need to Reform DC’s The : Taking Care of the District’s Children of the District’s Care Taking effort is a summer program which serves non-custodial, non-supporting fathers between the ages of 16 and 21. The six- week residential program of vocational exploration and summer work experience seeks to help participants in developing and pride. self-esteem, responsibility, Fatherhood Program (GFP) provides Fatherhood education, training, and job placement court- for non-custodial parents with first year ordered child support. In the obligors of the program, 80% of the 450 were who completed job skills training employed and paying child support. deliveryGFP offers a statewide systematic of services participants to that enables contribute to the economic well-being of their children and the workforce GFP development of the State of Georgia. servicesis a comprehensive program of which includes assessment, workshops, and employment. with concurrent training skills Participants are required to attend Life Management Skills training and workshops. GED preparation, and short- Adult literacy, term training (“TCC”) courses are also available from the state technical college. to Jobs is also a component of Fast Track GFP which was developed in 1998. responsible for partnering and providing and providing for partnering responsible programs to for fatherhood referrals identified by their non-custodial parents payment behaviors. The income levels and providing intensive case project found that management services cases to targeted particularly strategy, can be an effective non-custodial parents like for low-income up the majority of CSSD’s those who make the project caseload. Not surprisingly, referred to the Parents’ found that fathers than Fair Share paid more child support fathers in the control group. statewide system Comprehensive using technical colleges. The

and provided 246 This resulted in improved 247 remain employed and participate in the program. collection. Another lesson learned is that the child support agency should be insight into the value of using personal connections to reach low-income non- custodial parents. An additional and unexpected positive result was that fathers who had unreported employment were forced to report it, since they could not some important lessons. One site found that personal contact (staff going out into the community to hand-deliver reminders of upcoming hearings) substantially improved appearance rates disabled or incarcerated; had grown disabled or incarcerated; had or could children (should not be paying); not be found. Fair Share varied Results of Parent’s significantly from city to city and provided unemployment benefits, and Medicaid- supported births in local hospitals. equally referred fathers divided relatively and among the unemployed; employed children; able to pay support; living with fatherhood programs were provided to fatherhood were unemployed fathers. These fathers strategies identified through a variety of of case including case-by-case reviews support records, efforts to match child to exhaust dockets with individuals about Parent’s Fair Share involved seven medium- Fair Share involved seven Parent’s in seven different states. to large-sized cities were targeted towards Enforcement efforts had fathers who were employed and resources; job readiness and responsible supportive services. Among the questions their experimental design tested through the financial benefits model was whether to justify the resource- would be sufficient intensive programming. of compliance with child support orders support orders with child of compliance training, and employment, by providing The young fathers are required to attend and St. Clair (East St. Louis) Counties, school, obtain a high school diploma or Illinois, both have a Non-Custodial Parent GED, participate in parenting and money Services Unit (NCPSU) for unemployed management classes, perform community non-custodial parents whose children service, and cooperate with Child receive TANF.250 Participants are assessed, Support Enforcement. given an individualized service plan The largest service provider, the and assigned a Service Coordinator. Department of Adult and Technical Depending upon the assessment, Education, established a fatherhood participants can be assigned to a number program on each of the technical college of different employment and training campuses throughout the State. Case programs, including Earnfare. managers are an essential component of the fatherhood programs and provide Earnfare is a 6-month program of a wide range of services and referrals to training for persons with little or no work non-custodial parents. Those parents can record.251 Jobs are based on individual skill be in the program from three months to levels, interests, and location. Earnfare two years depending on training needs. participation is restricted to non-custodial Most participants spend an average of four parents who have children receiving TANF to six months in the program. During or individuals receiving food stamps who that time, they are required to satisfy at volunteer for the program. Earnfare least 50 percent of their current child employers are encouraged to provide support obligation. Case managers permanent employment for participants. track participants monthly to determine Participants who receive food stamps employment retention for 120 days work up to a maximum of 80 hours per following completion of the program. month. The first $50 goes to the custodial Fourteen child support enforcement parent as child support. After working regional fatherhood coordinators the hours needed to cover the value coordinate between CSE enforcement of the monthly food stamps (up to 26 and GFP services. The coordinators hours), workers receive $5.15 per hour for provide case agents with constant additional hours and can earn up to $244 updates of participant progress through a month. Participants who do not receive documentation on the CSE database. Of food stamps work up to a maximum of 57 the GFP participants, approximately half hours a month. The first $50 goes to the found employment and are paying child custodial parent as child support. Workers support. The program has been funded then receive $5.15 per hour for additional through TANF funds and special funding hours and can receive up to $244 per provided by the Georgia legislature. While month. The funding for the NCPSU is DC lacks a comprehensive community a combination of State funds and TANF college program, the model contains some dollars. State funds are utilized for the important lessons for structuring child Earnfare program. support employment programming. Employment program as alternative to Direct link from child support to prosecution. “Support Has A Rewarding subsidized employment programming. Effect” (SHARE) was a pilot program Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve Child Support offices in Cook (Chicago) jointly implemented in Washington state

88 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System by the Tri-County Workforce Development possibly jailed. Non-custodial parents who Council (WDC), Yakima and Kittitas were unemployed or who believed they Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System County Prosecuting Attorneys (PA), might have difficulty meeting their child and the Yakima Office Division of Child support obligations could participate in Support (DSC) to assist unemployed or WtW services to avoid contempt and the under-employed non-custodial parents possibility of jail. in securing and retaining employment. SHARE offered three options to non- The non-custodial parents who agreed to custodial parents whose minor, dependent participate in WtW services were referred children were receiving TANF and to one of the Tri-County Workforce who were in arrears on their support Development Corporation’s WtW service obligations: (1) start paying support, providers. There, the referred non- (2) enroll in a Welfare-to-Work (WtW) custodial parents had access to the same program, or (3) face possible incarceration. employment services as other WtW-eligible SHARE targeted non-custodial parents who clients. After non-custodial parents were had current orders of child support and were delinquent in their payments.

The Division of Child Support (DCS) identified parents who had not paid child support during the past 60 days or longer, and who appeared eligible for WtW services because they had a child receiving TANF. These non- custodial parents were referred to the Yakima County Prosecuting engaged in SHARE, YCPA staff continued Attorney (YCPA) for initiation of contempt to obtain progress reports from the WtW proceedings. YCPA set a hearing date providers and monitor their child support and attempted to serve the non-custodial payments. YCPA staff held review hearings parent with a notice to appear in court. If with the non-custodial parents every 30 he failed to appear, he was considered in to 45 days, or less frequently if the non- contempt of court, and a bench warrant custodial parent was making progress was issued for his arrest. When a non- toward employment and making minimal custodial parent appeared in court, YCPA child support payments. staff explained the SHARE program. The non-custodial parent had to meet the terms When non-custodial parents became of his support order (or orders) by paying engaged in the initiative, YCPA staff child support, or be held in contempt and worked with them to modify their existing

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 89 child support orders to ensure that collaborate to help this population become payment requirements were reasonable. supportive, reliable fathers. In and of itself, In particular, DCS allowed for (1) however, the Father Court program is not establishment of temporarily-reduced sufficient to address this widespread and payment agreements, (2) reestablishment growing problem. of payment agreements for default orders that originally were incorrect, and (3) the Recommendations possibility of waiving arrears. Support orders could be modified further based i. Collect data and develop responses on WtW provider reports and review accordingly. hearings.252 As a first step in developing a response to this issue, CSSD should develop reliable Father Court. DC Superior Court has data on the number of underemployed and announced a pilot Father Court program. unemployed non-custodial parents with Father Court is based on and has been open child support cases. Our estimates developed in consultation with the are based exclusively on those parents who National Center for Fathering’s program appeared in court for hearings and self- in Kansas City, Missouri. Kansas City’s reported that they were unemployed. The Fathering Court is a deferred prosecution problem is likely significantly larger, since program for fathers who are in arrears those who are not working in the legitimate on their child support payments. The economy are among the hardest to locate DC program is designed differently, and serve, and would not likely be among because most non-payment cases are not those who were scheduled for hearings. charged criminally. It will function largely as a reentry court for men who are on ii. Increase and strengthen both formal probation or parole who have built up and informal collaborative relationships child support arrearages. with community services related to employment, parenting, and responsible Most of the initial 45 non-custodial fathers fatherhood. who will participate in DC’s program will CSSD should increase and strengthen be referred through the Court Services and its collaborations with the Workforce Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA). Investment Council, DOES, non-profit Participants, who will be accountable to the employment support programs like court, will receive job training, counseling, STRIVE, and the Department of Human mediation, and personal financial Services’ DC Fatherhood Initiative to management training.253 Individuals are identify programs that would welcome expected to be involved in the program for referrals from the child support system. approximately two years. CSSD should work with these programs to identify supportive services and The Father Court initiative is a small but linkages that CSSD and the court could important first step by CSSD and the provide that could improve child support court to address the problem of under- outcomes for participants. Among the and unemployed non-custodial parents. approaches to consider are court-ordered

Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve The program should make a significant participation, temporary child support contribution and signifies a willingness to order modification, debt leveraging

90 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System opportunities, and referrals to mediation iv. Conduct outreach about employment Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System services to resolve family conflict over services to custodial and non-custodial visitation and custody. Protocols for parents. referrals and for monitoring cases should Information about job training programs be developed to ensure consistency and should be included in every outreach to appropriate use of available resources. non-custodial parents, including initial The Department of Human Services service of process; this information should needs to actively encourage recipients include messages about the importance of of fatherhood grant funds to work in work and financially supporting a child, partnership with the child support system, and how regular child support payments and the child support system should – even small ones – have emotional and be expected to listen to and work with cognitive benefits for children.254 Non- these service providers and assist them custodial parents should be given an in their efforts in bringing economic up-to-date annotated list of job training and emotional stability to non-custodial and placement resources and a contact fathers. The interests of these two systems number at CSSD – ideally a non-custodial are fundamentally the same – to help men parent services specialist who has been become more responsible fathers to their trained to provide this type of service children, and more responsible partners to - if they need assistance in identifying the mothers of their children. an appropriate referral. There should be no strings attached for making this iii. Develop other problem-solving information request in order to encourage approaches for use by the court. non-custodial parents to ask for help. As discussed further in the Chapter on Custodial parents should also receive Legal Representation and Collaboration this information since many of them with the Court (Part IV, Section B), the have ongoing relationships with the non- judiciary should have a range of options custodial parent, and may be in a position available for non-custodial parents who of influence. present themselves as unemployed beyond the order that they return to court with v. CSSD should recognize its role as a evidence of 10 job searches per week. stakeholder in the workforce development The courts’ efforts need to be focused system. on moving unemployed fathers toward The workforce development system in DC long-term job stability. Contempt of court should be a primary target of the Fenty orders should be requested for those who administration. As the system undergoes neither comply with the court’s orders nor evaluation, serious consideration should report earnings, and a range of punitive be given to prioritizing non-custodial options should be considered and used parents with child support orders in as well, including electronic monitoring available programs. The child support and weekend incarceration. These system should be represented in every efforts should be continually monitored major employment and training initiative and (formally or informally) evaluated undertaken by the District. Its role as a to ensure they are meeting the needs of stakeholder in this system, and as a voice judges and families. for children, should be widely recognized and respected.

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 91 3. Incarcerated Parents and Ex-Offenders

Introduction grow significantly while parents are in prison.257 It may be difficult to identify and It is widely reported that, compared to communicate with incarcerated parents other youth, children of currently and about their child support obligations and formerly incarcerated parents are at higher options, especially if they are not addressed risk of failing out of school and becoming during sentencing. This can cause many involved in the criminal justice system paroled and released offenders to face themselves.255 While no study addresses the substantial child support obligations specific effect of child support receipt on and stiff enforcement actions that may these children, receipt of child support in affect successful re-entry into society. general has been shown to have a positive Additionally, the review and adjustment effect on academic performance of youth process is cumbersome, and responses to and the likelihood that they will stay in inmate requests are highly variable. school. Addressing the particular needs of the offender and ex-offender population In addressing these issues, a recent within the child support system may be Maryland study had two recommendations: important, therefore, for the protection of 1. Because of the significant these children. proportion of child support obligors with an incarceration history, their Prisoners and ex-offenders with child child support care characteristics, support obligations are both a specific and their disproportionate share problem group for the child support of arrears, governments should pay enforcement (CSE) system and a specific attention to child support microcosm of broader issues in the CSE obligations of the incarcerated. system. Research centers at Princeton and 2. Sustained collaborative efforts Columbia summarized this point in a 2003 between child support program report. officials and public safety officials “That incarceration is so should be undertaken to identify common among non-resident currently incarcerated non-custodial fathers and … incarcerated parents and to develop appropriate fathers are so much less likely methods to educate and engage to pay child support suggests them in establishing and/or that less support for children modifying support orders and in may be an important negative understanding the importance of providing financial support for their side effect of widespread 258 incarceration.”256 children upon release.

Similarly, because most inmates are Viewed more broadly, the issues posed by parents, many of whom have child the prisoner and ex-prisoner populations support obligations that far exceed their are the same general issues confronting capacity to pay both prior to and during the CSE system as a whole – service their incarceration, child support arrears of process, establishment of orders, Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve

92 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System modification of orders, treatment of or assets are available to pay a support 261

arrears, and appreciation for “fatherhood.” order. The federal Office of Child Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System Accordingly, focus on child support best Support Enforcement (OCSE) also practices for prisoners and ex-prisoners encourages states regularly to inform non- can also prove helpful in looking at best custodial parents of their right to modify practices for the broader population. their orders should they experience a significant change in circumstance, such as There is, however, a unique “political” incarceration.262 issue confronting attempts to develop procedures to assist the prisoner OCSE issues grants specifically focused population since incarcerated non- on developing procedures and custodial parents are an unlikely programming to deal with currently or constituency to be viewed sympathetically formerly incarcerated non-custodial by many policy makers and the greater parents. DC applied for and received population. As noted in a study on this one such demonstration grant to improve very issue, “rival concerns and public policy its handling of cases involving non- debates raised by incarcerated [child custodial parents about to be sentenced support] obligors” provide “a host of or currently incarcerated. This is a practical barriers” to the implementation positive step, but it is only a start. Overall, of programs for the incarcerated OCSE recognizes that a large number population.259 Locally, the negative impact of parents with child support orders of politics was evident in the Maryland have a criminal background and many Senate’s recent failure to pass a debt parents in a prison setting are, in fact, leveraging plan to address arrears that receptive to outreach efforts. OCSE also build up during incarceration, despite understands the impact the incarcerated widespread support from many community population has on performance measures groups.260 In short, considerable and encourages state agencies to develop resolve will be necessary to implement policies that address the particular needs a meaningful program focused on the of these parents. While the District does prisoner population, though as is the case not have statistics on the exact number of with nearly all the recommendations in this cases from their caseload involved in the report, focusing on the impact on children criminal justice system, it is believed to be can serve as a unifying and elevating a significant portion. Therefore, special political platform. attention is warranted for this large and particularly difficult population within Federal Mandates CSSD’s purview.

There are not many federal mandates Challenges in the District specifically addressing how a child support agency should handle child support To its credit, the District of Columbia cases with incarcerated parents. Federal has attempted to address some of the rules allow cases to be closed for non- challenges raised by the large number custodial parents who are incarcerated of non-custodial parents in DC who are for the duration of the child’s minority currently or have been incarcerated. The if the state determines that no income District’s New Child Support Guideline

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 93 94 Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System Taking Care oftheDistrict’s Children of Columbia(Proposal), theDistrictof Area 1ModifyingOrder fortheDistrict by CSSDinitsProposal UnderPriority the criminaljusticesystem.Asnoted of non-custodialparentsinvolvedwith exacerbated bythelargepopulation The challengesinDChavebeen with thecourt. to filemotionsformodificationdirectly because non-custodialparentsaredirected parents hasnotledtoformalaction submitted toCSSDbynon-custodial incarceration. Inthepast,information uninformed aboutanon-custodialparent’s sharing protocols,however, CSSDisoften it hasnotyetdevelopedeffectivedata- file amotionwiththecourt.Because is foundtobeappropriate,CSSDcan is appropriate. if modificationoftheexistingorder circumstances ofbothparentstodetermine is incarcerated,itdirectedtoreviewthe When CSSDreceivesnoticethataparent incarcerated non-custodialparents. addresses themodificationofordersfor District ofColumbia,TheUrbanInstitute(2006). Prisonersinthe Giridharadas, TheHousingLandscapeforReturning Source: CaterinaGouvisRoman,MichaelJ.Kane,andRukmini 264 Wheremodification : The NeedtoReformDC’s ChildSupportSystem 263

of DistrictinmatestotheFederalBureau because Congresstransferredresponsibility Moreover, asnotedintheProposal, incarcerated. men intheircaseloadareorhavebeen one infouroftheAfricanAmerican given theDistrict’s incarcerationrates, under awarrant. or parole,outonbond,beingsought system -eitherincarcerated,onprobation under thecontrolofcriminaljustice the agesof18and35areestimatedtobe of theAfrican-Americanmalesbetween African-American. IntheDistrict,half Columbia isapproximatelytwo-thirds offenders throughthe jail andcourt approximately 19,000 CSOSA supervises foroffenderssentenced inDC. supervision (CSOSA), providesprobation andparole Agency and OffenderSupervision Services One ofthefederalagencies,Court team work. of capacityintermscollaborationand issuesandagenerallack hampered byturf suggest thatDistricteffortsinthisareaare on ex-offenderre-entry, agencies. TheCJCCiscurrentlyfocused to coordinatetheactivitiesofthese Justice CoordinatingCounsel(CJCC) The DistricthascreatedtheCriminal and someofwhichareindependent. which arepartoftheDepartmentJustice agencies, andsixfederalsomeof three federally-fundedindependent The systemincludesfourDistrictagencies, agencies thatdealwithDCoffenders. maze offederal,independent,andDistrict arrangement hascreatedabureaucratic throughout thefederalprisonsystem.This 2001, manyofDC’s inmatesaredispersed closed itsLortonCorrectionalFacilityin of Prisons(BOP)in1997andtheDistrict 270

266 265 AccordingtoCSSD, 269 thoughreports 268 267

Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System 95 CSOSA 277 : The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Need to Reform DC’s The : 276

275 Taking Care of the District’s Children of the District’s Care Taking interfere with their successful integration Like other local in the community. agencies that work with low-income non- custodial parents, CSOSA is interested in finding non-punitive ways to assist parents in managing these problems. For several community. support CSOSA also believes that child arrearages strain personal relations of their between offenders and the mothers domestic children, sometimes leading to to deny violence and often leading mothers CSOSA fathers access to their children. believes that if CSSD can encourage or offer offenders to pay child support reduce modifications earlier on, it will strife in custodial parent/non-custodial parent relationships. the relationship between Historically, CSSD and CSOSA has been strained. In CSSD wanted access to view, CSOSA’s records to track down formerly CSOSA’s incarcerated non-custodial parents and aggressively seek payment. recognizes that many of its clients owe child support and that failure to pay can Like many child support agencies, child support Like many to response a programmatic CSSD lacks who are re-entering supporting parents following a period of the community In addition, because DC incarceration. to prisons outside of prisoners are sent the re-entrythe jurisdiction, problems exacerbated. For they face are often they are far away and example, because can be expensive, non- telephone contact may have little contact custodial parents parent while with the child or the custodial incarcerated. As a result, relationships upon may become a source of conflict parent may return, and the non-custodial to the have a harder time readjusting 274 273 272 The problems presented presented The problems 271 on an expired license. employment after release from prison creates an additional barrier to the payment of child support. in the revocation of an estimated in the revocation of an estimated 20-30 percent of ex-offenders’ licenses which often leads driver’s parole to revocation of probation or (return to incarceration) for driving period of incarceration. that virtually unpayable arrearages accumulate while a non-custodial parent is incarcerated. incarcerated results in accumulation incarcerated results of substantial arrears. release to allow for non-custodial a parents to gain stability following seek a modification of child support seek a modification incarcerated. prior to or while The difficulty of finding There is no mechanism for forgiving The existence of arrearages results upon There is no grace period fail to Most non-custodial parents The absence of income while ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ by these statistics for DC’s child support child support for DC’s by these statistics system are considerable. receives an additional 2,500 parolees from 2,500 parolees an additional receives year. BOP each Source: Caterina Gouvis Roman, Michael J. Kane, and Rukmini Source: Giridharadas, The Housing Landscape for Returning Prisoners in the District of Columbia, The Urban Institute (2006). 96 Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System Taking Care oftheDistrict’s Children caseload who are carrying arrears.CSOSA caseload whoarecarrying who have offenders on their the supervisors wants CSOSAtodevelop asystemtoflag to identifynewoffenders withcases,and them. CSSDwantstorunadailycheck CSSD casemanagersareinworkingwith with CSSDwilldependonhowflexible CSOSA, thesuccessofcollaboration procedures donotaddressarrearages.For However,Services). thesepoliciesand from theDCDepartmentofEmployment unemployed (iftheyhavedocumentation employment trainingprogram,andbeing the past180days,participatinginan conditions includeexitingjailwithin from revokingdriver’s licenses.The conditions underwhichitwouldrefrain policies andproceduresindicatingthe provided CSOSAawrittensetofCSSD order modifications/suspensions. population’s needsonarrearages,and CSSD’s lackofresponsivenesstoits CSOSA remainsconcernedabout undeniably isapositiveaccomplishment, Notwithstanding theMOU,which of CSOSA. are directedtobeunderthesupervision these non-custodialparents,evenifthey months CSSDmaynotbeabletolocate The challenge,ofcourse,isthataftersix child supportorderaccordingtotheMOU. community, CSSDwillseektomodifythe months aftertheparents’returnto parents re-enteringthecommunity. Six CSSD trackincarceratednon-custodial obtained pursuanttotheMOUwillhelp meet certainrequirements. enforcement forre-enteringoffenderswho and alimitedgraceperiodfrom (MOU) thatprovidesfordata-matching a draftMemorandumofUnderstanding CSOSA andCSSDhaverecentlynegotiated overcome theirdifferences.However, years, CSSDandCSOSAwereunableto 279 : The NeedtoReformDC’s ChildSupportSystem 278 Thedata 280 CSSD strongly encouragefullcompliancewith According totheagreement,CSOSAwill within certainextenuatingcircumstances. extended byCSSDtooffenderswhofall reinstatement ofdriver’s licenseswillbe payments, modificationsofand that discretiongoverningminimum The currentagreementprovides have signedacooperativeagreement. negotiate thedata-sharingagreement,but agencies havenotbeenablesuccessfullyto related toCSOSA’s federalstatus,thetwo Because ofprivacyandotherlegalissues these cases. staffing todealindividuallywith is concernedthatCSSDwillnothavethe which oftheseoffenders haveoutstanding felony charges.CSSD will determine who arescheduledfor sentencingon information fromthecourt oninmates accordingly. CSSDalsoplanstoobtain and changemodificationprocedures support ordersfornewlysentencedparents evaluate theprocessformodifyingchild under whichitandtheUrbanInstitutewill applied forandreceivedafederalgrant has notworkedwell. sentencing, andinpracticetheapproach the non-custodialparentself-reportingat order. seek modificationorsuspensionofthe offer thatindividualanopportunityto order inplace.Thejudgemustthen days imprisonmenthasachildsupport person beingsentencedtomorethan30 requires judgestoinquirewhethera Offender SelfSufficiencyActof2004 taken stepstoaddressthem.TheEx- recently releasedparents,andhave problems facedbyincarceratedand and CSSDhaverecognizedsomeofthe To itscredit,theDistrictgovernment outstanding childsupportorders. 284 Thisapproach,however, relies on 281

285 Accordingly, CSSD 283 282

Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System 97 and 290 : The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Need to Reform DC’s The : 291 cases needing modifications. are reinstating orders once inmates released from prison. with District criminal justice agencies. to implementing the order modification law for newly sentenced offenders. of in prison to reduce the backlog Develop a better approach for Develop better communications Develop a better approach Review orders of obligors already ■ ■ ■ ■ Taking Care of the District’s Children of the District’s Care Taking Best Practices There have been many studies of and papers written about the interrelationship of child support and incarceration. Most the U.S. Department of Health recently, In addition, the Proposal contains In addition, the Proposal contains out to an elaborate plan for reaching which sentenced non-custodial parents, prisoners includes mailings, contacting to certain still in the DC jail, and traveling federal prisons with higher concentrations of DC prisoners. The Proposal does not offer much explanation of how it will achieve the last two goals. Nonetheless, the goals clearly represent movement in the right direction, and we applaud the initiative and the decision to partner with the Urban Institute to implement and evaluate the work. offenders are aware of this program are aware of offenders not currently does support system the child parents in linking non-custodial play a role to this opportunity. 24-month pilot program Therefore, the received grant funds for which CSSD This and timely. from OCSE is essential in collaboration with program, conducted has four goals: the Urban Institute,

288 286 Without meaningful job CSSD reports that it will CSSD reports 289 287 pleading provided to judges for the pleading provided The District does offer a bond program that essentially pays companies to hire ex- offenders, though few employers and ex- the community and cannot participate consistently and reliably in the child support system. training and job placement assistance, training and job placement assistance, in returning prisoners cannot stabilize ex-offenders given how difficult it can be ex-offenders given how difficult for them to find and retain employment. percent of For example, in the District, 45 the offender population is unemployed, school and 44 percent do not have high diplomas. including by becoming involved in the including by becoming process at DC Jail. intake and release burden There can be no doubt that the hard on of child support is particularly the courtroom. There has been a form the courtroom. se pro the modification purpose of facilitating process. at other ways to meet… “continue to look parents’] needs,” [newly incarcerated child support orders, and provide this provide this orders, and child support judge to the sentencing information in action then take appropriate who can Source: Caterina Gouvis Roman, Michael J. Kane, and Rukmini Source: Giridharadas, The Housing Landscape for Returning Prisoners in the District of Columbia, The Urban Institute (2006). 98 Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System Taking Care oftheDistrict’s Children deliver itsintendedeffects, includingthe causes forthefailureof thispolicyto have suggestedanumber ofpotential improve implementation. Stakeholders plan tostudythisproblem inorderto worked. at sentencingandthatapproachhasnot the non-custodialparentself-reporting however, theDistrict’s approachrelieson promising practiceinthisarea.Asnoted, documents todosoisconsidereda modification andprovidingthenecessary 30 daysthattheyhavearighttorequest offenders whofacesentencesofmorethan in jails.TheDistrict’s policyofadvising that report,thesameshouldbedone Though notspecificallyaddressedin initiate anordermodificationprocess. obligations andencourageinmatesto identify newinmateswithsupport recommends thatintakestaffatprisons specifically Health andHumanServices, U.S. DepartmentsofJustice,Labor, and PolicyCouncil,sponsoredbythe Re-Entry incarceration. Suspending existingorders before the HHSreport. consistent withthe“specificsteps”citedin presented laterinthisSectionare population.” support approachtoworkingwiththis agencies canconstructaneffectivechild specific stepsintotheirprogram,[CSE] that byincorporatinganumberof “there issufficientevidencetoindicate outstanding issues,HHSconcludesthat developed. However, evenwiththese of certainprogramsneedstobefurther and notesthatthecost-benefitanalysis process, regarding theprisonerre-entry report recognizesunresolvedquestions addressing thisissue. oftendemonstrationprojects summary (HHS)publisheda and HumanServices 295 CSSDandtheUrbanInstitute 293 Therecommendations The 2005reportofthe : The NeedtoReformDC’s ChildSupportSystem 292 TheHHS 294

New York, Texas, andWashington use in Colorado,Illinois,Massachusetts, to incarceration,childsupportagencies suspend theirchildsupportordersprior not allnon-custodialparentswillmoveto during incarceration. information Providing childsupport and support. attorneys toprovideadequateinformation and thefailureofjudgesdefense ignorance aboutchildsupportcasedetails, unimportance ofchildsupportatthattime, someone facingsentencingandtherelative child supportmatter, thestateofmind need forprivacytodiscussapaternityor that communicationwith incarcerated Milwaukee County, Wisconsin,suggests Minnesota, Washington State,and Hennepin County(Minneapolis), California, Illinois,Massachusetts, Experience inLosAngelesCounty, promising success. and Texas havetakenthisapproachwith parents. Colorado,Illinois,Massachusetts, forms todistributeinmateswhoare and providedwitheducationtools can betrainedonchildsupportissues will cooperate,correctionspersonnel parents. by thefacilitystaffandincarcerated same statesarereportedlywell-received presentations aboutchildsupportinthese their righttoseekmodification.Regular child supportorderscanbenotifiedof a supportorder. the purposeofestablishingpaternityor beenlocatedfor who havenototherwise agencies inlocatingnon-custodialparents automated matchingassistschildsupport child supportissues. prisoners witheithergeneralorspecific the recordsofprisonauthoritiestoidentify automation tomatchtheircaseloadswith 298 To theextentindividualprisons 297 Prisonerswhohave 299 296 Recognizingthat Ataminimum, Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System 99 . A court 306 Milwaukee 307 : The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Need to Reform DC’s The : In Milwaukee, after the

305 Taking Care of the District’s Children of the District’s Care Taking objects. Milwaukee found that, while not everyone accepted the new procedure, the participants wanted to understand the child support process. issued 1,000 modifications and increased its collection percentage by 0.5 percent, but it struggles to track non-custodial intake and release process at the DC Jail.” intake and release process at the process Modifying the expedited order for An effective child support policy must incarcerated non-custodial parents for provide both an accessible process of their prisoners to seek modifications to support orders and timely responses order inmates’ requests for review and modifications. returns non-custodial parent signs and the a modification request, and after child custodial parent is notified, the support agency submits the request to the court for approval. In order to qualify for a modification, the non-custodial parent must have a sentence that does not exceed six months, must not have any substantial earnings or assets, or be convicted of a crime against the custodial parent or child or for non-payment of support. hearing occurs only if the custodial parent issues are not as severe. With its primary not as severe. issues are CSSD may felony offenders, focus on number of offenders miss a substantial for modification who would be eligible Self-Sufficiency under the Ex-Offender whose crime will result in Act of 2004 but instead of prison. While a sentence in jail will not likely accrue the these offenders as offenders in same level of arrearages equally likely to be poor, prison, they are to the workforce, and marginally attached in their in danger of falling far behind opportunity child support payments. The not be to communicate with them should in its stated overlooked as CSSD indicates in the aspiration to “become involved 301 CSSD has not yet Using this approach, 304 302 This will be a particularly 303 The goal should be to permit The goal should 300 jail population is often overlooked in and is largely discussions of re-entry, grant, because jail overlooked in CSSD’s stays are often short and many re-entry a willingness to make child support a part of their intake process by advising new inmates about the child support process and their right to petition for modification. The availed itself of this opportunity. strategies, like video conferencing, that can be sustained over time and reach more offenders at less cost than staff travel. DC Jail intake managers have expressed modifications for over 1,200 incarcerated modifications for over 1,200 incarcerated next non-custodial parents over the two years. if noteworthy accomplishment especially grant it can be sustained without future funding. CSSD should be looking at addresses. Recognizing this, CSSD’s grant addresses. Recognizing this, CSSD’s mailings and proposal includes funding for visits to prisons with high concentrations of DC residents. order CSSD estimates that it will obtain in the federal prison system. Child in the federal prison system. Child by support regulations are determined the jurisdiction in which the federal prison is located, and federal prisoners facility, are often moved from facility to of prisoner making it difficult to keep track the higher its chances of success. the higher its chances DC faces is that One unique difficulty from incarcerated non-custodial parents countryDC are scattered throughout the tools. parents to incarcerated non-custodial for modification of establish or petition a box and returning an order by checking pre-stamped a form in a self-addressed, more passive the process is, envelope. The non-custodial parents improves with parents improves non-custodial response more user-friendly simpler, parents after release. Similarly, Los enforcement interventions that lead Angeles County uses a “passive format” to employment rather than recidivism. requiring an objection from either party 310 In Colorado, the Inman Work and to stop the modification of the order of an Family Center (WFC), a multi-agency incarcerated non-custodial parent. As in collaboration, offered employment Milwaukee, if the custodial parent objects assistance along with services for child to the suggested modification, the case support and family reintegration. An goes to a court hearing. In the absence of evaluation of WFC notes that rates of an objection, the case is entered into an employment and child support payments expedited court calendar for automatic rose for those who visited WFC. Non- approval.308 In only 18 months, Los custodial parents in WFC programs paid Angeles reviewed about 80,000 cases and 39 percent of what they owed in child modified 30,000. Five percent of those support, compared to 17.5 percent before modified were for incarcerated parents, they participated in WFC, and those paying and many of these orders were modified to no child support dropped from 60 percent $0.309 While these numbers appear small, to 25 percent.311 Despite its success, WFC along with other steps, they can help bring has been discontinued due to a lack about substantial improvements. of funding.

Establishing comprehensive re-entry The Fatherhood Reintegration Project of programs to aid non-custodial parents. Illinois also built a collaboration between Without meaningful job training and job the state CSE agency and the Department placement assistance, very few returning of Corrections to provide child support prisoners can become productive members assistance, responsible fatherhood classes, of society or be able to participate in the and case management services including child support system. The District should establish a comprehensive prisoner re-entry program, one component of which would be helping newly released non-custodial parents address their child support issues.

A number of jurisdictions have comprehensive re-entry programs that include, among a host of other services, assistance in dealing with CSE agencies. In Washington State, the Corrections Clearinghouse works with ex-prisoners and the child support agency to develop manageable payment plans for child support arrears. The goals of this project are to modify child support orders to fit order modification, to 187 inmates in two the ability to pay, increase the employment Chicago-based adult transition centers.312

Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve rate of ex-offenders, and use appropriate Child support staff regularly made

100 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System presentations during orientation sessions a valuable tool to combat recidivism and Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System to incoming inmates at the jail and state to assist a large number of at-risk people prison facilities.313 This is important since better deal with their family and other modifications have the most impact when obligations.317 implemented at the beginning of a sentence. Other states are also in various stages of establishing collaborative approaches to The District needs to look no further than child support/incarceration issues. Texas Baltimore to find a model comprehensive is in the early stages of implementing a re-entry program. In response to a report Comprehensive Resource Center to serve issued by the Baltimore City-wide Ex- fathers leaving prisons with child support offender Task Force, Baltimore created obligations, and Michigan’s Kent County a one-stop re-entry center approximately has formed a Diagonal Working Group to one year ago. This center was funded by implement a family mentoring program for the Mayor’s Office, private foundations, incarcerated parents.318 Such innovations and the Maryland Departments of Justice highlight the importance of building and Labor and served as a career services collaborations effectively to support the center for released inmates.314 The Task population of incarcerated non-custodial Force identified child support as one issue parents, and remove barriers to their that often impeded re-entry. Accordingly, successful re-entry. Baltimore’s one-stop center includes a question regarding child support on its Reducing the negative impact of large intake form, and a child support case arrearages through debt leveraging and manager is available to help released arrears forgiveness. Beyond notifying prisoners navigate their child support prisoners that they may modify their obligations. Legal Aid lawyers are available child support orders while they are to help clients file for order modifications incarcerated, there is no doubt that in court, and in some cases will represent “[c]hild support obligations compound the them in court. Because most participants employment and financial problems that in the one-stop center are on probation incarcerated parents face.”319 The Parental or parole, they often want to resolve Responsibility and Work Opportunity their child support obligations as part of Reconciliations Act of 1996 specifies many their probation/parole responsibilities.315 aggressive enforcement actions that can be The center provides job readiness and used against parents who fail to pay child employment training as well as job search support, including wage garnishment, and placement assistance, services needed suspension of driver’s licenses, or seizure by many recently released inmates. of assets. Some prisoner advocates and Baltimore’s Reentry Center opened in re-entry program personnel fear that July 2005, and has not yet been formally those policies may drive paroled and evaluated.316 By offering assistance in released parents away from their families employment, housing, education, and and legitimate employment.320 Because child support obligations, such a model to payment of supervision fees and other help re-integrate prisoners into society is financial obligations including child

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 101 support can be part of the conditions of i. Consider the needs of all incarcerated supervision for many probationers and offenders. parolees, financial problems can lead to CSSD needs to turn its aspiration into revocation and a non-custodial parent’s action by working closely with the DC return to prison. [See Part IV, Section A, Jail and focusing attention on modifying Chapter 5: Management of Child Support orders and providing assistance to non- Arrears.] The Washington State CSE custodial parents who may be repeatedly agency, the Washington Department imprisoned for short periods. It is of Corrections, and Corrections important to devote resources to short- Clearinghouse, a re-entry program, term jail inmates and assist them while all work collaboratively with former they are a “captive audience.” Given prisoners to develop realistic payment recidivism rates, this population is likely to plans for child support and arrears.321 be in and out of jail and prison. Ensuring Although there is no independent that they receive information about the evaluation of the child support aspect child support process and modifying of Washington’s re-entry program, the orders may contribute to their willingness overall approach was evaluated favorably to secure lawful employment and achieve by the National Institute of Justice and stability in the community. Working with highlights the importance of addressing corrections staff will enable CSSD to better arrears, particularly for the formerly address the needs of this population. Such incarcerated.322 At least one jurisdiction, non-custodial parents stand to benefit Massachusetts, is following the Washington greatly from such efforts both in their State model by developing a flexible ability to stay current on their orders and policy regarding settlement of arrears for in finding stable, legitimate employment. ex-offenders.323 ii. Provide informational materials to all Recommendations sentenced offenders. Building on lessons learned under its CSSD has made efforts to improve its federal grant, CSSD should work with the handling of cases involving currently court to assure that its new informational or formerly incarcerated non-custodial pamphlet (part of the “Customer Service parents including, most notably, obtaining Survival Kit”) is provided to every the federal grant that should result in person sentenced to more than 30 days a more efficient process for modifying imprisonment. CSSD should actively seek orders for sentenced felony offenders. alternative ways to provide the information Still, because this community of parents in the brochure to prisoners before they represents a sizable portion of CSSD’s are sentenced in case they are unable caseload with particularly difficult to read it due to illiteracy or language obstacles to overcome, and because barriers. The information should be made children of criminal-justice-involved available in Spanish, in video or audio parents are especially vulnerable, further versions, and via personal interview work remains to be done. when necessary. Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve

102 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System iii. Develop user friendly modification vi. Create sustainable procedures for materials and procedures. working with inmates at Bureau of Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System CSSD should develop communication Prison facilities. tools and order-establishment and CSSD should use its grant funding to modification kits that are “user friendly” institute a sustainable system for working for incarcerated non-custodial parents. with the BOP facilities with the highest The goal should be to permit incarcerated concentrations of DC inmates. While non-custodial parents easily to establish or traveling to the facilities may be optimal, petition for modification of an order by it seems unlikely that funding will always checking a box and returning a form in a be available for that purpose and it limits self-addressed, pre-stamped envelope. The access to inmates in a small number of process should be as passive as possible on prisons. Video conferencing or other the part of the non-custodial parent. CSSD technology may be more useful in the and the courts should also develop an long term. expedited process to approve modification requests from incarcerated non-custodial vii. Implement a debt leveraging program. parents. One approach would be to CSSD should implement a debt leveraging implement a rebuttable presumption like program for qualified non-custodial Oregon’s that incarcerated parents with parents that offers arrears relief and less than $200/monthly income can afford provides a possible path forward for this no child support, and provide easy means population. Arrears interfere with family for prisoners to modify their orders to stop relationships and successful re-entry. (For the build-up of unpayable arrears.324 further discussion of this issue, see Part IV, Section A, Chapter 5: Management of Child iv. Increase institutional capacity to serve Support Arrears.) this population. CSSD should train prison and jail viii. Challenge turf issues and create a intake personnel, provide them with an comprehensive re-entry strategy. appropriate “script” and/or audio-visual The District should establish an informational materials, and provide them empirically-designed comprehensive the forms that inmates will need to file for prisoner re-entry program, one modification.325 component of which would be helping newly released non-custodial parents v. Educate the judges. address their child support issues. The At a minimum, CSSD should consider establishment of a comprehensive meeting with the Chief Judge and program for ex-offenders requires collectively devising a program to educate collaboration among many agencies, judges on their duty to advise prisoners willingness to share both success and about their child support modification accountability, and a strong political will to options. develop an effective approach to helping a population with little political power. Taking this step for ex-offenders will benefit the children of this group of non-custodial parents.

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 103 4. Minor Parents and Immigrants

Introduction specific outreach efforts to teen mothers and their partners, despite the fact that Child support is a potentially important less than 20 percent of these mothers are issue for all single parent families, likely to marry their child’s father, and especially those with low incomes. There teen marriages are twice as likely to fail. are, however, two further groups whose Three-quarters of these mothers are likely needs and experience warrant particular to be on welfare within five years and will attention by the child support system in be compelled to participate in the child support system if they are not already order to mitigate the challenges they face: 328 immigrants, especially those for whom involved. The more time that passes English is a foreign language, and minor after the child’s birth, the less likely the parents. unmarried father is to be actively involved in parenting, and the more difficult it can In addition to the language barriers many be to locate him. This makes establishing immigrants face trying to access public paternity a particularly pressing issue at services, immigrants also face a variety of the time a teen mother gives birth. In cultural and informational barriers that addition, the children of teen mothers prevent them from benefiting from child are more likely to face a range of social, support services. Both legal and illegal economic and health problems, including, immigrants often want to understand the among sons, a higher likelihood of going to prison and, among daughters, of becoming implications that use of the service will 329 have on their immigration status, and teen mothers themselves. Involvement on the status of the other members of of fathers in the lives of these particularly their families. This is a very complicated vulnerable youth should be a priority issue and is frequently in flux. While it issue on the District’s youth agenda, and is relatively clear, both in immigration ensuring that teen mothers receive the law and OCSE policy statements, that child support they need is a singularly immigrants can use child support important element of that involvement. services without fear that it will result in deportation or other adverse immigration Federal Mandates consequences,326 many immigrants share an intrinsic fear of government agencies. There are currently no federal mandates They avoid the child support system regarding an immigrant’s ability to receive much as they avoid contact with the child support. However, Congress is police or other government services. In considering legislation that would deny many other countries, the government visas and/or admission to foreigners who have not paid on a US child support does not provide supportive services, so 330 this concept can be difficult for many order. Outreach to this community is immigrants to grasp.327 Many immigrants therefore especially important, since lack also have a cultural aversion to government of trust is often a fundamental barrier to involvement in family matters. immigrants’ use of governmental services. Reliable information about policy and Teen parents raise a different but equally potential changes in policy should be made Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve important set of concerns. The Paternity available to the immigrant community. Establishment Program currently makes no

104 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Additionally, there are no federal mandates to paying child support because of limited Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System specifying variations in how paternity educational and job opportunities. and child support should be managed CSSD’s Paternity and Outreach Unit has for minor parents. States have complete made efforts to recruit Spanish-speaking latitude in determining whether and how staff, and has planned to conduct public such policies should be implemented. If service announcements on Spanish- any variations do apply, states are required language media. Certain issues, however, to provide the information to teens as part are too complex to be adequately of the voluntary paternity process.331 addressed through Public Service Announcements. According to community Challenges in the District service providers, CSSD is not willing to confront complicated cases, such as where Immigrants constitute approximately the child lives abroad.332 CSSD routinely 13 percent of the District’s population, closes cases where the non-custodial parent with the largest portion coming from lives in a country that does not have official child support reciprocity status, despite the fact that no Spanish-speaking African or Asian countries (from which the largest portion of DC immigrants come) are on the list of Foreign Reciprocating Countries, and the fact that OCSE and the State Department are prepared to assist agencies with such cases.333 Immigrant families’ lives are often “complicated” and do not fit neatly into the profile of cases that CSSD typically handles. Additionally, CSSD does not schedule certified court translators for the brief pre-hearing interview with non- Source: 2005 American Community Survey English speakers in advance.334 Without prior notice, CSSD requests for translators predominantly Spanish-speaking countries. Of those DC residents who speak a language other than English at home (including 52 percent who speak Spanish), 25 percent speak English poorly or not at all. In addition, 41 percent of Hispanic adults in DC (which includes both immigrant and native-born individuals) have no high school degree, and another 19 percent have only a high school degree or Graduate Equivalency Diploma (GED). In other words, the immigrant population includes a large group of individuals who face barriers both to using the child

support system because of language, and Source: 2005 American Community Survey

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 105 106 Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System Taking Care oftheDistrict’s Children length of most maternity stays, a very length ofmostmaternity stays,avery availableatall. services during theweekendmay nothavenotary business hours.Mothers givingbirth provide notariesonlyduring standard that workwithPSI. of thesevenDistrictColumbiahospitals overburdened, “burntout”staffatmany successful thanitcouldbe,duetothe paternity. Overall,theprogramisless related toestablishingvoluntary services corporation, toadministerhospital-based with PolicyStudies,Inc.(PSI),aVirginia a lowerpriority. CSSDhascontracted legal issueslikepaternityestablishment other healthproblems,whichcanrender have babieswithlow-birth-weightand prenatal careandaremorelikelyto mothers arelesslikelytoseekregular presents anothersetofchallenges.Teen The minorparentpopulationinDC distrust ofthesystem. willresultindiscouragementand services immigrant familiestousechildsupport recognized andaddressed,encouraging and resources.Unlesstheseissuesare locating individualsandtheirincome face greatobstaclesinidentifyingand challenges, immigrantfamiliesfrequently Further, likemanywhofaceemployment clients bydelayingtheircaseprogress. in ordertoavoidpenalizingnon-English adequately communicatewiththecourt knowledge ofatranslationneed,itmust absence oflegalcounsel.IfCSSDhasprior adequately addressed,especiallyinthe protected andchildren’s needsarebeing to ensurethatparents’rightsarebeing non-certified translatorsarenotqualified legal system,familymembersandother cases heard.Giventhetechnicalitiesof to becomeavailablepriorhavingtheir speakers mustthenwaitforatranslator receive thelowestpriority. Non-English : The NeedtoReformDC’s ChildSupportSystem 335 Hospitalsoften

Given theshort The informationcurrentlyprovidedto Paternity Affidavittoallunwedparents. execute aVoluntary Acknowledgementof information aboutandanopportunityto Program requireshospitalstoprovide be addressed.ThePaternityEstablishment These challengesforteenmothersshould could beestablishedshortlyafterbirth. opportunities maybelostwherepaternity regarding paternityestablishment,valuable toward makingsuchcontactwithpatients hospitals, especiallySibleyHospital,have coupled withtheresistancethatsome patients regardingpaternity. short windowoftimeexistsforcontacting acknowledgement policies andpractices. for moreinformationabout paternity providers providers andotherservice requests bylocalteenprenatal care CSSD hasrespondedpositively to child supportsystemwhilestillteens. young andnotallteenparentsenterthe mothers havepartnerswhoareequally minor parents,but,ofcourse,notallteen from theguidelineswhendealingwith Guideline givesjudgeslatitudetodepart binding contracts.TheNewChildSupport acknowledgements, whicharelegally paternity issue ofminorssigningvoluntary more importantly, DClawissilentonthe about theirfuture.Further, and perhaps information andsupporttomakedecisions fathers mustbeprovidedwithsufficient Consequently, these mothersand rights andresponsibilitiesofparenthood. experience orunderstandingofthelegal of theirpartners, mothers experienceviolenceatthehands unplanned. eight outoftenteenpregnanciesare differences amongthem.Forinstance, the developmentalandsocio-economic all unwedparentsisidentical,despite 338 Moreteenthanadult 339 andmosthavelittle 336 When 337

Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System 107 ., i.e . Also 346 : The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Need to Reform DC’s The : 347 Taking Care of the District’s Children of the District’s Care Taking legal status and vulnerability. Presumption Presumption legal status and vulnerability. of paternity can still be assumed using a paternity acknowledgement document if In order it is needed for any civil matter. to remove any disincentives to signing, California prohibits the use of voluntary acknowledgements in criminal matters ( Latino community. Extending the time period to rescind paternity for minor acknowledgement parents. procedures All paternity acknowledgement which allow a rescission period, after be the contract is binding and can rescinded only for a very limited set of states, such reasons, such as fraud. Many those as Delaware and California, allow as who sign paternity establishments period minors to extend the rescission to 60 days after they turn 18, rather than 60 days after signing the document. Illinois allows minors six months after they reach majority or are emancipated before their paternity acknowledgement becomes binding. These options allow the jurisdiction to take full advantage of hospital-based paternity programming, while still recognizing the minors’ unique for child support customers. The state The state support customers. for child development with its workforce partnered business schools system and local to train volunteers as and universities professional translators. programs through Conducting outreach that serve communities immigrant Spanish-language presentations in Texas, variety of community were made at a service sites that serve the potential child servicesupport Head including population, Infants Children (WIC) Start, and Women child support services program sites. Texas also encouraged outreach to business in the leaders and others with influence . .

340 345

343 the child support 341 As part of Colorado’s As part of Colorado’s New York City similarly has New York 344 Agency officials were surprised Agency officials were surprised 342 Increasing the pool of available translators Increasing created a Child Support Volunteer Texas Program in which it recruited bilingual volunteers to provide translation services made all printed child support information available in both languages and includes both English and Spanish versions in all mailings, including monthly statements, as well as all due process notifications. their native language. New Mexico has a policy requiring that all program literature be available in Spanish and English. version of its customer service voicemail system. version at how frequently the Spanish that many was requested and concluded in bilingual individuals, while competent English, prefer to obtain information in easily available. non- effort to increase contact with custodial parents, into agency translated its documents Spanish-language a established and Spanish that DC’s most vulnerable children receive that DC’s a more promising start. Best Practices Making Spanish-language information raises when either parent is a minor.” raises when either that these issues should Research suggests Setting in the law. be addressed explicitly with effective policy and working effectively ensuring teen parents will be essential to and cannot be considered an affirmative and cannot be essential information and effort to provide services to teen parents. More recently, a Paternity Establishment CSSD has created is “aware of the Group, which Work acknowledgement issues that paternity These efforts to date, however, have been have to date, however, These efforts than proactive, reactive rather essentially 108 Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System Taking Care oftheDistrict’s Children informational documents addressthe Latino communityleaders toensurethese in Spanishandshould consultwith brochures andotherpertinentdocuments process materials.CSSDshoulddraft informational materialsaswelldue This wouldincludebothdescriptiveand of essentialdocumentsintoSpanish. develop aplantoprioritizethetranslation Therefore, CSSDandthecourtsshould District consistsofSpanishspeakers. The largestlanguageminorityinthe Spanish andEnglish. ii. Makeallwrittenmaterialsavailablein greater needthaniscurrentlyserviceable. the courtstodocumentwhetherthereis family orfriends.CSSDshouldworkwith providedby informal translationservices or subjecttotheproblemsinherentin not undulyinconveniencedbylongwaits capacity sothatnon-Englishspeakersare assess theirneedtoincreasetranslator be readilyavailable.Thecourtsshould person appearsincourt,translatorsshould available, orwhenaSpanish-speaking and otherstaff.Whensuchstaffarenot hire additionalSpanish-speakingintake increasing Latinopopulation,CSSDshould in clients.To theDistrict’s properlyserve initiativeforwalk- a newcustomerservice two moreSpanish-speakingstaffaspartof six operationsstaff.CSSDintendstohire staff atCSSD,includingtwoattorneysand There arecurrentlyeightSpanish-speaking translators additional Spanish-speakingstaff and shouldhire i. CSSDandtheCourts Recommendations rape). used asevidenceofstatutory the paternityacknowledgementcannotbe . : The NeedtoReformDC’s ChildSupportSystem

of theimmigrantcommunityintoitswork ways, andshouldintegratetheconcerns community inappropriateandresourceful address theneedsandconcernsof before doingsothatitispreparedto Latino community. CSSDshouldensure announcementsdirectedtothe service community meetingsandrunpublic CSSD representativesshouldattend speaking community iii. Conductoutreach totheSpanish- populations change. languages asfeasible,andimmigrant should betranslatedintoadditional concerns ofLatinofamilies.Documents intended tobesafeand meaningfulfor acknowledgementprocessis voluntary acknowledgements of paternity. Ifthe free genetictestingratherthansigning Teens should beencouragedtoundergo teen parents v. Makegenetictestingreadily availablefor gather orreceiveservices. variety ofcommunitylocationswhereteens child supportshouldbemadeavailableata about paternityacknowledgementand who arevictimsofabuse.Information as welltheprotectionsavailabletoteens importance ofpaternityacknowledgement, appropriately educateteenparentsonthe with hospitalstaffandprenatalclinicsto for reachingteenparents,andwork need todesignaneffectiveapproach the PaternityEstablishmentWork Group CSSD, its paternity program contractor, and parents. should address thespecificneedsofteen iv. EstablishmentProgram DC’sPaternity custodial parents. with low-incomeandunemployednon- . . Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System 109 . : The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Need to Reform DC’s The : Taking Care of the District’s Children of the District’s Care Taking also ensure that teen mothers and fathers also ensure that teen mothers of good co- understand the fundamentals to parenting, and should make referrals counseling and mediation as necessary to for ensure that teens can work together the benefit of their children. voluntary acknowledgement. Further, voluntary Further, acknowledgement. the use of excluding we recommend voluntary of paternity acknowledgements for statutoryin criminal actions rape. (For see California Family a model statute, Code §7577.) and future relationships vii. Invest in the earning potential of teen parents attorneys, using the Judges and CSSD in the new guidelines, latitude provided should work with teen non-custodial even parents to establish payment habits, a secure if minimal, and to work toward lower economic future, even if it means They should payments for the short term. . . as well as procedural protections. We We as well as procedural protections. testing recommend that free genetic or be made available when the mother the rescission and that father is a minor, period for voluntary acknowledgements be mother’s extended to 60 days beyond the We birthday. eighteenth or father’s disfavor mandatory involvement of the parental teens’ parents, such as requiring a approval or cosignature to validate paternity and discouraged from paternity and discouraged genetic test process as a interpreting the integrity of either parent. challenge to the should pass legislation vi. DC Council rights of teens who sign that speaks to the voluntary of paternity acknowledgements pass legislation that The District should the specific programmatic addresses both place in variations that should be put in the Paternity Establishment Program, teen parents, teens should be educated be educated teens should teen parents, of establishing means about alternative 110 Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System Taking Care oftheDistrict’s Children to ahighof90percent, withtheremainder custodial parents,from alowof25percent intheamountofdebtowedto vary custodial parent’s household.Infact, states support arrearsareowedprimarilytothe Another popularassumptionisthatchild low-incomefathers. overwhelmingly the obligorsofchildsupportarrearsare his supportdespitesufficientincome, of the“deadbeatdad”whoavoidspaying interest). billion inpastduechildsupport(and non-custodial parentsowedover$106 District. IntheUnitedStatesin2005, projects injurisdictionsotherthanthe analysis andanumberofnoteworthy have beenthefocusofconsiderableexpert problem ofchildsupportarrears.They jurisdictionstruggleswiththe Every 5. ManagementofChildSupportArrears Introduction child supportagencies,non-custodialparents,andcustodialparentschildren.” contribute toarrearsaccumulation,andthepossibilitythatmayhavedetrimentalimpactson concern reflectsthemagnitudeofsucharrears,growingawarenesscomplexfactorsthat “Child supportarrearageshavebecomeanissueofincreasingpublicpolicyconcern.This 349 Contrary tothe popularimage Contrary : The NeedtoReformDC’s ChildSupportSystem provided datatoindicatewhatpercentage half tothegovernment. half ofallarrearsareowedtofamiliesand for publicbenefits. owed tothegovernmentasreimbursement children’s livesaswell.” economy, andmaydisappearfromtheir all, maydisappearfrom thelegitimate or deterredfrompaying anysupportat balances –“obligorsmaybediscouraged consequences” oflargestate-owedarrears is growingconcernoverthe“unintended toward thosearrears. percentage ofarrearscasesthatarepaying given thatstatesareevaluatedbasedonthe indicators forchildsupportprograms, Arrears directlyaffectthekeyperformance households. the Districtandwhatpercentageisowedto of DC’s $378.6millioninarrearsisowedto 350 352 Onaverage,about Inaddition,there 353 351 Eventhough CSSDhasnot 348 Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System 111

357 : The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Need to Reform DC’s The : public assistance cases. States can take steps to reduce the number of cases in which income is imputed. States can adopt policies that facilitate rapid review and of arrearages alters the obligor’s of arrearages alters the obligor’s obligation without the concurrence of the obligee (or the State assignee) and is expressly prohibited Act by section 466(a)(9)(C) of the and 45 CFR 303.106. States can have minimum orders but they must be rebuttable. States are not required to establish retroactive support obligations in full payment of arrearages assigned of arrearages full payment grounds on the same to the State and that exist for compromise other judgment in settlement of any encourage caution the State…. We compromising not to confuse the statutoryarrearages with retroactive prohibition against arrearages…. modification of of Retroactive modification when a court or arrearages occurs administrative body takes actions that to erase or reduce arrearages have accrued under a court or administrative order for support. In effect, retroactive modification

■ ■ ■ ■ Taking Care of the District’s Children of the District’s Care Taking Federal policy encourages the prevention Federal policy encourages the of debt in the first place, but recognizes part of arrears forgiveness as an integral with low- an effective approach to working PIQ-00- income non-custodial parents. State 03, September 14, 2000, addressing Program Flexibility with Respect to IV-D Low Income Obligors, recommends that states examine their policies to determine whether they contribute to nonpayment.

reference to 356 354 only four percent of arrears only four percent Both these studies suggest that Both these studies 355 [A] State could accept less than the Policy Interpretation Questions or PIQs. PIQ- 99-03, for example, states: The distinction between retroactive modification (prohibited) and debt forgiveness or reduction (allowed) has been clarified by the Office of Child Support Enforcement in a number of concerning judgments. One implication of this provision is that child support debt can be forgiven, reduced or cancelled only by the person or entity to whom the debt is owed. to prevent state courts from unilaterally to prevent state courts from unilaterally owed to reducing the amount an obligor support, this the custodial parent for child debt provision requires that child support be treated as a judgment by operation of law and be subject to all state laws modified in 1996 under the Personal modified in 1996 under the Personal Opportunity Responsibility and Work (42 U.S.C. Reconciliation Act or PRWORA §666(a)(9) - states may not retroactively Intended modify child support orders. were collected in 2005. Federal Mandates to Based on the 1986 Bradley Amendment was further the Social Security Act - which comparable figure in California to be 60 comparable figure percent. debt is uncollectible. most child support true for This finding undoubtedly holds the District, where child support debtors, other jurisdictions may be recent studies in national study shows that instructive. One support debt is owed 70 percent of child parents earning less than by non-custodial California study found the $10,000, and a the Project team did not have specific have specific team did not the Project of the District’s the characteristics data on modification when appropriate. support debt, and has ignored the “carrot,” ■ States have discretion to which could result in a societal benefit compromise child support arrears, and have the advantage of getting arrears penalties and interest owed to off the District’s books. Recently, CSSD the state. announced plans for a program called ‘Fresh Start’ to provide debt-forgiveness in Debt leveraging – the strategic use of debt exchange for lump sum payments toward forgiveness to encourage compliance with arrears, though details are not available. a current order - received particular support from former OCSE Commissioner Sherri Prevention: Initial Orders and Heller in a 2004 speech to the National Modifications Child Support Enforcement Association. Significantly, DC does not engage in some Commissioner Heller noted that most of the practices known to produce high child support debtors are low-income arrears.360 In the District, few default individuals and that “even the most creative orders are used,361 and retroactive support automation tools can’t find money that’s 358 is not ordered in TANF cases; they are not there.” She called debt leveraging ordered only on a very limited basis in non- “just one example of this larger theme I’m TANF cases, and rarely beyond five years trying to get across, about ensuring that all (though support is always retroactive to of our customers feel that the system is just 362 359 the date of filing). Further, retroactive and sensible.” support was recently limited to two years with limited exceptions.363 Also, use of Challenges in the District the New Guideline (including the new self-support reserve), and a relatively low Although the District has some practices minimum order of $50, generally assist that tend to prevent unpaid arrears, as in establishing reasonable initial support well as certain mechanisms to manage orders.364 The District is also one of arrears, the District has not yet adopted a comprehensive policy towards arrears management. Specifically, the District does not gather or analyze arrears data on the characteristics of child support debtors in order to support a strategy that would identify the most collectible arrears; and, with the exception of a one-time amnesty program due to be repeated in 2007, the District has relied almost exclusively on punitive arrears enforcement, rather than tying payment of owed support to positive behavior, such as participation in family and job training programs (“debt leveraging”). In other words, the District several states that does not charge interest has employed a “stick” approach in trying on arrears, which keeps arrears from Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve to collect largely uncollectible child mounting further, but which, according to

112 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System some experts, creates its own disincentive A recent law intended to facilitate Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System to paying support obligations on a the modification process for criminal timely basis.365 offenders sentenced to 30 days or more has not resulted in nearly as many The District fails to use modification of modification requests as anticipated, child support orders sufficiently as a tool and CSSD has recently received a grant for preventing arrears. Upon request, from OCSE to design and implement CSSD provided data only on upward improvements in those procedures. As modification requests. Accordingly, discussed elsewhere in this report (see there is no clear picture of how many Part IV, Section A, Chapter 3: Incarcerated downward modifications are requested Parents and Ex-Offenders), to the extent based on changes in non-custodial parent that incarcerated individuals account circumstances. According to CSSD, during for a substantial portion of accumulated the month of March 2007, the court heard arrears – something the Project Team 247 requests for modification, 57% of suspects but cannot confirm given the which involved a reduction in support, absence of data provided during our study either due to downward modification, – we support the District’s and CSSD’s suspension, termination, or dismissal. efforts to ensure the suspension and/or Because of how these data are aggregated, modification of support orders during it is unclear how many reductions are incarceration and for some period of time related to changes in employment after release as this fragile population versus incarceration, emancipation of a reenters the community, the workforce, child, or other case changes. Requests and their children’s lives. For all low- for downward modification by the non- income obligors, however, and especially custodial parent need to be filed through those whose employment status tends the court, whereas custodial parents can to change frequently, a quick and user- make such requests directly to CSSD. Non- friendly modification process is essential custodial parents who communicate their to keeping arrears from accumulating. circumstances directly to CSSD can be The current system is significantly less disappointed to learn that the notice they friendly to non-custodial parents.368 CSSD provided had no actual impact on their should do more to promote and support case. In general terms, modification of downward modifications when filed and child support orders is an underutilized when appropriate. option, particularly by low income obligors.366 Arrears Management When, despite prevention efforts, arrears According to some observers, CSSD do accumulate, it is important to have routinely challenges any request for a strategy to address them. Federal downward modification no matter how regulations provide a variety of mechanisms reasonable. CSSD claims that it files for this. The District currently allows for oppositions to downward modification enforcement of support orders through motions in order to preserve the several means: government’s right to a hearing and to ensure that the non-custodial parent ■ Liens against real and personal provides appropriate evidence.367 property;

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 113 ■ Interception of lottery prizes; with an agency that has the power to ■ Denial of issuance or renewal of suspend their driver’s license or take other car registration, driver’s license, punitive action. The same fears, whether professional or business licenses; well-founded or not, may cause the non- ■ Suspension of passports; custodial parent to avoid contact with the ■ Collection from state and federal custodial parent and, by consequence, income tax refunds; the children, or to pursue “off the books” ■ Reporting to consumer credit employment, further leading to low paying reporting agencies of overdue jobs and little job security. support of $1,000 or more; ■ Publishing information “using any Forgiveness of arrears by CSSD has been media” about an obligor’s support ad hoc, that is, not based on any particular obligation of overdue support of published criteria and not apparently tied $2,000 or more; to specific objective criteria or programs ■ Attachment of the following assets: that would serve either to reduce arrears unemployment and worker’s in the future or to further other public compensation payments, judgments policy goals, such as job training and and settlements, assets held in strengthening family bonds. CSSD’s financial institutions, and public and reasons for not offering debt forgiveness private retirement funds; and was that forgiveness rewards non-payers, ■ Criminal and civil contempt. and that non-custodial parents may hold out on child support in the hope of getting Under the heading of “enforcement/ a “better deal” in the future. The premise collection methods,” CSSD’s website of such a concern, however, is that obligors cautions that failure to pay child support are unwilling rather than unable to pay, can result in many of the punitive which is not always true. Much if not most consequences listed above. CSSD has also of the debt is simply uncollectible, and published separate pamphlets entitled debt forgiveness can be targeted to the “Passport Denial” and “Administrative lowest income obligors. As noted, debt Offset and Tax Refund Offset.” And in forgiveness can also be “leveraged” to a its “Client Roadmap” materials, CSSD “cost” such as attending job training to indicates that child support enforcement enhance future economic capacity. is “automatic” when arrears reach a certain amount: “the automated system will initiate CSSD now reports that it is in the final enforcement actions – license revocation, stages of developing a debt-leveraging referrals for tax refund intercept programs, program called Fresh Start.369 The reporting to credit bureaus, and program will aim to collect lump-sum passport denials.” payments toward non-TANF arrears (money owed to the custodial parent) in Obligors who have fallen behind in their exchange for forgiveness of TANF arrears support payments are unlikely to be (money owed to the District). Lump-sum encouraged by these materials to meet with payment programs, however, favor those CSSD to pursue a satisfactory resolution, with some substantial income or resources, short of payment of the full arrears which does little to assuage those who Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve amount. Indeed, they may fear contact consider debt-forgiveness a reward for past

114 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System non-compliance. For those unable to make were any data made available on whether lump-sum payments, Fresh Start proposes any enforcement tools have been used with Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System debt reduction in exchange for consistent greater success than others. payment histories. No further details were made available, including how many obligors would be eligible or what criteria would be used, but such a program would prove a substantial improvement over past practice, which involved ad hoc decisions by CSSD’s Director regarding whether some or all of an obligor’s state-owed arrears should be forgiven.

In addition to the proposed debt- leveraging program, the District has participated in a child support amnesty program with Virginia and Maryland, offering assurance of non-prosecution and deferral of other enforcement measures during the two-week amnesty period. The We do not know, for example, the program, which ran for two weeks in 2005, following: netted approximately $200,000 in arrears from among 1,600 non-custodial parents ■ How much of the arrears debt is who participated in the program, or on owed by incarcerated individuals average $125 per obligor. This program whose support obligations should did not include arrears forgiveness or have been suspended. debt leveraging. There are plans to hold ■ How much “old debt” is represented another amnesty program in 2007. in the overall arrears figure – the As noted earlier, the District regularly falls California Collectibility Study posits below the national norm in terms of both that older debt is less likely to be the average support collection rate and collected than recent debt, and that the number of cases where some support collectibility dropped “significantly” was paid by all obligors. The District’s five after the first year.371 fiscal year average from 2000-2004 was ■ What percentage of arrears is held 48.31 percent for support collections versus by what percentage of debtors a national average rate of 56.88 percent; – the California Collectibility Study and while the national average for cases showed that 28 percent of the in which some support was paid was 69.16 debtors owed 72 percent of the percent, the District average was only overall debt.372 51.20 percent.370 It does not appear that ■ The percentage owed by non- the District has data available on why the residents. The California District’s non-custodial parents have such a Collectibility Study found that it is high percentage of arrears, except perhaps generally more difficult to collect the low-skill levels and high levels of job from individuals who live in another instability among the IV-D population. Nor state.373

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 115 ■ Whether suspension of licenses or e.g., Part IV, Section C, Chapter 1: Case any other enforcement tool results Management, Part IV, Section A, Chapter in payment of arrears or encourages 3: Incarcerated Parents and Ex-offenders. keeping current with support However, special attention should be paid obligations. (License suspensions to the Colorado, Maryland, and Minnesota can impact an obligor’s ability to pilot programs for the management work, and we suspect that many of of the existing arrears because they those whose licenses are targeted address today’s immediate problem – the may not have valid licenses to begin $100+ billion in existing debt that may with.)374 well have the perverse effect of driving low income obligors away from the child support Without data showing what works and what system, away from steady employment, and does not work among the population of away from their children. obligors in arrears, the District can have little confidence that any of the existing Debt forgiveness in exchange for 10 enforcement methods will yield better consecutive current payments.377 The results in the future. Colorado project permitted forgiveness of child support arrears after 10 consecutive Best Practices monthly payments toward current support and/or negotiated arrears payment. Federal law gives states flexibility Individual counties established their own in devising policies to prevent the detailed programs, including the amount accumulation of arrears and to enforce of arrears that could be forgiven. The support orders.375 Several jurisdictions, evaluators of the Colorado Program most notably Colorado, Maryland, concluded that the pilot program may not and Minnesota, have instituted pilot have changed the behavior of non-paying programs designed to address both the participants, but that increased earnings prevention of child support arrears and and employment were better predictors of the management and compromise of participation and success. They therefore existing state-owed debts. Studies have recommended that debt forgiveness be tied identified several strategies to prevent to employment and training opportunities. arrears, including (i) minimizing default orders, (ii) developing easily accessible Debt forgiveness in exchange for 12 and understood materials, (iii) making consecutive payments.378 Under the orders realistic through better Guidelines Minnesota program, state-owed arrears for low income obligors, (iv) limiting could be entirely forgiven upon the making retroactive support orders, (v) monitoring of 12 consecutive regular child support cases and addressing quickly emerging payments. The program was evaluated non-payment matters, (vi) strengthening to have a 24 percent success rate (i.e., enforcement, and (vii) increasing review about one in four participants successfully and modification of orders.376 completed the program). The evaluation also found, inter alia, that “[t]hree factors These are all worthy strategies, many of . . . predict[ed] the success or failure of a them addressed elsewhere in this Report, participating non-custodial parent. The Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve

116 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System higher a non-custodial parent’s income, Recommendations the more likely he/she is to succeed. The Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System higher the amount of arrears that can i. Develop and implement an arrears be forgiven . . . , the more likely . . . [a management policy that is consistent non-custodial parent] is to succeed. The with what is known about the DC arrears- lower the required monthly child support carrying population. payment, the more likely a non-custodial The impact of high arrears on the parent is to succeed.” 379 compliance behavior and family relationships of child support-involved Incremental forgiveness to targeted low families is too great to manage the problem income obligors.380 The Maryland program on an ad hoc basis or within the limits of offered selected non-custodial parents with an arrears-specific program. CSSD needs State-owed arrears the opportunity to have to establish an arrears policy that includes their arrears forgiven if they participated prevention, collection, and forgiveness in job training and employment programs. when appropriate and when designed to One-quarter of an individual’s State-owed leverage debt into better outcomes for arrears were forgiven after completion of custodial parents and children. As further the job training/employment program; data are generated to identify in greater then, one-quarter of the remaining arrears detail the characteristics of the arrears were forgiven for each six-month period of population, the policy should be adapted timely support payments, with a maximum accordingly. For now, programmatic efforts of five years to achieve the four periods of should be undertaken according to current payment. The evaluation of the Maryland best procedures about working with low- program concluded that payment of income obligors. child support may be more dependent on income and employment than the ii. Review and modify the order incentive of having arrears forgiven, but modification process. it emphasized that “participants did work The court and CSSD should work together more, earn more, and pay more in current to design a quicker and more easily support than was forgiven in arrears.”381 accessible order modification process. At the very least, the process should be the same for custodial and non-custodial parents, and equally likely to produce upward or downward modifications. Information about the circumstances under which an order might be eligible for modification and the process for initiating a modification request should be clearly spelled out in written materials targeting both custodial and non-custodial parents, and on the court’s and CSSD’s websites.

iii. Create a debt-leveraging program. CSSD has indicated that it is in the early

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 117 stages of developing a debt leveraging to succeed in the forgiveness program. We applaud this step and program, and elimination of any recommend that the program be unnecessary obstacles to success. developed as one means of managing Stated differently, participants would arrears. The program should strive to need to receive a guarantee that balance the competing interests inherent other enforcement mechanisms in such a policy: rewarding past non- would be deferred, if not altogether compliance versus eliminating obstacles to extinguished, for those who are current future compliance. The features successful participants in the debt of the program should take into account leveraging program. the three pilot programs mentioned ■ Inclusion of an evaluation process. above. Those programs led to specific This should include a determination recommendations, which, although stated as to whether debt forgiveness is differently in each evaluation report, offset over time by collections, and are remarkably similar. We recommend which elements of the program that the Fresh Start program include the would appear to be offering the following components: greatest benefit in terms of future compliant behavior. ■ Inclusion of job training and ■ Tying eligibility criteria to an employment services, and possibly objective income measure, such as other social services such as current income as percentage of fatherhood classes, as part of the poverty. This would ensure that arrears forgiveness program. the program targets those with the ■ Close collaboration, cooperation greatest difficulty in making regular and mutual buy-in of all child support payments, and stands participating agencies, i.e., the the chance of offering benefits to child support agency, the training/ some of the lowest income families. employment programs, the court, Programs that rely on lump sum etc. payments are not well adapted to ■ Close monitoring of the obligors, low-income populations. and perhaps assigning specific ■ Advising custodial parents when child support staff to the arrears a non-custodial parent has been forgiveness program. Staff identified for the program, and sensitivity to a population that is giving them a right to object to the undereducated and underemployed non-custodial parent’s participation is important. and/or provide information ■ Development of well-considered about the non-custodial parent’s and clearly stated eligibility rules assets, employment status or and enrollment forms.382 Income other conditions that could affect and assets should be investigated eligibility. to ensure that only qualified non- ■ Expanding the Father Court to custodial parents are enrolled. include more low-income non- ■ Consideration of the impact of custodial parents. At present, the enforcement actions, e.g., driver Father Court proposes to serve only license revocation, tax intercepts, 45 parents over the next two years.383 Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve etc., on the ability of the participants

118 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Section B: Improving the Role of the Court

Photo by Michael Bonfigli. Improving the Role of the Court

Introduction some elements of each. Most states favor the judicial programs, with 24 states Federal law closely guides certain aspects scoring 14 or above on a scale of 4 (highly of child support programs, but leaves the administrative) to 16 (highly judicial), and question of administrative structure almost only 7 scoring 6 or below. DC has a score entirely up to each state. In general, as of 16, making it one of the most highly long as the designated state agency has an judicial jurisdictions. expedited system to establish and enforce support orders, states have significant The research concludes that either type of flexibility in how they administer child system, if implemented well, is acceptable. support. Some experts have pointed out that judicial procedures tend to be slower, which can 385 As described in a report by the Lewin impact their success rate, especially in a Group,384 child support programs across population that lacks stable employment the country operate in what can be best and financial security (the location and understood as a continuum from wholly financial situation of the parties can administrative to wholly judicial practices. change before an order is ever put in Some programs are highly administrative place). Neither type of system is inherently – with minimal involvement of the courts superior, but there are clear strengths and and attorneys, and the use of administrative limitations to both. hearings for contested cases. Other programs are highly judicial – with In DC, however, we believe the current substantial involvement of the courts and system does not take sufficient advantage attorneys, an order establishment process of the strengths nor does it adequately based on the court calendar, and routine address the limitations of involving the court hearings for both contested and non- judiciary so heavily, which ultimately contested cases. Another group, which the hurts both CSSD and the court as well as report refers to as “quasi-judicial,” borrows child support system customers. At 45.4 Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve

120 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System percent, DC’s order establishment rate is opposing positions. The second is that Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System substantially below the national average the parties have rights that need to be of 70 percent,386 and DC has a successful protected and the issues at stake are of process service rate of only 50 percent.387 sufficient consequence that the court’s At the end of FY 2006, the District reported involvement is essential to ensuring a fair only 42 percent of cases with arrears outcome. The third is that the authority paying.388 Nationally, approximately 60 of the court is necessary to compel percent of obligors owing arrears paid compliance with the order. towards their debt in FY 2005.389 This performance can be improved by making The problem is that these assumptions are adjustments to the current “judicial only sometimes true. For example, the use system,” as well as by making the system of judicial resources for hearings seems friendlier to customers who are ordinarily unnecessary when the non-custodial parent unrepresented by counsel. is on disability and his children receive benefits through that program. Judicial Federal Mandates hearings also seem unnecessary simply to provide in an order that the parent There are no federal mandates stating currently providing health insurance will whether a judicial or administrative continue to do so, or to develop a payment process must be used. Federal mandates schedule. DC currently has neither means do require that states use an expedited to identify cases that genuinely require process, either administrative or judicial judicial involvement nor any alternative or both, to increase effectiveness and meet procedure for those that do not. the processing times specified.390 For child support cases needing support orders, Admittedly, determining whether cases regardless of whether paternity has been require judicial involvement is not always established, action to establish support an easy task. Currently, most non-custodial orders must be completed within six parents are unrepresented by counsel. months of service of process for 75 percent Many have problems with literacy or have of the cases and within 12 months for 90 had prior involvement with the courts on percent of the cases.391 DC Code § 11-1101 criminal matters. Their understanding grants the DC Superior Court Family Court of the system, their rights, and their control over matters of child support. obligations is not always clear. And, when they agree to a child support amount or Challenges in the District a payment plan, it is sometimes unclear if they are agreeing to appear compliant, Roles and Responsibilities because they do not know they have Structuring the child support process the right to object, because they do not through the judiciary implies some very understand, or because they fully agree basic assumptions about the process. The that they should, and will, pay the first is that the child support process is required amount. likely to be adversarial, so there is a need for a neutral third party to decide between

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 121 Additionally, judges rightly may be hesitant and should work more efficiently than this to trust that a non-custodial parent has and better serve the families it is intended been informed of his essential right to to serve. contest an order amount, or perhaps more importantly, his paternity. The information Representation that is affirmatively provided to non- The lack of representation for District custodial parents - typically in a 10-15 families in the child support system is a minute interview with CSSD Legal Section particularly complex problem. According staff (attorney or paralegal) prior to the to CSSD policy as of January 2001, CSSD hearing – may be considered sufficiently does not represent individual parents, unreliable that judges compensate by including those who apply for services hearing all cases and re-confirming independently of the public benefits information with non-custodial parents system.392 Instead, CSSD represents the even when there is a report of consent. District, and the District is a party to As a result, therefore, uncontested child child support cases to protect its interest support hearings largely consist of judges in ensuring that District children are affirming with the non-custodial parent adequately supported. In addition, the that he understands the order, agrees with District has an interest in pursuing child the order amount, understands his right to support funds assigned to the District request a modification of the order should by TANF and Medicaid recipients. This his circumstances change, and affirming means that, technically, with no private that the order itself contains all the counsel present, neither the custodial necessary information. parent nor the non-custodial parent is represented in most child support matters. Indeed, Project team members witnessed Nevertheless, CSSD, while perhaps careful several hearings in which non-custodial to avoid an attorney-client relationship parents were not provided with essential with custodial parents, manifests a much information, such as financial information stronger commitment to providing them from the custodial parent in order to with information and support. The new run the guidelines accurately. Cases “Customer Survival Kit,” for example – a were observed in which, in response to folder of brochures, Frequently Asked a judge’s questioning, a non-custodial Questions, and a “Roadmap” of the child parent would indicate a clear disagreement support system – was designed to be given with a so-called consent order, and would to custodial parents at the earliest possible be encouraged by the judge to return to opportunity, but to non-custodial parents conference to get clarification. The Project only in court after an order has been team also witnessed judges correcting established.393 This ambivalence has not orders which had been submitted for been lost on the court, which has been signature without including medical observed referring to custodial parents support or arrears charges, even though as the “client” of the “government.” One judges should not be necessary to affirm judge commented that she makes sure what the child support professionals should non-custodial parents know all the options, do as part of a routine process, or review possibilities, and consequences of the documents for correctness. The system can actions being taken since they “don’t have Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve

122 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System an attorney.”394 Such a perception indicates in establishing services for non-custodial

both confusion regarding the issue of parents because of the association of non- Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System representation and a seeming disparity by custodial parents with “deadbeat dads.” CSSD in treatment of parents. Regardless The District of Columbia Bar Foundation of written policy, CSSD often practices as estimates that, as a general proposition, if it would have a conflict of interest if it no more than “ten percent of the need provided certain services to non-custodial for civil legal assistance [needed by the parents. low-income community] is being met.”395 And in child support cases, it appears that At the same time, custodial parents are significantly fewer than ten percent of themselves frequently uninformed about non-custodial parents have representation. court hearings concerning their child(ren). Thus, the District has a judicial system Decisions are then made at those hearings with no resources available to ensure that based on inaccurate and unverified all parties to the action have access to information, or are postponed until the counsel or even to basic information about custodial parent can be contacted and/or the process. Furthermore, federal law brought in as the government’s witness. prohibits federal child support funds from While some of the custodial parents being spent on counsel for indigent non- interviewed by the Project team accepted custodial parents or guardians ad litem.396 responsibility for not informing CSSD of changes of address that would have allowed Monitoring and Enforcement them to receive notice, others indicated The court does not technically have a that they heard about court dates through role in monitoring or enforcing child family or direct contact with the non- support orders except when CSSD chooses custodial parent. Custodial parents should to pursue a contempt charge. In those not be unnecessarily requested to come cases, which are virtually all filed under to court, since this would mean missing civil rather than criminal contempt, non- work or being otherwise inconvenienced, but they should also be kept consistently informed of what action is being taken, and what information they would be allowed or encouraged to contribute.

Several judges who were interviewed for this Report expressed concern over the lack of representation for non-custodial parents. None suggested that custodial parents need representation, which is consistent with the ongoing perception that CSSD provides necessary services even custodial parents are summoned to court if not formal representation to custodial and CSSD (and the custodial parent in parents. Some judges also indicated non-TANF cases) will typically attempt that law schools and private pro bono to negotiate an agreeable payment plan. attorneys were not likely to be interested If an agreement can be reached, CSSD

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 123 will recommend to the court that the CSSD and/or the court are willing contempt charge be held in abeyance to accept. while the obligor has an opportunity to comply.397 The obligor is expected to Orders sometimes remain “temporary” for return to court for a contempt review years. Once they are made permanent, (typically about three months later). Even they can be modified only according to in cases where contempt is found, the regulations that require a substantial sentence is stayed while the obligor is given change in circumstances and a variation a chance to comply. Upon return to court of 15 percent from the current order for a subsequent review (a more variable amount (with the exception of adding period depending on the expectations a medical support order).399 The court set by the court) the stay will be lifted or uses the temporary status to modify the continued. Using the consequences of a orders according to current financial contempt charge (jail, fine, or both) as circumstance of the non-custodial parent at leverage to encourage compliance with each court appearance. an order that has been violated appears to be an appropriate use of the court’s Overall, judges are not satisfied with resources. Some believe that the court is the limited options available to them not aggressive enough in its use of to encourage non-custodial parents to available sanctions. find work, but are reluctant to create permanent orders under conditions highly The court, however, is also using review susceptible to change. Judges wish to keep hearings as a de facto modification process whatever leverage they have to induce non- for unemployed and underemployed custodial parents to take full responsibility non-custodial parents. As many as one- and do not want to set permanent orders third of the establishment and financial that are artificially low; at the same time, review cases heard by the court involve a judges express frustration at their inability non-custodial parent claiming to be either to fully motivate non-custodial parents to unemployed or insecurely employed obtain jobs. (meaning part-time, temporary, seasonal, or otherwise tenuously connected to Judges are also reluctant to impute the labor force).398 The current process income in these circumstances since involves setting a “temporary order” based income imputation tends to lead to high on the available financial information, arrearages.400 (See Part IV, Section A, Chapter and scheduling a review hearing for 5: Management of Child Support Arrears.) Of approximately three months later. Non- course, some of these non-custodial parents custodial parents are routinely advised are avoiding legitimate work. They may to bring proof of a job search to the work inconsistently in a cash economy and follow-up hearing which typically requires fail to report their income, or they may 10 inquiries or applications per week. be qualified to work but avoid jobs that They are given a form to complete, but would subject them to wage withholding. additional evidence of the job search can In these cases, income imputation may be be required, including oral testimony, appropriate and a custodial parent could copies of applications, or other evidence petition for a permanent order based on Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve

124 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System the imputed amount. However, many of to initiate the process of applying), then these non-custodial parents have legitimate CSSD should assist that non-custodial Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System barriers to employment and are not simply parent to initiate or process the claim.401 avoiding work. This would both secure benefits for the child and avoid unnecessary court hearings In both of the described areas – lack of - which can be very difficult for disabled parent representation and monitoring individuals to attend. and enforcement– the court is spending significant time filling a role that either 1) CSSD, on the other hand, would like to be more appropriately belongs elsewhere or able to establish consent orders without 2) needs to be formalized and improved. hearings and simply forward completed Of course it is appropriate for the court orders to the court for signature and filing. to use its authority to encourage non- It would also like to complete uncontested custodial parents to fulfill their parental modifications without hearings, such as responsibilities. But the options available noting on an order that a custodial parent to the court are so limited that the court is is currently providing medical support and using precious time and judicial resources wishes to continue. For reasons previously unproductively while failing to fully discussed, it seems unlikely under the serve the needs of custodial parents and present circumstances that the court would children. In our view, there are better agree to approve orders without hearings. alternatives to this system. From the court’s perspective, the lack of representation and unbalanced treatment CSSD’s Administrative Authority of non-custodial parents suggests that Both the court and CSSD would like to see judicial oversight of the current process is CSSD make better use of its administrative necessary. If a change in the process were authority, but they do not agree on what to occur, the court would of course need this entails. Judges and other court to have a voice in setting the conditions employees assert that CSSD requires under which it would be willing to approve non-custodial parents to file motions for administratively established orders. We matters that could and should be handled believe a shift to a process that relies on administratively, such as getting an account administratively established or modified audit completed so the non-custodial orders in at least some circumstances is parent can review CSSD’s account of his called for, and its development will require payment history. CSSD, on the other hand, a collaborative effort between CSSD claims that the court routinely orders them and the court to address all legal and to perform audits even though CSSD has procedural concerns. Fortunately, other developed an administrative process for jurisdictions have addressed these concerns non-custodial parents to request audits and thereby providing guidance for a has tried to inform the court that a court path forward. order is not necessary. Some also believe that if a non-custodial parent is claiming Best Practices disability (e.g., the parent receives Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), is Collaboration. The National Judicial/ in the process of applying for it, or needs Child Support Enforcement Task Force,

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 125 convened in 2004 by the Office of have been implemented in many US Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), jurisdictions. They are most commonly developed a Model Strategic Plan in March used to handle drug offenders, but also 2006 designed to serve as a roadmap deal with domestic violence cases, child for jurisdictions. One of the Plan’s welfare (family treatment) and offenders recommendations is that jurisdictions with mental illness. These courts help commit to a collaborative approach to the to address the problems underlying the judicial/administrative relationship.402 individual’s or family’s appearance in court, Truly effective collaboration requires and thus reduce “revolving door justice” ongoing commitment and trust between where the same individuals and families the parties involved. There is not cycle in and out for similar or related necessarily a great deal of trust between the problems. These courts apply a range court and CSSD, particularly in terms of of intermediate sanctions in response to serving the needs of non-custodial parents, varying degrees of client non-compliance. but there are approaches that both the For example, a drug offender who relapses court and CSSD can undertake to help while on probation may have testing increase the system’s effectiveness. requirements increased rather than having Most important is that CSSD and the the probation automatically revoked and court come to an understanding of what returning to jail. This approach maximizes each needs from the other in order to appropriate use of resources, reserving the move through cases as quickly and fairly most punitive and costly sanctions for the as possible. In other jurisdictions, courts most significant or tenacious problems, and IV-D agencies have collaborated to while still responding promptly and develop the forms and documents that consistently to less egregious offenses. are used to process child support requests and communicate with custodial and non- Increasingly, problem-solving is being custodial parents; determine best use of viewed as an approach to jurisprudence child access and visitation grant funds; rather than as an isolated program. Wake improve data sharing and exchangeability; develop implementation strategies for new initiatives such as those that deal with incarcerated non-custodial parents, and more. California’s state child support agency, for example, requires regular meetings between local courts and local child support agencies.403 That state made clear to the courts that increased funding to the child support program for meeting performance standards also meant more funding for the courts. County (Raleigh), North Carolina, has Problem-Solving Courts. Problem-solving been at the forefront of applying problem courts (sometimes known as collaborative solving techniques to child support justice or therapeutic jurisprudence) enforcement.404 Judge Kristin Ruth uses Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve

126 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System a combination of house arrest/electronic help men understand their importance monitoring, job training programming to their child(ren) and help them be Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System with case management, and incarceration better co-parents with their child(ren)’s to encourage compliance with child mother. It also involves case management support orders among chronic non- to help men find employment or improve payers. The research thus far suggests their earning capacity and, for many, that electronic monitoring – electronic it serves as a bridge to substance abuse offender surveillance that serves as an treatment. In operation since 1998, the alternative to incarceration and allows program has served over 400 men (though non-custodial parents to continue to graduating significantly fewer) and has work, engage in training, or seek work resulted in over $2 million in child support – has significantly increased collections collections.406 Program evaluations find of both current support and arrears. that men who complete the program Collections in the six months following report significantly more contact with electronic monitoring were two to three their child, increased interaction with times the collections in the months their child’s mother about their child’s prior. Research also found that non- development, and increased payment of custodial parents were more likely to find their child support.407 DC is in the process employment as the sanctions increased. of developing a Father Court based on The project continues to be evaluated in the National Center for Fathering court collaboration with faculty from Meredith model, which is an important step in the College to determine the impact of each problem-solving direction. component, but in the meantime, other North Carolina counties are adopting Increased Use of Administrative electronic monitoring to alleviate jail Procedures. Several jurisdictions have overcrowding and save money, while also supplemented their judicial child support allowing obligors to continue to work or processes with agency administrative seek employment. processes to increase overall efficiency and to relieve the caseload pressures on judges The National Center for Fathering has and caseworkers. Although replacing developed another problem-solving a predominantly judicial process with a court model around the issue of non- predominantly administrative one would payment of child support. The model involve major legislation in DC, there are serves as an alternative to prosecution or lesser steps that could be taken to improve incarceration for fathers with significant DC’s current system. arrearages.405 In Jackson County (Kansas City), Missouri, where non-payment Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) of child support is a criminal offense, Process. Alternative Dispute Resolution non-custodial parents with significant refers to a wide range of processes, such arrearages are offered Fathering Court as as negotiation, mediation, or arbitration, an alternative-to-incarceration program to settle disputes outside of the traditional (non-completion can result in probation judicial framework. In 2000, Texas or incarceration.) The program involves implemented such a process which is a 13-week fathering course, designed to regarded as particularly effective. Child

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 127 Support Review Process (CSRP) aims order covers everything an agreed CSRP to resolve child support legal issues in order would cover. This method produced the child support office rather than the 40,503 agreed orders and 7,816 non-agreed courthouse, with judges approving orders orders for Texas in FY 2006.413 to make them legally binding.408 Each new case that needs an order or paternity According to researchers Roberts and establishment is first reviewed to determine Sorensen, the Texas approach has if it is appropriate for administrative resulted in a “[t]remendous cultural process through CSRP.409 The governing change” that is “customer friendly” and criteria include that it cannot be an encourages contact with and education of interstate case, must have confirmed both parents.414 They also state that over addresses for both the custodial parent half of all CSE orders in Texas are now and the non-custodial parent/alleged established administratively. Of the cases father, both parents must be over 18 years handled through CSRP, Texas reports of age, and there must not be an indicator that 20 percent made their first payment of family violence or a history of custodial 30 days after establishment, compared parent non-cooperation.410 Cases requiring to only five percent of cases judicially enforcement may also go through CSRP if handled.415 Additionally, approximately there is a confirmed address and 83 percent of cases handled through employer information. CSRP made their first payment 120 days after establishment, compared to only 50 If a case meets the criteria, a computer percent of judicially processed cases. This sends (by mail) a simple notice to both program has improved Texas’ ability to parents that explains the advantages meet federal timeframes and the needs of using the administrative process, of its growing caseload, has given it better sometimes followed up by reminder phone case information, has freed up litigation calls. Conferences are conducted by CSE staff, court masters, judges, and county caseworkers trained in mediation. If both personnel to deal with more complicated parents attend the conference and agree to cases, and has allowed parents to meet an order, they sign a proposed order and in a less threatening environment than a waive their right to service. Both parties courtroom. Overall, for both establishment have the right to be represented by an and enforcement cases, CSRP was utilized attorney at the conference. The proposed for 60 percent of the caseload and 60 orders are reviewed by a CSE attorney, and percent of those cases paid during FY 2006, are signed and sent to the court for review compared to 44 percent of cases referred and signature before any pleading is filed during the same time period that were at court.411 If neither parent appears, or if handled judicially.416 they appear but do not agree to an order, the caseworker can prepare a “non-agreed Mediation as a component of case order” which is reviewed and signed by a management. Mediation has also proven CSE attorney and then sent to the court to to be a valuable component of case be served on the parents. Parents have 20 management, primarily when incorporated days to request a court hearing to object into an administrative process to take full 412 Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve to a non-agreed order. The non-agreed advantage of its benefits. In Delaware,

128 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System after a petition for child support is filed but do not prohibit courts and child Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System with the DC Superior Court Family Court, support agencies from referring parties to both parties are notified to attend a mediation to address custody and visitation mediation conference with Family Court issues and, in fact, encourage them to mediator staff. Delaware sends a packet do so. Many believe that the alternative of information on the mediation process dispute resolution process leads to greater to the parties to familiarize them with the compliance, less congested court dockets, goal of the process and what will occur.417 and increased customer satisfaction.418 Other jurisdictions, such as Colorado, The resources of the Court’s Multi-Door have independent mediators not affiliated Dispute Resolution division should be fully with the court or with the child support explored for its potential to help design agency to make the parents comfortable and implement appropriate programs and that they are receiving fair treatment in the referral protocols. negotiation conferences. Incorporating mediation necessitates the training of ii. CSSD and the courts should collaborate mediators in legal and administrative issues to simplify procedures for order that are important to the child support modifications. system, while mediators bring to the issue Downward modifications, when necessary their training in neutrality and process and appropriate, serve everyone’s interest, management that allows all parties to feel including the custodial parent who is heard and respected. Offering mediation better off knowing that although less as a way of managing child support in DC money will come, it will come regularly. would likely lead to a more effective system. DC is not unique in the underutilization of the modification process by low income Recommendations non-custodial parents and should take steps to make the process more accessible. i. CSSD and the courts should develop Procedures to request review and protocols and procedures to increase use modification should be made uniform for of mediation. both custodial and non-custodial parents. Disputes over many issues, e.g., access to Requests for upward and downward children and parenting styles, can interfere modifications should be handled with payment of child support. DC’s identically. Informational materials and child support system should make better motions should be reviewed to make the use of mediation services when parental process accessible to individuals with relationships are clearly interfering with lower literacy. compliance and should establish a set of referral protocols that can be used by the iii. The District should increase the range court, CSSD, and community-based service of options available to judges when a non- providers. Mediation and Alternative custodial parent is unemployed. Dispute Resolution should be considered Judges should have a range of options among the tools available to solve problems available to respond to non-custodial facing families in the child support system. parents who are unemployed, including Regulations preclude child support courts opportunities for education, training, from getting involved in custody decisions,

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 129 substance abuse treatment when The procedures should be designed necessary, and as well as sanctions and implemented to ensure that both for non-compliance. These options custodial and non-custodial parents would help the system in “smoking are receiving sufficient information out” non-custodial parents who claim to make sound decisions. These unemployment but are active in the procedures should be undertaken with underground cash economy. To a “full-service” approach such that implement this recommendation, the parents are encouraged to participate DC Council would need to authorize in any activities that will increase the judges to order employment and/or job likelihood of successful co-parenting and training for non-custodial parents before regular payment of support, including arrears accrue or a contempt motion has mediation, parenting programming, been filed. Judges should be provided employment and training activities, a handbook or “bench card” that substance abuse treatment, etc. The outlines all options available to them. court should be a full partner in The District Department of Corrections designing these procedures. Because the should be consulted on any protocols two agencies work so closely together, that involve increasing use of the jail or they should work together to design a correctional resources for child support process that ensures the informational cases, such as weekend incarceration, or needs of both custodial and non- electronic monitoring/house arrest. custodial parents are fully satisfied.

iv. Increase the use of administrative In our view, at a minimum, DC needs procedures to enhance parental “buy-in” legislation to clarify the issue of CSSD’s and increase system efficiency. administrative authority, particularly Both the court and CSSD managers in terms of the authority to establish agree that CSSD could make better orders. The legislation should be use of the administrative authority that crafted in such a way that the judiciary it has. They do not appear to agree, has a direct review of the administrative however, on what these uses should be procedures, since the court should or how to best implement them. These continue to be expected to approve all issues should be clarified through a child support orders. CSSD should also collaborative process, and legislation be given limited authority to prepare introduced where necessary to authorize modifications for cases involving medical additional CSSD administrative powers. support only, and cases where the non- custodial parent receives sufficient If CSSD is going to increase use of its federal benefits (such as social security administrative authority, it should do so disability) that will pay the full amount not only to increase efficiency but also to of child support directly. In all these increase parental buy-in and satisfaction circumstances, the procedures need to with the process. (See further discussion in be designed so that the court will have Part IV, Section C.) confidence in the proposed order and can sign it without holding a hearing. Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve

130 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System v. Increase outreach to non-custodial ■ CSSD should work with the parents. court to identify options for Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System CSSD must make a commitment showing videos and/or providing to providing additional and better informational services specific to information and services to non- child support located in or near custodial parents prior and subsequent the court. These materials and to their appearance in court, including services should be non-custodial- the following. parent-friendly and use language that assumes good faith on the ■ A “survival kit” should be part of the non-custodial parent. designed specifically for non- ■ CSSD should be dedicated custodial parents, addressing to providing as much and as their concerns and needs, and high quality information to written in language at a sixth non-custodial parents as to grade reading level so it will be custodial parents. Because broadly understood. It should CSSD represents the interests be delivered to non-custodial of children, the agency should parents with their order to appear recognize the importance in court and include information of having both parents fully about job training and informed and committed. The employment services available informational services CSSD for unemployed non-custodial provides should be sufficiently parents. (The latter points are further thorough and even-handed that discussed in Part IV, Section A, judges will trust that a consent Chapters 1 and 2.) order is agreeable to all. ■ A non-custodial parent unit ■ The DC Bar can assist in should be established within educating the community of CSSD to answer questions, family law attorneys and law respond to concerns, and make students about the needs of referrals to services, including “dead-broke” non-custodial legal services, for non-custodial parents. parents. It should be able to provide resources to assist in vi. Improve CSSD case management and making custody and visitation contact with custodial parents. arrangements, finding jobs, CSSD should continue to improve its directing disabled non-custodial management of cases within the legal parents concerning applying services unit such that cases do not come for disability, as well as matters to court unless they are ready and unless specific to the child support a court appearance is necessary. CSSD, process. The unit should be with the assistance of the courts, needs trained by service providers with to improve its systems for following up experience working with low- on judicial requests and for keeping income fathers. custodial parents informed of case

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 131 activities, including whether or not Many of the recommendations in this service has been completed. The goal Chapter and in this Report require should be to have no parent, custodial or collaboration across a broad cross non-custodial, brought into court or kept section of stakeholders. There is an at the court unnecessarily. The court existing Child Support Task Force can help by specifying circumstances that involves child support judges, under which it would be willing to allow court personnel, advocacy groups and witnesses to leave before cases are called. CSSD. This recommendation builds By increasing its use of administrative on what exists by recommending process, CSSD could reduce its court involvement at the highest levels of appearances and more efficiently handle the DC Government, including the its volume of cases. (See further discussion Attorney General and Chief Judge of the in Part IV, Section C.) Superior Court, greater involvement of CSSD, and includes the specific goal of vii. The Mayor should authorize the implementing the recommendations in Child Support Task Force to manage this report and addressing tensions that the collaborative process required to exist between CSSD and the courts which make necessary changes in the child adversely affect reform initiatives between support system, and to implement these partners. the recommendations in this report. Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve

132 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Section C: Improving Administration of CSSD

Chapter 1: Improving Management of Child Support Cases

Chapter 2: Locating and Serving Process on Non-Custodial Parents

Chapter 3: Medical Support

Photo by Michael Bonfigli. 134 Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System Taking Care oftheDistrict’s Children challenge facingDCisthatthemajority half thenationalaverage.Asnoted,one DC’s costeffectiveness rateisonlyabout Center forLawandSocialPolicy: systems. Accordingtoastudybythe in childsupportresultsmoreeffective to dollarsspent).Itisclearthatinvestment cost-effectiveness (dollarscollectedrelative established relativetocasesopened)and standards fororderestablishment(orders measured againstthesamefederal management practices.Allstatesare to determinetheirchildsupportcase and regulation,stateshavefulllatitude requirements establishedbyfederallaw Within theautomationandschedule Introduction ChildSupportCases 1. Improving Managementof top collectionrates. staffing ratiosalsohadthe having thehighestcostand Conversely, allbut onestate collection rateaverage. ratios exceededthenational the lowestcostandstaffing rates. Noneofthestateswith to havelowercollection and staffingratiostended while stateswithlowercost have highercollectionrates, staffing ratiostendedto States withhighercostand : The NeedtoReformDC’s Child SupportSystem 419 minimum federalstandards–andbetter it willbarelymeetorsubstantiallyexceed willdeterminewhether population itserves system tomeetthedemographicsof effective. enforcement mechanismsarefarless existing proceduresandautomated never-married familiesforwhomthe much moreheavilytowardlow-income, tax filings.Instead,DC’s caseloadleans including jobs,bankaccounts,andincome with solidtiestothelegitimateeconomy inherently designed, which thefederalchildsupportsystemwas not matchtheprofileoffamilyfor of familiesinthechildsupportsystemdo with thisrequirement. Enforcement (OCSE) to helpstatescomply OfficeofChild Support Human Services from theUSDepartmentofHealthand and technicalguidanceareavailable certain functions. support enforcementsystemthatperforms that allstateshaveacomputerizedchild and enforcement. child supportestablishment,monitoring or judicialprocessbeinplacetomanage mandates thatanexpeditedadministrative timelines fortheprocessingofcasesand establishment. Itprovidesdetailed and efficiencyofchildsupportorder Federal lawisconcernedwiththepace Federal Mandates recommendations forimprovement. support casemanagement,andmake provide moreeffectiveandefficientchild strategies usedbyotherjurisdictionsto Division(CSSD), Child SupportServices at theOfficeofAttorneyGeneral’s case managementsystem,recentchanges children.Chapter1willlookatDC’sserve 420 HowDCchoosestoadaptits 422 421 Financialsupport Italsorequires i.e., 423

familiesofdivorce Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System 135 Some of the States are 434 433 : The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Need to Reform DC’s The : 435 order and arrears are under $500 or are unenforceable under state law. deceased and no action against the estate is possible; under state law. unable to pay support for the duration of the child’s minority due to incarceration, institutionalization, or permanent and total disability.

There is no current support The obligated parent is Paternity cannot be established The obligated parent is 432 ■ ■ ■ ■ Taking Care of the District’s Children of the District’s Care Taking cases count in evaluating the agency’s cases count in evaluating the agency’s performance and eligibility for incentive payments, (2) resources are wasted sending routine materials to parties whose cases are no longer active, and (3) closing cases allows workers to focus on cases that can benefit from attention. would change the status. other criteria include the following: Case closure is an important element of case management since (1) all open are unsuccessful, agencies are required are required agencies are unsuccessful, why the attempt the reason to determine it would be appropriate failed and when enforcement to take any additional actions. is one of twelve federal Failure to locate closure. criteria for case required, to close cases allowed, but not the criteria. Four of that meet any of cannot be applied to the twelve criteria is on cases in which the custodial parent Nine of the twelve criteria require TANF. of the 60-day notification to the recipient intent to close the case unless agency’s new information is brought forward that If

425 429 If the This is 426 428 Agencies 430 If enforcement efforts 431

Agencies have discretion Agencies have 427 424 are required to monitor cases for compliance, and to take action within 30 days of a delinquency or other non- compliance. that have a history of non-payment. Agencies have two days from the date an order is established and/or they are made aware of the employment status of an obligor to send the withholding request to the employer. Once an order has been established, IV- D agencies have administrative authority to initiate wage withholding. mandatory for all cases, not just those a match with the Federal Parent Locator a match with the Federal Parent address an and - database other or System is found, the case will move forward on If it reaches the one the 90-day calendar. can or three year deadline, the case be closed. can remain open for one to three years can remain open for one to three security depending on whether a social placed number is available and can be in an automatic search mode. – that is, search process achieves a “hit” available resources for current address available resources for current states and asset information. Other make several service attempts before reclassifying the case back to locate. a parent is not located (and therefore not servable) 75 days, the case within about how to count cases that have not about how to count served.been successfully Some states “locate” status after return cases to servicehas failed, which resets of process all a 75-day clock to once again search support services under title IV-D of the support services under title IV-D Act) are required to Social Security of cases from servicemove 75 percent of order within process to an established 90 percent within 12 six months, and months. IV-D agencies (agencies designated designated agencies (agencies IV-D child federally-mandated to provide 136 Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System Taking Care oftheDistrict’s Children was notgivenaccessto thedetailsof BecausetheProject team cases forward. - haveimprovedtheirability tomove have applicationdocuments notarized the requirementthatcustodialparents made asaresult–sucheliminating sources ofdelay. Someofthechanges business processesinordertoidentify undertaken areviewofallstepsinits digitized files.Theagencyhasalso that wouldallowstafftoaccessthe recently installedprograms only very and iseitherstillworkingonorhas than onequarteroftheexistingfiles files. To date,CSSDhasscannedless system stillreliesheavilyonpaper computer, butthecurrentmanagement documents tomakethemavailableby CSSD isintheprocessofdigitizingits to improveitscasemanagement. does littletocontributeCSSD’s effort system thatiscumbersomeandslow. – isacode-based,pre-windowscomputer Support EnforcementSystem(DCCSES) CSSD’s computersystem–DCChild revocation, passportdenial).However cases forpenalties( information collection,andidentifying locate functions,employmentandwage Maintenance Administration(IMA), referrals fromtheDHSIncome management operationsareautomated: cases. Asrequired,manyofitsbasiccase CSSD managesover76,000childsupport Challenges intheDistrict case-closing policies. states toinstituteregular OCSE hasmadeeffortstoencourage A GuideforAutomatingCaseClosure,” Systems forChildSupportEnforcement: By issuingreportssuchas“Automated : The NeedtoReformDC’s ChildSupportSystem i.e ., license

It 436

for anyopencasesinvolvingthesame case inthecomputersystem,searching collecting intakeinformation,openinga enforcement. Preparationincludes and toconductbasiccollection prepare casesforlegalprocessing, Administrative processesareusedto involves twoseparateprocesses. case managementatCSSDessentially Because ofitsbasisinthejudicialsystem, customers. their outcomes,suchastheimpacton management practicesprimarilythrough however, weareevaluatingthecase the businessreengineeringprocess the courtandCSSDto agreeona apparently duetotheinability of system andDCCSESis not available, betweenthecourt’s computer interface appearances incourt.Automated paper documentationandpersonal than theadministrativeones,involving procedures aremorelaborintensive his consenttothoseterms.Thelegal of thepreparedorder, andseeking the hearing,advisinghimofterms the non-custodialparentondayof is alsoresponsibleformeetingwith make payments.Thelegalsectionstaff custodial parent’s persistentfailureto contempt filingsbecauseofthenon- and monitorcasesthathavetriggered orders whennecessary, andenforce other administrativeprocedure,modify acknowledgmentor done byvoluntary orders, establishpaternityifnotalready the cityathearings)areusedtoestablish processes (filing of motions, representing current locationinformation.Legal the custodialparentdidnotprovide or earnings,andlocatingtheparentif available informationonhisemployment non-custodial parentandforany 437 , Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System 137 CSSD’s CSSD’s 438 : The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Need to Reform DC’s The : Taking Care of the District’s Children of the District’s Care Taking commit to CSSD for much longer periods longer much for CSSD to commit of time. When fully staffed, CSSD has 13 attorneys and 7 paralegals. staffing rate has remained essentially unchanged in the past two years. complain that cases are brought to complain that cases are brought hearing that have not been sufficiently for checked for accuracy or even Cases appropriateness of the motions. from are called for which follow-up been the previous hearing has not yet time accomplished. Judges use their rather essentially proofreading orders than problem-solving with families. the This situation is exacerbated by Several high attorney turnover at CSSD. within attorneys with experience both and outside the Office of the Attorney General have suggested that new attorneys use child support as a “training ground” to gain courtroom experience. According to CSSD staff, about half of attorneys remain only six months CSSD’s which is a drain on resources to a year, as well as a set-up for poor showings in court. Paralegals, in contrast, tend to customer service continuity. Although servicecustomer continuity. in this regard, all such efforts we applaud on their scope or we cannot comment of their effectiveness because formative nature. Legal Process child support Because the District’s on the judicial system, system is based legal section is typically the CSSD’s of the system. Even face and the voice recognizing the difficulty of managing the heavy caseload, as earlier discussed, legal the approach to managing the effective process does not lend itself to or efficient use of the court. Judges reports that it is “in the process” of taking steps to ensure greater caseworker and in court. Some community service providers find the agency unreceptive to their concerns on behalf of clients and they do not have relationships with case workers who potentially could help them CSSD work through the bureaucracy. a perceived lack of continuity and Customers complain accountability. that they never know whom they will speak to, and are expected to work with different attorneys each time they appear For customers, this process is impersonal. For customers, this process is impersonal. Despite the very nature of the personal intimate issue, and its basis in complex, relationships, the process is bureaucratic and, in the words of one non-custodial There is also parent, “cookie cutter.” the enforcement unit takes over, except the enforcement unit takes over, court for cases that require additional legal appearances, at which point the unit gets involved. have indicated that this part of the have indicated that this part of box where process can seem like a black about they are given no information and do what is happening with their case any delays. not understand the source of Once an order has been established, efficiently transferred from the intake efficiently transferred section, many are section to the legal forth between intake, passed back and arriving locate and establishment before parents in the legal section. Custodial court’s system. court’s case management Against this backdrop, in concept and practice. is difficult both by a variety of agencies Cases are handled While some cases are and individuals. Memorandum of Understanding to of Understanding Memorandum the access to CSSD’s accomplish 138 Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System Taking Care oftheDistrict’s Children a timelymanner. oppositions, orotherlegal documentsin motions, drafting andfilingnecessary file iscompleteandup-to-date, ensuring thattheinformationon inquiring foradditionalinformation, customers whenthecaseisassigned, a rangeoftasks,includingcontacting members. Attorneysareresponsiblefor paralegal, andsupportstaffteam to beaccomplishedbytheattorney, The VPPclearlyarticulatesthetasks for customers. what impactthiswillhaveoncontinuity permits suchrotation.” sixmonths“whenstaffing occur every be kept“relativelystable,”rotationwill continuity. However, whileteamswill court, buttherewillatleastbe“team” throughout thecourseofacaseandin with severaldifferentteammembers a customermaystillhavetointeract The teamapproachalsomeansthat custodial parent’s underlyingsituation. staff’s increasedfamiliaritywiththenon- enforcement sanctionsthroughthe model willhelpimposeappropriate consistency. of providingimprovedcontinuityand beginning toendwiththeintention to worktogetherhandleacasefrom support staff.Theteamsaredesigned attorneys, twoparalegals,andone each teamconsistsoftwoorthree assigned day. case wasbeforethecourtontheir individual attorneyshandledwhatever replaced theprevioussysteminwhich Plan (VPP)or“teamapproach”-which legal section-theVertical Prosecution a newcasemanagementplanforthe 2007,CSSDimplemented In January 440 : The NeedtoReformDC’s ChildSupportSystem 439 CSSDhopesthisnew AccordingtotheVPP, 442 Eventhoughsome 441 Itisnotclear whether attorneyswillhaveadequate and attorneys,butthequestionremains could increasethetrustbetweenclients he/she mayhave.” assigned andtoansweranyquestions inform him/herthatthecasehasbeen that attorneys“contactthecustomerto and attorneys,suchastherequirement to increasecontactbetweenclients Some oftheproceduralchangesattempt signing eachmotion. are stillresponsibleforreviewingand or analyticalprocessing,theattorneys form motionsthatrequirenoresearch support staffmayspecificallyhandle CSSD recognizesthatcase sorting courtrooms forefficiency. Significantly, and needstoassignits attorneysto cannot controltheschedulingprocess case managementsystem.CSSD were assignedundertheprevious randomly astheindividualattorneys the VPPteamsareassignedcasesas reference totheircontent.Thus to beassignedcourtroomswithout court’s schedulers andcasesappear the judgeinthatcourtroomby They handleanycaseassignedto are assignedtocasesbycourtroom. Father Court.Casemanagementteams of casesthatwillbeassignedtothe domestic violenceorthelimitednumber case differentiation,exceptincasesof old systemalackofcasesorting,or management, thereremainsfromthe significant improvementincase While theVPPrepresentsapotentially extra contact. cases todeterminewhichoneswarrant calls, and/orhowtheywillprioritizethe phone time tomakesuchexploratory 443 Suchaprocedure Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System 139 445 : The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Need to Reform DC’s The : Taking Care of the District’s Children of the District’s Care Taking Division. CSSD reports that in FY 06, 45,572 cases or 83 percent of current or former assistance cases, involved a non- cooperative custodial parent. challenges remain. Both CSSD and IMA challenges remain. Both CSSD as cite staffing and resource deficiencies their most salient challenge throughout at the the project. The CSSD worker intake center does not have voicemail so on the telephone at her desk, office communication between the main In and the Anacostia office is difficult. necessarily addition, IMA workers do not and support the goals of child support challenges the process it involves. These of are exacerbated by the resistance applicants to participating in the TANF child support system, and by their lack of understanding of the relationship between the two systems. CSSD reports that IMA applicants will sometimes deny any knowledge of the father to both CSSD and IMA, even when there Acknowledgement is a Voluntary of Paternity on file with the DC Department of Health Vital Records difficult to incorporate CSSD workers CSSD workers to incorporate difficult IMA interviews,into the eventually but system was developed a more successful in which the interview with the CSSD while the client was worker occurred 30 minutes for her waiting the 15 to the For CSSD workers, IMA interview. a better understanding project provided it improved work process and of IMA’s issues with IMA past communication from the that stemmed principally agencies having different goals. Despite the success of the co-location project in allowing CSSD to serve TANF clients more quickly and efficiently, In practice, it proved too 444 joint intake interviews with TANF joint intake interviews with TANF clients. OCSE and is continuing beyond the termination of the grant funds. The co-location project ran from September 2004 through February 2007. Anacostia CSSD staff was placed at IMA’s Intake Center with a plan to conduct cases to the Locate Unit. CSSD also initiated a co-location program with IMA so that custodial parents applying for could be interviewed regarding TANF child support at the same time. This initiative was funded by a grant from parents appear in person following a parents appear in person following referral from IMA, that application documents be notarized, and within conducting basic locate functions referring the intake process rather than Maintenance Administration CSSD has made significant by improvements in its intake process cases eliminating barriers to getting These have included “court ready.” custodial eliminating requirements that custodial parents who actively pursue custodial parents who actively are establishment and enforcement more likely to get it. Relationship with DHS Income assistance). Given the large caseload, assistance). Given essential, but it appears prioritization is the new system that even under the cases are prioritized in part by is that “squeaky wheel” method, which the teams should be designed to the teams should sorting in order to conduct an internal servicesbring specialized to particular (paying/non-paying, categories of cases current employed/unemployed, assistance/never assistance/former is a necessaryproper tool to assure Accordingly, of resources. allocation 140 Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System Taking Care oftheDistrict’s Children community advocateshave indicated their totalcaseload. cases, approximately43 percentof managed 33,657formerassistance information needs. and CSSDtoaddresstheparents’ the lackofcoordinationbetweenIMA custodial parentsleavingTANF and the delayeddistributionoffundsto and IMA. management ofcasessharedbyCSSD some significantshortcomingsinthe Columbus SchoolofLawdocumented Brustin fromCatholicUniversity’s In spring2003,ProfessorStacy orders tobeestablishedmorequickly. attempts,andenable failed service simple stepcouldsavetime,prevent person whoisbestabletodoso.This identity andlocationwiththevery from verifyingthenon-custodialparent policy unreasonablypreventsintake of suchinstances,itseemsthatthis given therelativelylowoccurrence their currentaddressisrevealed.But to abusebythecustodialparentif custodial parentswhomightbesubject staff cite“safetyconcerns”fornon- information withtheapplicant.CSSD custodial parent,theydonotverifythe to theLocateUnitfindnon- or notthecaseneedstobepassed locate efforttodeterminewhether intake workersconductanabbreviated parents. Forexample,eventhough information derivedfromcustodial look carefullyatwaystoimprovethe collections (86percent),CSSDshould orders (70percent)andwithout number ofcurrentTANF caseswithout by custodialparents,andthehigh Given thehighlevelofnon-cooperation 446 Amongherconcernswas : The NeedtoReformDC’s ChildSupportSystem 447 448 InFY06,CSSD Morerecently, families whoclosedtheirTANF cases that approximately57percentofTANF the amounttheyreceive).Datasuggests payment status(thoughitmaychange no longerchangetheirchildsupport the outsetandTANF terminationwill receiving childsupportpaymentsfrom have orderswithcollectionsshouldbe in DC) Process III, Chapter3:TheChildSupport new $150pass-throughpolicy needs tobereexaminedinlightofthe the receiptofchildsupport.Thisissue between thelastTANF paymentand the agenciesleadstomonthsofdelay that thepoorcommunicationsbetween assist publicbenefitsrecipients with can nowanswerquestions andotherwise to clientsinitiatingaTANF case,CSSD grant limitedCSSD’s communications not limitedtonewintakes.Whereasthe anyclientwhocomesin,andis can serve that thegrantperiodisover, isthatit One additionalbenefittoCSSD,now keep workersattheirAnacostiaoffice. continue thecollaborationwithIMAand the future,CSSDwillmakeaneffortto of theDistrict’s poorestfamilies.In and IMAisessentialtothewell-being Effective collaborationbetweenCSSD been abandoned. It appearsthatefforthas minimal fundingandstaffwasassigned. DC Councilinitiallyprovidedsome who wouldsoonbeleavingTANF. The population ofchildsupportcustomers that CSSDdedicatestafftothe collect remains.Brustinrecommended however, theneedtostep-upefforts to For thoseorderswithoutcollections, during themonthcasewasclosed. in FY06receivedsomechildsupport , sinceTANF recipientswho (see Part (see Part Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System 141 : The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Need to Reform DC’s The : Taking Care of the District’s Children of the District’s Care Taking demonstrates a commitment to improve demonstrates a commitment to have procedures. Other jurisdictions address implemented procedures that areas in which CSSD could further and, improve case management practices by extension, outcomes. Case sorting criteria to by specific determine of the case. treatment the and Case sorting is the “separation treatment of cases based on selected agencies criteria. It allows child support and to target enforcement techniques locate the non-custodial parent. All other parent. All other non-custodial locate the manual require substantial case closures there is input by staff. Unfortunately resources to compensate either a lack of support limited system’s for the computer closure or a lack of in automating case to an ongoing case personnel to devote hope that We or both. closure policy, system, expected to a new computer 2009, will include better be installed by processes for case mechanisms and sorting and closure. Best Practices latest case management plan CSSD’s

449 According to CSSD, DCCSES According to CSSD, DCCSES 450 percent. reasons has “logic” to close cases for two federal out of the twelve allowed by the of the regulations: (i) emancipation inability to youngest minor child, and (ii) This alone effectively raised DC’s order This alone effectively raised DC’s ten establishment rate by more than Case Closure/Automation can be reduced Child support caseloads staff or reducing by either increasing effort by CSSD in 2004 cases. A one-time of nearly 33,000 cases. led to the closure existing cases, such as those coming in for those coming in cases, such as existing recertification. TANF services more effectively toward different who are actively evading payment can be types of non-custodial parents.”451 An pursued for any assets or charged with essential aspect of many of these case- contempt. This model was recommended sorting models is based on behavioral for the state of Arizona’s Department characteristics (degree of willingness to of Economic Security, Division of Child pay) and financial characteristics (degree Support Enforcement when it was seeking of ability to pay). Depending on the new ways to reach non-payers453 and was particular characteristics, referrals can described as “well received by other states” be made to employment and training by independent child support programs, public health, responsible policy experts.454 fatherhood, or domestic violence programs, and marriage and relationship Hennepin County (Minneapolis), skills training. Minnesota, segments its enforcement cases for management according to payment The Minnesota State CSE agency has history, classifying the cases as payers and developed a “case segmentation” model non-payers. According to Elaine Beckman that sorts non-custodial parents into of the U.S. Department of Health and categories based on their willingness and Human Services, “paying cases receive an ability to pay, and then applies different automatic notice if a payment has not been and targeted strategies to each category. made in the last 30 days. Caseworkers Minnesota’s sorting categories are: willing then contact the non-custodial parents to pay, lack of information, unable to by phone to find out why the payment pay, reluctant to pay, and actively evading was missed,” which returns the case to payment.452 Those who are unable to paying status more quickly. 455 When pay, for example, can be referred to job caseworkers are overloaded with so many readiness and training services while those cases, this case segmentation enables them Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve

142 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System to receive notice as soon as a payment is staff. The Massachusetts example

missed. Hennepin County workers find demonstrates how case differentiation Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System that phone contact is most effective, and and automation can work together to that fast, personal contacts lead to better increase efficiency. The goal in DC, which payments. They have also developed is already understaffed, would not be to special outreach brochures aimed at each eliminate staff but to streamline disposition identified category of non-custodial parent. of routine cases and free staff to focus on Hennepin County staff has found that the cases requiring more intensive system allows them to monitor changing personnel resources. situations more quickly, to become more expert in specific activities, and to be more Case ownership. Massachusetts has proactive in their case management.456 recently instituted a more radical version CSSD has a system by which cases are of the District’s new VPP plan, and now identified as early as 60 days after a assigns cases to case workers on a “case payment is missed (at which point an ownership model.” The Massachusetts employed obligor would be potentially child support office recently switched subject to driver’s license revocation), and to this model to address problems with assigned to workers to contact the obligor customer service and duplication of effort. by phone. We have no information on This model differs from the District’s whether this applies to all or only select Vertical Prosecution Plan in that cases delinquencies, whether the threat of are assigned to individual workers, and license revocation is the ostensible basis for assignments occur both within and outside the call, or how effective it has been.457 the legal process.

Broad enforcement through case sorting. Case ownership in Massachusetts is Massachusetts’ enforcement strategy also based on an alphabetical model, i.e., focuses on a case sorting model. One cases are assigned according to the first of the first states to use automatic wage initial of the non-custodial parent’s last withholding, Massachusetts has used a name. Ownership shifts only once from system of “mass enforcement of IV-D an order-establishment case worker cases” since 1992, using a combination of to an enforcement or interstate case case sorting and administrative liens.458 worker, depending on whether the case Massachusetts’ approach is based on three is preobligated (order has not yet been main elements: (1) cases with similar established) or obligated and whether both characteristics are grouped together; (2) parties reside in Massachusetts. Litigators decision rules determine what types of are considered “process owners” rather action occur for particular groups of cases; than “case owners” because they handle and (3) computer searches automatically the case only for that portion of the take the appropriate enforcement action. process. However, each unit/team uses an In the first year or so of this approach, alphabetical sort, so workers are “teamed Massachusetts issued 70,000 administrative up” with other members of other teams liens, collected $200,000 in response within the region. For example, the intake to these liens, and drastically reduced or case-create worker will always work with

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 143 the same establishment worker, who will are paid, or (4) all children are always work with the same attorney and emancipated (if all accounts are closed enforcement worker. with no arrears).461

Administrators in Massachusetts report The first run on this process identified that the change has had a very positive 27,000 cases for closure. The automated impact on the agency, reducing call process is estimated to have saved volumes at Customer Service as most $275,000 (over a manual process). customers have learned by now who Further, the implementation of this owns their case and will usually call automated process (which included them directly.459 According to one notice to custodial parents) enhanced administrator, “it is a more efficient the productivity of caseworkers by process of handling the workload and it allowing them to focus on management holds staff accountable. There are fewer of live cases. This project was funded by ‘hand offs’ or ‘not my function or case.’ federal matching funds. Someone owns that case, it stops right there.”460 In 1999, Arizona developed an automated closure program that Case Closing assesses cases against federal closure The final step in an effective case criteria. Depending on the criteria management/case differentiation met, the system automatically initiates strategy is identifying and closing eligible notifications to custodial parents cases. The federal guidelines allow that their cases will be closed unless jurisdictions to close appropriate cases, additional information is provided significantly aiding their case load and (including locate-related data). The federal reporting numbers, and thereby system also generates a work list for allowing caseworkers to concentrate on caseworkers, specifying action needed fewer cases. to achieve closure on cases. During FY 1999, this program closed an estimated Case closure through an automated 16,000 cases.462 system. On a monthly basis, Florida’s Department of Revenue Child Support Case closure through assessment of Enforcement Office identifies case case information. In October 1998, eligibility for automated closures based Montgomery County, Maryland, began on: (1) failure to locate after three years; a case management/closure initiative (2) lack of support order (if children designed to improve the completeness are more than 18 years old, paternity is and accuracy of data in its automated not an issue, and there are no arrears, or CSE system, and to identify cases eligible if children are more than 18 years old, for closure under federal guidelines. paternity is an issue, there is no open As a result of this project, 1,300 cases activity to resolve paternity, and arrears were closed due to insufficient locate are less than $500); (3) all obligations information, and 1,300 cases were closed Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve

144 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System because the custodial parent no longer i. Address staffing levels, job vacancies, Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System wanted to pursue child support. The cost and job retention. of this project was $15,000, which came Data show a direct correlation between from State and regular matching funds. increased staffing levels and improved The County’s advice based on this project program performance, allowing staff to is noteworthy: “The project is simple to devote more personalized attention to a administer and can be completed with smaller number of cases465 and improve little disruption to regular staff routines. establishment and collection rates. CSSD States with high numbers of former TANF needs to fill job vacancies promptly, and cases will see the greatest results. The the Office of the Attorney General needs modest costs of performing this initiative to strategize to improve and reward can be recovered through increased retention. CSSD is currently designing a federal incentives earned by the state.”463 worker certification program which should Because CSSD serves a predominantly help increase the skill level and retention current and former TANF population, this of some employees, although it is unclear approach may be appropriate here.464 if and how this will impact the attorneys in the Legal Section. Improved results on Recommendations federal performance measures can bring additional federal incentive money which Based on the Project team’s understanding can be used to further reduce caseloads. of the new Vertical Prosecution Plan The implementation of the VPP may (VPP) and the successful strategies used encourage CSSD attorneys to remain in by other jurisdictions, we offer these the agency longer by cultivating a sense recommendations to improve the District’s of ownership for cases. OAG needs to case management. further invest in attorney retention if the VPP is to have its desired effects on CSSD customers.

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 145 ii. Design a meaningful case sorting parents. For example, research has found strategy based on caseload. that personal contact can substantially Recognizing the diversity of the caseload improve appearance rates468 and using and organizing its operations accordingly personal connections to reach low-income would help CSSD maximize its capacity non-custodial parents is also valuable. to serve families and, as CSSD recognizes, would permit CSSD to allocate its resources iii. Develop relationships with community more effectively, targeting services to non- service providers to support families custodial parents who cannot pay and seeking long-term gains in exchange for enforcement mechanisms to those who can short term relief. pay and do not. Lack of analytical data on Given the large low-income caseload, the caseload is a substantial obstacle to this the District needs child support policies process, but in the short term, VPP teams that support temporary adjustments for can develop internal sorting strategies for obligors who are taking action to improve cases including sorting by multiple case their circumstances. Community service obligors or non-verified employment, for providers should be encouraged to example, to tease out potential problem discuss available resources with CSSD case cases.466 Alternatively, cases could be workers who, in turn, should demonstrate sorted by their relationship to public a willingness to support these positive benefits so that the TANF, former TANF efforts. It will be easier to reach service and, especially, transitioning TANF cases providers than parents with this message get increased attention.467 Case sorting of willingness to help, but successes in strategies would encourage CSSD staff this area will filter down and reach the to develop and employ problem-solving audience of custodial and non-custodial techniques that can result in higher rates parents who are most likely to benefit. of establishment and collection. For The Paternity and Outreach Section staff the longer term, the current method of has begun to make inroads in this area. assigning cases to courtrooms on a random Casework staff need to follow up with basis does not lend itself to an optimal case supportive and receptive responses. management system for CSSD. We believe the potential benefits of case sorting are iv. Continue to partner with IMA and find compelling enough to warrant a serious ways to eliminate barriers to customer and thoughtful review by the court of the cooperation. way it calendars child support cases to Both CSSD and IMA should be determine if other strategies might better commended for the compassionate support CSSD in a case differentiation approach they take to non-cooperation by management strategy. custodial parents. Both agencies appear to understand that custodial parents Case sorting would provide the opportunity frequently have legitimate reasons for to implement realistic and flexible not pursuing child support and, while practices that encourage rather than complying with the federal mandates, both dissuade the regular payment of child agencies want to give custodial parents

Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve support by low-income non-custodial as much flexibility as possible to make

146 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System their own choices. However, custodial couples with such arrangements are not parents do not necessarily have accurate forced to participate in the child support or sufficient information or enough system where they have worked out other flexibility to make the best choices for means of sharing resources and taking care their children. Too often, they rely on of children. word of mouth or use a child support order as a weapon or revenge against a v. CSSD should establish an ongoing and badly behaving ex-partner. The agencies sustainable case closure policy. need to work on ensuring that custodial Best practices suggest that a “minimum” parents are sufficiently educated about case closure strategy of “review[ing] the child support process and what it arrears-only cases that have no payments means immediately and in the future, in three years and no reported income especially for their children. Improving for possible case closure” should be services to non-custodial parents can help, implemented.469 This effort will be greatly since some custodial parents are being facilitated by improved automation, but protective not only of themselves and their should not be placed on hold until such children but of their partners. (For further a system is available. An organized case- discussion of this issue, see Part IV, Section A, closing effort would aid both current Chapter 1: Outreach and Early Intervention.) caseload and federal reporting numbers. Additionally, in order to secure cooperation from more custodial parents, DC should codify rules for unmarried parents who are cohabitating, so that

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 147 148 Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System Taking Care oftheDistrict’s Children addition, thesesystems relyheavilyon parent, whosecooperation iscrucial.In typically availableonly from thecustodial parent. Thisinformation, however, is name andbirthdateofthenon-custodial is havingaSocialSecuritynumberorfull Vehicles. Thekeytousingthesesystems agencies, liketheDepartmentofMotor anddatabasesforlocal new hiredirectory its owndatabasesystems,suchasalocal statealsohas custodial parents.Every and existingchildsupportcasesofnon- information aboutemployment,wages, ofNewHires)andcanrelay Directory other databases,(includingtheNational allows proactivedatamatchingwith (FPLS),which Parent LocatorServices statehasaccesstotheFederal Every of suchdatausesonthestatelevel. addition tomandatingthedevelopment directories, andprogramsforstateuse,in parents bydevelopingvariousdatabases, improved toolstolocatenon-custodial government hasinvestedheavilyin As mentionedearlier, thefederal support. do notnecessarilywanttopursuechild are initiatedforcustodialparentswho the welfaresystem,sincemanyofcases referralsfrom initiated throughmandatory in DC,whereamajorityofthecasesare tools. Thispresentsaparticularchallenge access togoodinformationandavarietyof himrequires parent inordertoserve date andtime.Locatingthenon-custodial appear incourtforahearingatspecific parent withprocess,oranofficialnoticeto like DC’s the non-custodial isserving support orderinajudicially-basedsystem The firststepinestablishingachild Introduction onNon-CustodialParents 2. LocatingandServingProcess : The NeedtoReformDC’s Child SupportSystem have the necessary information.Others have thenecessary parent, somecustodialparentsmaynot of informationregardingthenon-custodial custodial parentisusuallythebestsource As alsonotedearlier, eventhoughthe impossible, tolocate. to thesystemand,thereforedifficult,ifnot these activitiesmeanstheyremaininvisible a publicbenefitsprogram.Theabsenceof alternatively, theycouldbeparticipatingin have otherchildsupportordersinplace,or employed “aboveboard”and/orpaytaxes, the traditionaleconomy, sotheymustbe non-custodial parentsbeinginvolvedin parents havedifficulty understanding the civillegalsystem,many non-custodial of illiteracyandlack familiaritywith unfriendly encounter. Givenhighlevels of process, typically an official and is service parents havewiththechildsupportsystem the firstencounterthatmostnon-custodial the caseofnon-appearance.Asaresult, that judgeswillattachabenchwarrantin so CSSD attorneyspreferpersonaldelivery bymailisanoption,but challenge. Service canstillbea successfully located,service Even whenthenon-custodialparentis official childsupportsystem. or theirchildrenfromparticipatinginthe simply donotseeabenefittothemselves support. Manyofthesecustodialparents the non-custodialparentcannotprovide result inanymoneybecausetheyknow believe thatprovidinginformationwillnot for “turninghimin.”Andothersmay retribution fromthenon-custodialparent to agovernmentagency. Somemayfear relationship byturningthematterover jeopardize eitherthesupportor non-custodial parentandnotwantto may receiveinformalsupportfromthe Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System 149

477 472 the i.e., For all cases § 303.3 requires

474

476 : The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Need to Reform DC’s The : OCSE has provided OCSE The application can The application 471 473 45 CFR 475 Taking Care of the District’s Children of the District’s Care Taking custodial parent has not provided sufficient information, or the non-custodial parent cannot be located through a basic search process), the agency has 75 calendar days to use all appropriate locate resources. Within 90 calendar days of locating the similar information about the custodial similar information about the application parent and the children. The that also contains various agreements require a signature. application For public assistance cases, the the day must be provided to the requester of the request or sent to the individual within five working days. agency through public referred to the IV-D applying assistance programs or for those for servicesSection 302.33 (Services under or IV-A to individuals not receiving Title the IV-D foster care assistance), IV-E Title agency must open a case record within 20 calendar days. that the child support agency must attempt to locate all non-custodial parents, sources of income and/or assets when location is needed to take action. If a case requires locate services ( specified functions. specified and substantial both financial support in order to bring states technical guidance with this regulation. into compliance assistance cases, custodial For non-public an application and pay a parents fill out fee. $5 application up at CSSD or printed either be picked it may be returned via from the web, and mail, fax, or in person. The application the non- seeks basic information about Security custodial parent, including Social address, date of birth, appearance, number, and health insurance availability, employer, In 1988, the federal 470 government also mandated that all states have a computerized child support enforcement system that performs certain the processing of cases and requires that an expedited administrative or judicial process be in place to manage establishment, monitoring and enforcement of child support. ways in which the agency can implement and learn from these practices. Federal Mandates Federal law provides detailed timelines for agencies in other jurisdictions have used agencies in other jurisdictions to improve both locate and service of process functions. With the recognition difficult that CSSD works with a particularly population, this chapter will examine the order to cultivate a more productive initial order to cultivate a more productive parents. relationship with non-custodial contributed This front-end investment has court to to greater appearance rates in discusses establish orders. This Chapter the various practices child support notice to non-custodial parents, providing notice to non-custodial parents, about them with proper information child support, and creating incentives of for compliance require an investment time and resources. Many jurisdictions have improved their service functions in many other challenges in providing many other challenges locate servicesefficient and successful and service of process. Encouraging and custodial parents to provide accurate giving sufficient information, effectively information about how to navigate the information about process successfully. dealing with Child support agencies low-income urban a predominantly as DC, face these and population, such the meaning of the notice and lack of the notice the meaning alleged non-custodial parent, the agency 1996 Welfare Reform legislation created must establish an order for support, a Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) complete service procedures to establish a that consists of a National Directory of support order, or establish paternity.478 New Hires and a Federal Case Registry.485 If information entered by Intake matches Child support agencies are required to information in the FPLS, the name appears move 75 percent of cases from service of on a computer-generated task list for a process to establishment within six months, process server, along with a priority level.486 and 90 percent within 12 months.479 If there is no information match, a task Service may be effectuated by certified list is generated for the locate worker, mail with return receipt requested or directing the worker to check a variety of by separate first-class mail.480 Generally, sources.487 except for default judgments in paternity disputes, an unreturned certified mail The sources to which locate workers have receipt is sufficient for accomplishing access include: DC New Hires Database,488 service of process provided that the first- DC DMV records, DC Department of class mail notice is unreturned.481 Corrections databases, Bureau of Prisons information, other DC Metropolitan Police In DC, a hearing must occur within 45 databases, Accurint, Lexis/Nexis, WALE, days from the date the application for the DC Department of Human Services’ establishment or modification of child ACEDS (Automated Client Eligibility support is filed with the court.482 If a non- Determination System), the Multistate custodial parent has not been properly or DC Financial Institution Data Match served within 45 days, the hearing will be system, federal food stamp listings, and held anyway to continue the case for 30-90 free internet tools (e.g., phonebooks and days so that a second attempt at service may reverse phone number look-ups).489 As be made. part of the process, locate workers attempt to cross-reference the non-custodial Challenges in the District parent’s Social Security number and date of birth, as well as cross-reference any Social Before addressing the specific challenges Security number and address information in the system, it is useful to give a brief that may be available.490 A specific CSSD overview of how cases work their way employee is charged with verifying Social through CSSD. Regardless of how a Security information and has an internal case is filed, it is officially opened by deadline of 20 days to process this before CSSD’s Intake department. Based on the moving the case along.491 information available, this case is then sent to one of three places: (1) the Locate Unit Before an order can be established, the (if location is unknown), (2) the Interstate non-custodial parent must be properly Unit (if the non-custodial parent resides in served. Service of process is the formal another state), or (3) the Legal Section (to delivery of documents, which at the onset file the case with the court).483 of a case typically includes a notice and summons to appear, and the petition or In DC, the locate process is partially complaint that initiates a court action. Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve automated.484 To aid this process, the Proper service can be effectuated by several

150 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System means. The method preferred by DC served had no known address.495 Second, courts is personal service, which entails CSSD seeks to personally serve each non- Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System personally delivering the complaint to the custodial parent rather than using the respondent at his residence or place of alternatives authorized in the DC Code. employment.492 This mechanism is most Its reluctance to serve by these alternate likely to provide the non-custodial parent mechanisms is based on the unwillingness with actual notice of the proceeding. of the courts to issue bench warrants for District of Columbia law also allows failures to appear pursuant to notices that “substituted service” if the complaint were mailed or substitute served.496 cannot be delivered to the non-custodial parent. Substituted service occurs when In 2005, CSSD began sending “courtesy the complaint is delivered to an adult copies” of the complaint/hearing notice to other than the non-custodial parent at both non-custodial and custodial parents. his residence or place of employment.493 This allows the non-custodial parent to Service by certified mail is also permitted appear “voluntarily” even if he has not under DC law. been officially served. Though service via certified mail is currently accomplished in In April 2006, successful service of process many other jurisdictions (including Prince occurred in approximately 53 percent George’s County and Philadelphia),497 of cases, which is well-below the national CSSD believes that without the ability to average and the agency goal of 70 percent, secure a bench warrant, this alternative though an increase from the 32 percent service has no more value than the courtesy success rate reported in April 2005.494 Thus copy and is also more expensive. 498 CSSD far in FY 2007, CSSD has increased the believes that it is hard to convince the number of notices served by approximately courts to issue bench warrants even in the 35 percent, though the rate has remained case of personal and limited substituted the same because of streamlined service,499 though DC Appleseed witnessed procedures leading to additional court- no such reluctance on the part of the ready cases. Despite this improvement, the judges. CSSD estimates that it would failure to effectuate service in nearly half need an additional 25 process servers to of its cases is problematic not only because complete personal service on all of its cases it delays a case from being resolved (and within the allotted timeframe, and thereby money going to the custodial household), retain the option of securing bench but it also wastes the time and resources of warrants. the court, CSSD (who must call the hearing anyway), and the custodial parent, who An analysis of this issue, including a cost- typically appears not knowing that service benefit analysis of the effectiveness of has not been completed. bench warrants, should be conducted to determine whether increasing capacity to DC’s successful service percentage is low perform personal service is justified, or if for two significant reasons. First, the less expensive alternative forms of service Locate Unit frequently does not have would be more efficient. accurate locate information for the non- custodial parent. In fact, in 2005, more Case Origination than one-third of all persons needing to be As noted, in the District, as in all states,

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 151 most cases originate either through TANF applicants the basic information application by the custodial parent or necessary to process a child support case referral from the IV-A agency (the state through CSSD. Although federal and DC agency responsible for providing public law mandate that IV-A agencies collect assistance through Title IV, Part A of the this information, the information is not Social Security Act), which in DC is the essential to the TANF process. In fact, Department of Human Services, Income some IMA workers do not believe that child Maintenance Administration. 500 In DC, support is beneficial to their clients and about 72 percent of child support cases are not motivated to assist in the process. involve referrals from IMA, either current The incomplete information retrieved or former TANF recipients.501 The may reflect the lack of importance that remaining 28 percent involve people who IMA apparently gives to collecting this have never received public assistance and information.505 Furthermore, there is no whose cases would have originated through financial incentive for IMA to improve its a direct application to CSSD. child support role because, unlike other jurisdictions where the TANF program If a custodial parent applies for TANF, she bears the cost of any child support is obligated to assign her support rights to penalties, CSSD pays back any money the District502 and provide IMA with certain that IMA loses due to poor child support information about the non-custodial performance. This structure is based on parent during her TANF interview.503 At the belief that keeping TANF sufficiently all IMA offices other than the Anacostia funded causes the least amount of harm office, IMA staff ask the custodial parent to children in the short and long term, a questions regarding the non-custodial belief worth examining.506 parent, then enter this information into a computer database that automatically Similarly, although federal law allows an transmits the information to CSSD. At IV-A agency to penalize TANF recipients the Anacostia office, a CSSD employee for not cooperating with child support interviews the TANF applicants while they unless there is a good cause exemption,507 are waiting to be interviewed by IMA to the penalties are minimal and often non- obtain additional information for CSSD existent, in DC.508 CSSD recognizes that case intake.504 This external placement of many of those receiving TANF may not a CSSD employee is a byproduct of a 2006 want to jeopardize their relationship co-location grant from OCSE which was with the non-custodial parent or may be designed to increase the quality of child worried about domestic violence.509 This is support information collected and improve confirmed by our research. Some mothers collaboration between the two systems and interviewed did not believe that turning their employees. over paternity information was “worth it.”510 Some were concerned that if they reported Since the majority of CSSD’s cases are paternity and got CSSD involved, the father TANF or former TANF cases, it is important would be upset and not want to support the to consider problems that arise in the child either formally or informally. They TANF context. As described earlier, did not want to jeopardize their existing IMA conducts initial TANF interviews, informal support relationship with the Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve one part of which is collecting from father and even the $150 pass-through

152 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System amount was not substantial enough to increased the quality of participation in risk losing this informal support. Others the interviews (those who now participate Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System explained that they knew the fathers did in the interviews are more likely to share not collect regular paychecks that could information that will help in the locate be subject to wage withholding. Still others process).516 As a result CSSD can now meet were skeptical of IMA and CSSD, either the 20-day case-initiation deadline for a because of past experiences or a general greater number of cases.517 Based on the distrust of government agencies.511 information gathered through this process, Intake determines whether the case should CSSD’s Intake Procedures be sent to Legal, the Interstate department, CSSD’s Intake Unit has 12 specialists and or to the Locate/Service Unit. 3 support staff.512 The intake manager delegates each new case to an intake staff CSSD’s Locate Function member, with the exception of domestic The Locate Unit has two types of staff: violence cases where one specialist handles outside investigators that serve process518 all stages of those cases.513 The intake and inside investigators who search for case workers perform a preliminary the non-custodial parent, working from investigation on the file to determine task lists generated by CSSD’s computer where to send the case next. First, the case system (District of Columbia Child Support worker determines if there is any other Enforcement System (DCCSES)).519 open CSSD case concerning the same If within 75 days Locate is unable to non-custodial parent. If there is another find the non-custodial parent using all open case, or if the custodial parent was available locate sources, the case enters able to provide an address for the non- an automated locate function.520 The custodial parent either through the IMA information about the non-custodial parent process or on their application, Intake is subject to quarterly matches against the confirms the address and sends the case FPLS. If no match is made within one directly to the Legal Section.514 If there is year (without a Social Security number) or no open case or address, Intake attempts to within three years (with a Social Security contact the custodial parent to obtain more number), the case can be closed. CSSD information. sends a final letter to the custodial parent notifying her that if no new information In order to obtain more information, is received, CSSD will close the case. 521 Intake sends a letter to the custodial Custodial parents are often unaware of how parent asking her to come to CSSD for this automated locate process functions. an interview or send information via mail. The forms no longer need to be CSSD’s Service Functions notarized before they are returned to Between four and seven process servers CSSD, and the face-to-face interviews are (investigators) work in the CSSD Locate/ now optional. (Until relatively recently, Service Unit. The Service component both were requirements of CSSD, which handles about 1400 summons per month.522 significantly slowed the process.515) For comparison, with a staff of twelve, CSSD has noticed that this change of Philadelphia serves about 4,000 summonses procedure has increased the response rate monthly by personal service, certified mail, for receiving completed forms, and also substituted service, and posted service

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 153 (the legality of which is unclear in cases ■ Exploring alternative work hours with not involving “real property”).523 In the the Flexible Investigator Work Hours District, investigators generally attempt Pilot Program.532 Its purpose is to to serve approximately ten non-custodial explore the effectiveness of attempting parents per week and work 8:15 a.m. service of process outside of regular - 4:45 p.m. and do not work evenings or business hours. The program will weekends.524 Typically, the process servers extend investigators’ work hours to spend the mornings in the office reviewing 8:00 p.m. one day per week to increase their files and conducting “mini-locates the likelihood the non-custodial to confirm addresses.”525 Process servers parent will be home when the try to effectuate personal service in the investigator tries to serve him. If the afternoons, 526 though many non-custodial late-hours stage of the pilot program parents are not home during these hours. results in increased service, the The Metropolitan Police Department also program will advance to the second assists CSSD in serving notices, receiving stage, which will alter work schedules about 100 summons per month. to allow investigators to attempt service of process on Saturdays. CSSD has faced challenges in the area ■ Working with traditionally difficult of personal service. First, even where employers to establish a protocol for investigators have accurate information, serving process on their employees; they do not always understand the legal ■ Revising the Memorandum of requirements for service.527 For example, Understanding with the Metropolitan some investigators believe that they cannot Police Department’s Paternity and personally serve a non-custodial parent at Warrant Squad and improving their place of employment or outside of communication between the Squad the District, though such service is allowed and CSSD; under DC Code.528 Poor performance by ■ Partnering with the Prince George’s individual investigators has been noted in County Sheriff’s Department to separate research.529 Third, personal servers facilitate process service in that must be willing to serve non-custodial jurisdiction; and parents when non-custodial parents are ■ Providing comprehensive training for most likely to be at home or work and investigators. where non-custodial parents are most likely to live or work. This means service in all The effectiveness of these efforts will be neighborhoods of the District of Columbia, measured in increased rates of successful even those perceived to be dangerous.530 service of process. Fourth, when a service attempt has failed, servers do not always report the reasons. In addition to the service protocol, service This can interfere with the success of of process represents additional challenges. subsequent attempts. Lastly, investigators From a psychological perspective, non- do not always fill out the summons form so custodial parents can perceive the opening that it will be admissible in court to prove of legal process through compulsory means that service occurred.531 CSSD is taking to be unduly adversarial and negative. steps to address some of these challenges. Many non-custodial parents believe the

Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve Among the initiatives that CSSD “has or is system is “against them” personally from in the process of implementing”: the outset. Additionally, many non-

154 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System custodial parents may not fully understand which may include the Metropolitan Police the substance of the documents they Department or contact to their places of Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System receive and the procedures they describe. employment. It is not entirely clear what This risk is enhanced by the District’s the non-custodial parent gains from this low literacy rates: nearly 75,000 District inconvenience, except perhaps being residents lack a high school diploma and spared the embarrassment of process 37 percent read at or below the third-grade service at home or work. level. More than 150,000 residents lack the basic literacy skills needed to get or hold an CSSD’s pre-service procedures have not entry-level job.533 been well-received by the courts. CSSD believes the courts find the procedures CSSD is attempting to address these issues. potentially coercive and worries that CSSD Since August 2006, CSSD’s Enforcement may contact people directly who have legal Unit has been contacting non-custodial representation. CSSD, however, states that parents by telephone to inform them of the calls are scripted and monitored and the pending child support proceeding that the content of the calls is appropriate and upcoming hearing date in an effort to and helpful to the non-custodial parent. encourage their voluntary participation in Further, CSSD believes that this mechanism the process.534 CSSD encourages the non- in conjunction with the Voluntary Service custodial parent to voluntarily appear for Pilot Program allows them to make contact the hearing and to bring their last two pay with a non-custodial parent in a non-hostile stubs and a copy of any paperwork that they way to establish orders. have received. If the non-custodial parent appears at the hearing without being Best Practices officially served, CSSD tells the parent that he or she is under no obligation to be Reviewing employer compliance with there. If the non-custodial parent is not reporting mandates. Some states have prepared to participate in the process that been successful in creatively mining day, CSSD asks for willingness to accept available data to rectify problems with their service for a later court date. CSSD also locate function. For instance, Minnesota tells the non-custodial parents that they conducted a compliance review with the have the right to leave the hearing.535 new hire reporting laws to find out which Additionally, CSSD is currently working employers may not be complying with the to implement a Voluntary Service of requirement to report all new hires to the Process Pilot Program.536 Its purpose is state New Hire Reporting Center within 20 to encourage non-custodial parents to days of the employee starting work. To do voluntarily submit to CSSD and accept this, Minnesota generated a list of possibly service of process. The program will non-compliant employers by eliminating involve sending initial contact letters to all employers who had reported a new hire non-custodial parents and providing them within the last six months from a larger a limited period of time during which they list of all employers within the state (as can retrieve a copy of the paperwork at maintained by the Minnesota Department the CSSD office. After that period expires, of Revenue). Then, Minnesota eliminated CSSD advises the non-custodial parents multi-state employers who had reported that CSSD will attempt service of process, a new hire to another state within the

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 155 last six months (through use of the new automated quarterly match with federal new hire database). Through this two companies was began at the end of process, Minnesota was able to identify 2006, and other companies are expected approximately 87,000 employers (out of to follow in 2007.540 OCSE has formed a total of 150,033) who had not made a a national committee on the use of cell report to the New Hire Reporting Center phone numbers to gain information on within the last six months. Although some parent location, and CSSD is participating of these employers may not have made on the committee. a new hire within the last six months, Minnesota mailed brochures on the new Service Best Practices hire reporting program to all of these Increased pre-service outreach and employers, both to provide a “gentle” information to non-custodial parents. reminder of the requirements and to Like the District of Columbia, Colorado educate employers on the reporting has a high percentage of low-income process. Minnesota was encouraged with non-custodial parents and a high child the results of the program in that 3,000 support default rate.541 Denver County, in new employees were added to the new hire particular, is a highly urbanized area with database following the mailings.537 a high currently- or formerly-incarcerated population.542 Colorado wanted to increase Accessing cell phone records to improve participation by non-custodial parents in locate functions. States have found order to lower its default rate. The Division other ways to improve the locate process. of Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Virginia was first to subpoena cell phone also wanted more accurate and current billing records to locate delinquent non- information on which to base orders, as custodial parents and has garnered praise well as an improved image and relationship for its innovative process. The subpoenas with non-custodial parents. are strictly limited to finding addresses and not calling histories. A coordinated effort Colorado recently implemented a between the Virginia Office of the Attorney demonstration grant in Denver and General and the Child Support Agency Jefferson Counties to test strategies to enlisted the voluntary cooperation of cell promote the participation of non-custodial phone companies to conduct data matches parents. For service functions, the project between their customer records and used a variety of mail, telephone, and child support clients.538 As of November other methods to encourage non-custodial 2006, Virginia has issued more than 4,500 parent participation with the system subpoenas to cell phone companies to and establish rapport with them.543 This locate non-custodial parents.539 Virginia’s outreach occurred before service was success rate has been impressive, with 40 attempted. The case worker sent a “contact to 50 percent of the subpoenas producing us” letter explaining that the custodial locate information. Virginia continues parent had applied for services, the non- to refine its procedures by working with custodial parent may be the father of the cell phone companies to develop a more child, that paternity testing is available, effective matching process and to impress and encouraging the non-custodial parent upon the cell phone companies the mutual to contact CSE for an appointment.544 In Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve benefit of automated data matches. A addition to the letter, the case worker

156 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System attempted to contact the non-custodial or other agency representatives). If parent by telephone to explain the nature contact is made, the case-worker speaks Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System of the proceedings, identify barriers to the non-custodial parent either in to child support payments, and make person or by phone and explains the child appropriate referrals to legal service support process. Information discussed providers.545 CSE reported a 44 percent includes (1) explanation of the summons non-custodial parent response rate to and complaint; (2) the reasons for the the letter.546 case; (3) opportunity for genetic testing for paternity; (4) how child support is The San Francisco County’s California calculated; (5) how to formally appear and Department of Child Support Services obtain a court date; and (6) any special (DCSS) developed another program aimed needs of the non-custodial parents (e.g., at improving locate and service functions, interpreters or guardian ad litem). Almost called Enhanced Parental Involvement all of the interviews in the evaluation Collaboration (EPIC).547 Goals of the program resulted in either a stipulation or program included increasing efforts to a filed answer. Overall, the non-custodial contact non-custodial parents before parent response rate after this type of serving papers, educating them about the outreach was 52.1 percent. child support process, and encouraging their participation. DCSS believes it is If there is no response from the non- very important to take advantage of early custodial parent, process servers attempt opportunities to communicate information personal service. These service documents and establish a good relationship while included a “friendly flyer” to explain the they have the attention of non-custodial documents and how the non-custodial parents. parent can obtain assistance. The process server encourages the non-custodial parent As part of the EPIC Program, before to contact the agency and take advantage attempting service DCSS sends a “come of his available options. and get it” letter to non-custodial parents. Written in simple, plain language, the The success of the EPIC program was letter informs them of the case filed, impressive. Using a variety of pre-service identifies the children who are at issue, outreach efforts, DCSS obtained a 70 and encourages the non-custodial parents percent response rate prior to formal to contact DCSS.548 During the evaluation process service, and 88.5 percent of those program, approximately 18 percent of the contacted through all methods participated non-custodial parents responded to the in the establishment process.549 The EPIC letter and contacted DCSS. If the non- default rate was 11.5 percent compared custodial parent does not respond to the to 64.7 percent for the control group.550 initial letter, DCSS performs additional Among EPIC cases, collections were 15.96 pre-service outreach, which consists of percent higher, collections on cases with attempting to make telephone contact with arrears were 13.55 percent higher, and the non-custodial parent (or obtaining support distributed to custodial parents was assistance from others to reach the non- 5.32 percent higher. DCSS, recognizing custodial parent, such as family members, the success of the EPIC program, created an employer, social worker, prison official a fulltime EPIC team and all new cases

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 157 requiring establishment of orders now use non-custodial parent’s address should be the EPIC process. based on some indication that safety may be an issue. Increasing hours and quality control. Philadelphia has improved its service rates ii. Ensure compatibility of computer by more thoroughly investigating their systems. locate information before attempting For locate searches, CSSD should make service. Philadelphia also has staff available sure that any new computer systems have for service on evenings and weekends, full compatibility to conduct automated and employs an individual responsible matches with other agencies, in as close for quality control to conduct random to real-time as possible, to identify the ride-alongs with process servers to ensure location of non-custodial parents and quality and verify accuracy of affidavits. minimize any inefficiencies within the system. Recommendations iii. Implement the use of cell phone Locate Recommendations. records for locate purposes. i. CSSD should continue and strengthen CSSD should expedite its plans to use cell collaboration with IMA. phone billing information to locate non- DC’s co-location project improved the custodial parents. An estimated 65 percent quality of the information obtained of the total U.S. population owns a cell from TANF interviews and should be phone. Using the knowledge base that the continued, and possibly expanded, by State of Virginia has already developed, CSSD. Additionally, CSSD should work and the OCSE committee is developing, with IMA staff to help them understand the appropriate DC agencies can take the value of child support to the child advantage of this new era-appropriate and the importance of obtaining helpful method to locate non-custodial parents. locate information so that they can solicit paternity and child support information Service Recommendations. more effectively. Also, during the initial iv. Strengthen investigator training. interview, CSSD should confirm locate As proposed, CSSD process servers should information with the custodial parent. get adequate training to fully understand CSSD staff have indicated reluctance to service rules according to federal law, the share locate information with custodial DC Code and any updates thereto on a parents for this purpose because of safety recurring basis. CSSD, in collaboration concerns for non-custodial parents. with management, top performing Confidentiality in this circumstance, employees, and union representatives, however, should be the exception rather should develop job performance than the rule. Given the relatively low standards for process servers so that they instance of life- threatening female to male understand their job requirements and domestic violence, and the benefit of using can be supervised effectively. Similar to the custodial parent’s first-hand knowledge Philadelphia, CSSD may want to consider of the non-custodial parent, concealing the having management “shadow” process Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve

158 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System servers on a random basis to oversee their in place, as is currently practiced. Such a performance. mechanism would allow CSSD to “open the door” in a friendly but informative manner. Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System v. Consider process service the earliest Providing additional resources in the letter form of customer service for non-custodial not only educates the non-custodial parent, parents. but may also make it more likely that he Similar to San Francisco and Denver, will effectively participate in the child CSSD should use personal service as a support process. CSSD should incorporate constructive way to educate non-custodial similar materials with its service documents parents on child support processes and as well. procedures. Although this process may not necessarily improve service rates in vi. Make better use of alternative forms of the short term, the process will benefit the process service. non-custodial parents by encouraging CSSD estimates that it would need 25 their participation. additional process servers in order to successfully perform service of process CSSD should continue to reach out to non- within the 45 day window for all of its cases. custodial parents through its Voluntary Clearly this is not viable. CSSD and the Service of Process Pilot Program. However, courts need first to study the effectiveness CSSD should ensure that non-custodial of bench warrants relative to the costs of parents benefit from participation in this personal service, and determine under program, and should consider providing what alternative circumstances bench financial or other incentives to encourage warrants can be provided in child support participation. cases. The overriding purpose is not to increase ex-parte or default orders, but The courts need to work with CSSD to to increase appearances by non-custodial find ways to reach non-custodial parents parents to participate in establishing that will satisfy the courts’ concerns about paternity and setting orders. CSSD and coerciveness but also serve the community’s the Court share an interest in this goal interest in engaging non-custodial parents and should work together to find fair and in non-adversarial ways.. For example, efficient means to accomplish it. in addition to including CSSD’s contact information and a request for the non- custodial parent to voluntarily appear, CSSD could include simple literature about the child support program, non-custodial parents rights and obligations (such as the right to counsel and to a paternity test), the identities of legal referral agencies and other resources available to the non- custodial parent (such as fatherhood programs, and employment programs). Information should be provided at the time of service and not after an order is

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 159 3. Medical Support

Introduction employment552 and is therefore unlikely to have medical benefits, and where With the anticipation of a new federal approximately 70 percent of those involved medical support performance standard in child support currently or formerly in FY2008, child support agencies are received TANF, private health insurance focusing increased attention on ensuring is not always a feasible option. Many who that medical support is included in all child leave TANF assistance jobless still rely on support orders. The DC Council passed some sort of public assistance and therefore the requirement for medical support would still qualify for Medicaid.553 Of those in February 2001, in the Child Support TANF recipients who are employed, only Welfare Reform Compliance Amendment about half have health insurance from Act of 2000.551 Agencies are responsible for their employers.554 Given the high cost of ensuring that both new and existing orders health care, the importance of preventive include a provision for medical support. health care for children and the cost to The goal of the medical support standard individuals, communities, and local health is to ensure that every child receives the care systems of caring for the uninsured, most comprehensive health care coverage the child support system has a vital role available to them, whether through private to play in ensuring that children are or public means. adequately covered.

Medical support can take any of the Federal Mandates following forms: cash reimbursement to the government for Medicaid, cash to the Requirement for Medical Support Orders. custodial parent for un-reimbursed medical Although there have been a significant costs, or enrollment in private health number of studies commissioned by, insurance. As with financial support, the and recommendations made to, federal child support agency is responsible for regulatory agencies regarding medical ensuring that medical support is provided child support orders, to date there are as ordered. If one or both parents can relatively few federal mandates governing obtain healthcare coverage from private medical support. The principal federal insurance, then it is in the state’s interest mandate is that all child support orders to ensure that the child is covered through enforced through state enforcement that private policy so long as the policy is agencies must expressly address the comprehensive and affordable and the provision of healthcare coverage under the care is accessible to the custodial parent enactment of the Personal Responsibility and child. Sometimes, private insurance and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 is not the best option; for example, when (PRWORA).555 Since 1984, state child the non-custodial parent’s coverage is support agencies have been authorized limited to a geographic area to which the to petition for the inclusion of medical custodial parent and child do not have easy support as part of all child support access. Often, however, neither parent orders, with the purpose of increasing has access to private health insurance. In the number of children in single-parent DC, where over half of children live in families with health insurance.556 PRWORA households where no parent holds full-time requires agencies to provide notice to Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve

160 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System employment-related coverage plans the children of that parent do not lose of existing medical support orders or their coverage.560 When a parent no Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System require plan administrators to enroll longer qualifies for Medicaid, states must qualified children, barring parental provide Transitional Medical Assistance objection. Federal law provides that if (TMA) for a specified period of time.561 affordable private health care coverage is available to the non-custodial parent, In addition to Medicaid, states may then that parent must obtain that offer health care coverage through coverage for his or her children. States the State Children’s Health Insurance have been allowed to modify the federal Program (“SCHIP”).562 There are definition of “affordable,” and some no federal mandates applicable for states have limited the percentage of SCHIP programs, as SCHIP is a block income that can be required to be used grant program that provides increased toward purchasing health insurance. federal funds to states to offer health In DC, health care coverage is deemed care coverage to children who are not affordable (i.e., is available at a income-eligible for Medicaid but have no reasonable cost) if it is available through private health insurance.563 States may an employer-provided health plan of the offer SCHIP coverage through expanded custodial or non-custodial parent.557 Medicaid programs, which DC does. If a state chooses to offer SCHIP coverage Obtaining affordable private health through Medicaid, the assignment and insurance is not always feasible for cooperation requirements apply to the parents. Low-income parents who have recipient parent because the children no or limited access to private health are considered Medicaid beneficiaries. care coverage can participate in state Again, if the parent fails or refuses Medicaid programs. Similar to TANF, to assign rights to private health care Medicaid requires custodial parents to coverage or to cooperate with the assign rights to seek private health care enforcement of such rights, then the coverage for the child (e.g., from the parent loses eligibility for Medicaid non-custodial parent) to the state’s child coverage for himself. support enforcement agency and to cooperate with that agency in pursuing National Medical Support Notice the private coverage or cash support The Child Support Performance and to pay for health care coverage.558 The Incentive Act of 1998 established the custodial parent must also disclose National Medical Support Notice the paternity of each child covered by (NMSN).564 The NMSN is a standardized Medicaid and assist with enforcement of federal form that states must use to medical support orders against the non- notify employers of their responsibility custodial parent.559 If the parent fails or to provide health coverage for a child. refuses to assign these rights or cooperate Federal law requires all state child with the enforcement agency, the parent support enforcement agencies to use can lose his or her right to medical the NMSN, which must be sent to the coverage under Medicaid; however, employer, if appropriate, within two

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 161 business days after the date of entry of the to establish that medical support is being obligor’s name in the State Directory of provided for the child(ren). New Hires.565 Federal Performance Measures The NMSN consists of four documents. The Federal Child Support Performance The first is Part A- Notice to Withhold Measures is the tool used by the federal for Health Care Coverage that is to be government to allocate incentive completed by the child support agency payments to the state agencies.567 and sent to the employer with the rest of Beginning in FY 2008, establishment the packet.566 The second document is of medical support will be one of the the “Employer Response,” which is the performance measures for which states employer’s opportunity to inform the IV- will be held accountable. As with the D agency that: other performance measures, where states are effectively in competition with ■ The employer does not provide each other for a limited pool of federal health care coverage for its incentive dollars, medical support offers employees. another chance to increase federal ■ The employee is not eligible for funding to the District. The performance the health care coverage the measures are designed to measure the employer provides. overall effectiveness and efficiency ■ The employee has been of state child support services. Due terminated or has left that to the impending accountability for employment. establishment of medical support, this is ■ The deduction for health care an opportunity for CSSD to take steps to coverage cannot be made within meet federal requirements and benefit state or federal withholding from federal incentive grants. However, limits and the state’s priority for the specific measures have not been fully withholding. determined and the definition of medical support and other essential elements of The employer has 20 business days to this program may be subject to change in return the “Employer Response,” if the coming year. appropriate. If none of these situations is applicable, then the employer should Challenges in the District comply with the NMSN by enrolling the child in the health plan. The third The District is one of only a few document is Part B – Medical Support jurisdictions to dedicate a unit to Notice to Plan Administrator - which processing medical support. In preparing should be forwarded to the employer’s for the upcoming federal performance health care administrator for handling. measure on medical support The final document of the NMSN is establishment, the unit has reviewed the “Plan Administrator Response” that about half of its 27,000 child support is to be completed by the health plan cases established prior to 2004 for administrator and returned to the child inclusion of medical support provisions.568 Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve support agency. This will then be filed CSSD estimated that the agency needed

162 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System approximately a year and a half to review has satisfactory health insurance orders set prior to 2004.569 To augment coverage other than Medicaid, the child its review, CSSD has recently sent letters support agency does not have to petition to custodial parents encouraging them for modification of the order to require to contact CSSD if their children do either the custodial parent or the non- not have health care coverage or to custodial parent to provide coverage.573 provide insurance information if their Failure to modify the order, however, children are covered by private health could affect the agency’s medical insurance.570 CSSD estimates that about support performance under the federal 50-60 percent of cases in DC involve standards. children on Medicaid, followed by cases where the custodial parent provides the In DC, if the custodial parent does not insurance. The smallest percentage have private insurance, then a motion involves cases where the non-custodial for modification will be filed and a parent provides the insurance.571 Many hearing scheduled to determine the working mothers are eligible for SCHIP health care coverage options of the non- coverage (DC Healthy Families), which is custodial parent.574 If the non-custodial a Medicaid program for working families. parent is employed and ordered to begin A family of four can earn up to $30,000 providing medical support, CSSD sends annually and be eligible for Medicaid. an NMSN to the non-custodial parent’s employer.575 If the employer determines During the review of existing cases, that the child is eligible for coverage if a support order does not contain under its plan, then the employer sends a provision for medical support, the designated portion of the NMSN CSSD contacts the custodial parent to to the administrator of the employer’s determine whether the child is covered group health plan to enroll the by private health insurance and, if not, child(ren). However, if multiple health whether private health insurance is care options exist under the employer’s available. If either is true, CSSD forwards health plan, then the employer sends a the case to its legal department to modify portion of the NMSN back to CSSD to the support order to incorporate a select the most appropriate health care medical support provision. All support option. CSSD contacts the custodial orders requiring modification must parent to solicit her input on the be filed with the DC Superior Court health care option she prefers.576 If Family Court for approval. Though the custodial parent does not respond most modification requests within the or select a health care option within three-year review timeframe require 30 days, then CSSD makes the choice. demonstration of a substantial change There are no agency criteria for making in circumstance, a case can be reviewed their choice. Once the selection is made, solely to include a medical support the NMSN is sent back to the employer, provision in the child support order.572 and the children are enrolled in the According to a December 2002 OCSE selected group health plan. Policy Interpretation Question (PIQ) memorandum, if the custodial parent

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 163 If the non-custodial parent is employed, parents and not their households. Very but is not eligible for employer-provided little or no consideration is given to health care coverage, then CSSD reviews health care coverage available to a step- the medical support order to determine parent. Moreover, there is no law or whether it obligates the non-custodial vehicle in DC that requires a step-parent parent to provide alternative coverage. to obtain such coverage. As a result of If it does not, then the case will most these limitations, it is likely that some likely need to be reheard in court. CSSD District children are enrolled in Medicaid typically contacts the custodial parent when better private coverage is available. to determine if other private options It is worth considering whether legislation are available for the child. If no other to include step-parents in provision of options exist, or the custodial parent does private insurance might both enhance not respond, then CSSD returns the case options for children as well as enhance to court to allow the judge to decide an the ability of CSSD to get “credit” for appropriate medical support order. additional medical support orders.577

CSSD does In addition, while not currently medical support conduct a obligations in the systematic District continue until review of the child attains age coverage 21, coverage under alternatives employer provided once health health plans generally care coverage terminates when the is in place. child attains age 19, For example, unless the child is if affordable enrolled full-time private health in post-secondary insurance is education.578 unavailable Currently, CSSD does and coverage not have procedures is provided through Medicaid, it is CSSD’s in place to ensure that the obligated practice to include in the order that parent continues to provide private health private coverage be provided if and when care coverage when a child’s eligibility it becomes available. The daily match ceases under the employer provided against the New Hire Directory will not health plan. This means the child either trigger a response, however, if the medical then lacks coverage, enrolls in Medicaid support order is considered satisfied. if eligible, or is covered by the custodial Similarly, there is no mechanism in place parent in contradiction of the existing for ascertaining all potential sources of court order. Some other jurisdictions coverage. The focal point for coverage also experience this difficulty and are analysis is the custodial or non-custodial addressing it in a number of ways, as will Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve

164 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System be discussed in the next section. CSSD be the default if health care coverage is Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System has recently included the investigation otherwise available. of this issue in the strategic plan of the Medical Support Unit. Best Practices

In 2006, only one-quarter of DC’s child Employer outreach regarding NMSNs. support orders contained medical The NMSN is an extensive and support provisions. Of these, 64 percent complicated document and requires contained orders for health insurance action by state agencies, employers, enrollment (as opposed to cash and health plan administrators within contributions) and only 16 percent of certain prescribed time periods. As with those saw health insurance provided as any action that requires the concerted ordered. Overall, less than 1,000 child efforts of multiple entities, outreach support cases were being enforced for and education are necessary to ensure private medical coverage.579 Such low that the process is orderly and efficient. numbers demonstrate a need for CSSD to Some jurisdictions, like New Jersey, hold improve its follow- meetings with up procedures for employers, plan medical support administrators, orders, especially payroll associates, to employers. human resources Currently, when organizations, an employer fails and chambers to timely respond of commerce to the NMSN, a to heighten warning letter can familiarity with be generated, but the NMSN. the process is not In addition, fully automated. New Jersey’s According to child support CSSD staff, 60- enforcement 70 percent of agency prepares employers respond to the warning and distributes fact sheets, brochures, letter and thus far, no employer has Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) been fined for failure to comply with sheets, and information packages to all the NMSN. It is inappropriate that the stakeholders.580 Several jurisdictions District provide Medicaid for children have established a toll-free hot line and whose parents or other family members internet website that employers and have adequate health insurance coverage plan administrators can use to obtain available and equally inappropriate information regarding NMSNs or the that District children go without health process for implementing coverage insurance because of a failure to ensure pursuant to an NMSN.581 that proper enrollment procedures are being followed. Medicaid should not

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 165 In addition, New York’s child support brokers. The Georgia state enforcement enforcement agency created a cover agency discovered that a vendor used by letter for the NMSN, providing a quick the state Medicaid program identified reference for the NMSN process and children enrolled in the SCHIP program timelines for the employer and plan who could be removed because they administrator. To augment the state had access to private health insurance. child support agency’s efforts, New York’s The vendor also maintained a database Department of Labor included articles of private insurance coverage and had regarding the NMSN in its newsletter, information about private insurance and New York’s Department of Insurance available to children not in the Medicaid issued letters to licensed health care or SCHIP programs. The child support providers and carriers reminding them enforcement agency realized that it could that they were obligated to honor the use such a database when modifying NMSN. To enhance efficiency, New York support orders or enforcing the terms has automated the NMSN process, and all of medical support orders to search documents related to the support order for private insurance coverage options or NMSN are routed through a central for children.582 Care needs to be used location. Finally, the state child support when employing outside vendors for enforcement agency is working with this purpose since not all insurers will large employers to reduce the amount provide information to these private of paperwork associated with the NMSN. companies and the data may not be Such outreach procedures may improve sufficiently reliable to comply with OCSE the District’s currently poor rate of standards.583 providing ordered health care coverage. Determining affordability of coverage. Preventing gaps in coverage. Many non- As previously mentioned, federal law custodial parents subject to support provides that private health care coverage orders frequently change employment, is considered available at a “reasonable which can lead to gaps in medical cost” if it is available through an coverage for the children. In response, employer provided health care plan.584 Rhode Island initiated a process However, with the ever-increasing cost of obligating employers to provide the dependent care coverage, many judicially- state child support agency with notice oriented child support states have whenever a child loses health care diverged from the federal interpretation coverage under an employer provided of “reasonable cost.” In Texas, the health care plan. This notice allows the maximum amount that the non-custodial state enforcement agency to act quickly parent is required to pay for health to issue a new NMSN to the non-custodial care coverage is ten percent of the non- parent’s new employer and minimize any custodial parent’s monthly net income. lapse in coverage. Similarly, Colorado sets the maximum amount for health care at 20 percent of Accessing information about health the non-custodial parent’s gross income. insurance options. Child support New Jersey limits the maximum that must

Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve agencies are not health insurance be paid for coverage to no more than

166 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 5 percent of the non-custodial parent’s affect child support, though coordination Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System net income, and no parent below 200 between the Connector and state child percent of the poverty level is required support agency has not yet taken place.589 to provide coverage unless it is available to them at no cost.585 DC does not place Use of medical support facilitators. At specific limits on medical support, but least two states have established pilot provides that the total child support programs that use medical support obligation (including health insurance facilitators to obtain information premiums, child care expenses, and from the custodial and non-custodial extraordinary medical expenses) shall parents regarding income and health not exceed 35 percent of the obligated care coverage alternatives.590 The parent’s adjusted gross income.586 The facilitators obtain information prior to federal definition is likely to change the establishment of the child support based on proposed rules promulgated order and use the information to make in September 2006,587 and the District a recommendation to the court as to will be required to enact conforming the medical component of such order. legislation. Moreover, the data obtained by the facilitator are used in other relevant Addressing the potential gap in health matters, such as to pre-screen families care coverage for dependents. In for Medicaid and SCHIP programs. response to potential coverage gaps For enforcement cases (i.e., existing when private insurance ends (usually orders), the use of facilitators resulted at age 18), several states have devised in a significant increase in healthcare practices to ensure continued coverage coverage, substantial offsets to Medicaid for dependents. In New Jersey, there costs, and fewer cases seeking order is no age of emancipation, so the child adjustments.591 The facilitators did not support and medical support continue have a similar effect on establishment until a party makes a motion to end cases, mainly because in many of those the order.588 This means that an order cases the children were already enrolled can continue until the child completes in Medicaid at the time the child support schooling, whether post-college or order was established. vocational training. However, there is nothing in place to cover the gap when In addition, Georgia is exploring the the employer-sponsored insurance feasibility of providing state-wide or ceases for dependents, although New regional health care coverage to children Jersey is considering instituting a cash of parents who are unable to obtain medical support requirement if a gap in private or public health care coverage. coverage occurs. Georgia is evaluating To this end, Georgia has established a the use of a child support insurance pool, limited risk-pool for children that fall and Massachusetts is implementing the within the coverage gap and has issued “Connector,” an independent public a request for proposals that requires authority created to assist qualified vendors to agree that the cost remain Massachusetts adult residents who lack constant in the first year and commit to health care coverage to obtain affordable rates for the second and third years. health care coverage. This system will

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 167 168 Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System Taking Care oftheDistrict’s Children the programincludefollowing: focus ontheNMSN. a strongmedicalsupportprogramwith proactive ratherthanreactiveandestablish CSSD shoulddesignaprogramthatwillbe noticeprogram. support i. Developastrong nationalmedical forthcoming rules. and prepareforthepromulgationof ontheseinitiatives CSSD tomoveforward support program.We stronglyencourage looking towardamoreeffectivemedical correcting currentshortcomingsand a numberofimportantstepstoward for itsMedicalSupportUnitthatincludes CSSD recentlydevelopedastrategicplan DC Appleseed was encouraged to learn that Recommendations limited periodoftime. andfora health carewhennecessary insurance, butallowsfortheuseofpublic it maximizestheuseofprivatehealth This initiativebenefitsthestateinthat or requiremodificationenforcement. where medicalsupportordersdonotexist, or SCHIP. Thisprogrambenefitscases family rendersitineligibleforMedicaid coverage whentheearnedincomeof twelve monthsoftransitionalMedicaid program underwhichafamilymayreceive Finally, NorthCarolinahasimplementeda ■ Work closelywithemployersto staff tofollowup: for them,andaseasypossible make theprocessaseasypossible ■ Establishatoll-freephone regarding theNMSNand obtain usefulinformation similar toolforemployers to number, awebpage,or : The NeedtoReformDC’s ChildSupportSystem 592 We recommendthat ■ ■ ■ Asplanned,createaclean, Automatetheprocess CSSDshouldinitiatean usable databaseofemployers possible. for employersasmuch meets employerneeds. to ensureafinalproductthat the ChiefTechnology Officer possible withtheOfficeof it shouldworkasclosely communication isoptimal, determine thatweb-based as possibleand,shouldCSSD information asuser-friendly CSSD shouldmakeits associated procedures. medical care. and aneligiblechildrequires within theprescribedtime return orprocesstheNMSN employer’s liability ifitfailsto NMSNs, suchasthe employers ofrulesgoverning outreach programinforming enforce compliance. to the informationnecessary that isthekeytoaccessing Identification Numbersince employer FederalEmployer upon gettingaverified This processdepends response fromthatemployer. rather thanacceptinganon- via phonecommunication to filloutsubsequentNMSNs employer isavailable,useit information fromthe a supportorder. Once insurance coverageunder already providinghealth Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System 169 : The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Need to Reform DC’s The :

to child support-eligible youth who are not eligible for existing coverage options. forms to capture information not provided in the NMSN - such as specific information about the insurance program which the child is enrolled - to ensure that children receive maximum benefit from their insurance coverage. All orders should be All orders to ensure that this written is viable. establish a health option insurance program who for 19-21 year olds in post- are not enrolled secondary education, do Medicaid, not qualify for and do not have employer- based health insurance. In other words, a program should be designed to provide health insurance Develop supplemental The District should ■ ■ Fill in the gaps. Taking Care of the District’s Children of the District’s Care Taking ■ ensure they include medical support in preparation for the inclusion of medical support in the federal performance measures in 2008-2009, some of these cases clearly require hearings ii. Increase CSSD’s administrative ii. Increase authority to modify child support orders for the purpose of adding medical support provisions. As CSSD reviews all previously established child support orders to annually and send it to the non-custodial parent’s employer – as eligibility and coverage may change from year to year. is registered for a Medicaid recipient child, an NMSN should be automatically sent to the new employer. which will begin to be required by OCSE in 2009. With the combination of facilitated coverage and demonstrated collection, Medicaid should be able to help fund these activities. then CSSD ineligibility, should automatically generate a new NMSN about Medicaid/SCHIP coverage. Coordinate with Medicaid to conduct a monthly three-point match to find out whether referred families are then enrolled in Medicaid to demonstrate that CSSD facilitated coverage. Start now to collect data on Medicaid offset collections comes back from an comes back from that employer indicating parent the non-custodial health is not covered by insurance, automatically to generate a letter the custodial parent providing information when a New Hire Similarly, is returned for If a NMSN When Part A of the NMSN ■ ■ ■ procedures. follow-up regular Establish ■ to determine which parent should that medical support orders are provide and/or pay for health insurance met. Investing in a strong medical coverage. Other cases involve merely support enforcement system at the documenting that the custodial parent beginning of the program will help is providing insurance and both wishes build relationships with employers and and plans to continue. CSSD should be families that will continue to pay off granted authority by the DC Council to over the long term. modify these orders to include that the custodial parent will continue to provide iv. The District should codify the right health insurance. This will save CSSD’s, of child support-eligible children to the court’s, and custodial parents’ time receive medical support through and resources. The procedures by a step-parent. which this should be done should be designed in consultation with the court. Following the recommendation of the (See further discussion in Part IV, Section B, Medical Child Support Working Group, p. 125.) the DC Council should enact legislation to clarify that parents can provide iii. Follow-up on orders that contain health insurance coverage for a child medical support provisions to ensure through a current spouse if coverage enforcement. is accessible, if the spouse is willing, and if there are no restrictions on the Apart from meeting federal mandates employer’s health insurance program regarding the establishment of medical preventing the enrollment of support, the District should invest in a step-child. a strong follow-up program ensuring Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System the District’s Findings and Recommendations to Improve

170 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Findings and Recommendations to Improve the District’s Child Support System 171 : The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Need to Reform DC’s The : Taking Care of the District’s Children of the District’s Care Taking The decision to invest in the child The decision to invest in the child one. support system should be an easy an average Besides the financial return – for everyof $4.58 cents paid in support support government dollar spent – child improves the likelihood that children full will stay in school and reach their potential as adults. DC is spending system. It millions to improve our school in making should invest at least as much sure the families of our most vulnerable children are equally sound. an interest and willingness to move in this to move in and willingness an interest direction. move away get there, the system must To non-custodial parents from thinking of It must instead treat as the problem. all parents as and all parents equally, of the solution. Low- potentially part parents – parents income non-custodial not “deadbeat” that are “dead broke,” with – must come away from their contact willing and the child support system more than more able to support their children them before. And the system must help get there. for control to those adapt Conclusion incarceration, arrearages, parenting incarceration, arrearages, parenting to the problems, and other obstacles regular payment of child support, the performance of the program will children significantly improve and DC’s will be better served. CSSD has indicated This Report contains many help recommendations designed to child support system do that. We DC’s believe that, if our system incorporated practices that address unemployment, the demographics but to child support system demographics. DC’s serveneeds to be better designed to the who particular children and families depend on it. badly to other medium-sized cities if badly to other medium-sized demographics. Those one controls for race, educational demographics include status, age, and number of children. is not to however, The answer, system is one of the most important system is one of local government – functions in the the number of children particularly given the circumstances in in that system and Some have said that DC’s which they live. does not compare child support system The District of Columbia’s child support of Columbia’s The District DC Appleseed Appendices

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Used in this Report

Appendix B: Child Support Data

Appendix C: CSSD Organizational Information

Photo by Michael Bonfigli. Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Used in the Report 593

Absent Parent/Father: See non-custodial It can be entered into voluntarily, through parent. divorce or custody cases, or when ordered by the court. ACF/Administration for Children and Families: The ACF is part of the federal CSOSA/Court Services and Offender Department of Health and Human Services Supervision Agency: CSOSA is a federal (DHHS) and handles Child Support, Child agency responsible for the supervision Care, Foster Care, Head Start, and a variety of criminal offenders who return to the of other programs. District from prison and/or who are sentenced in the District to probation. Arrearage/Arrears: Unpaid overdue child support. CSSD/Child Support Services Division: A division of the DC Office of the Attorney Bradley Amendment: A 1986 amendment General, CSSD is the agency in charge of to Title IV-D that prohibits state courts administering the child support system in from retroactively modifying child support the District. orders. It is specifically designed to prevent state courts from unilaterally reducing an DHHS/Department of Health and Human obligor’s child support debt. Services: DHHS, sometimes referred to as HHS, is the federal agency that Child Support Guidelines: Child Support includes the Administration for Children Guidelines provide a standard method for and Families, the Office of Child Support calculating the amount of support that Enforcement, and the Office of Family is owed by a non-custodial parent. Every Assistance (administrators of TANF). state is required to develop a child support guideline. As of April 1, 2007, DC is using IMA/Income Maintenance Administration: a new guideline formula. IMA is located within the DC Department of Human Services and is the local A p pCustodial e n d Parent: i x The parent with whom administrator of Temporary Assistance for the child primarily resides. The custodial Needy Families (TANF). parent is typically the recipient of child support payments. This report sometimes IV-A: The title of the federal Social uses ‘mother’ when referring to the Security Act that contains the Temporary custodial parent because five of every Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) six custodial parents are mothers (83.1 program. IV-A agencies are the designated percent).594 administrators of federal TANF funds. IMA is the IV-A agency in the District CSE/Child Support Enforcement: The state or local government agency operating IV-D: The title of the federal Social in accordance with Title IV-D of the Social Security Act that contains the child support Security Act (See ‘IV-D’). enforcement program. IV-D agencies are the designated administrators of child Child Support: The financial support support program funds. CSSD is the IV-D paid by a parent to help support a child or agency in the District. children of whom they do not have custody.

174 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Medical Support: Refers to provision in Petitioner: The party initiating a legal child support orders that address which motion or case. parent will enroll the child in and/or pay for public or private health insurance. PIQ/Policy Interpretation Question: Informational memos from the OCSE Medicaid: A federally-funded medical office to state IV-D offices regarding various insurance program with income eligibility child support policy issues and updates. requirements. Poverty: Poverty is a federal indicator Non-Custodial Parent: Refers to a parent of a family’s economic status and ability with whom the child does not regularly to obtain resources for basic needs of reside. This report often refers to the living. According to the US Census non-custodial parent as the father because Bureau, the 2006 poverty threshold for five of every six non-custodial parents are a family of three, with one child under fathers (83.1 percent) and only 1 in 6 are 18, was $16,227.596 Eligibility for means- mothers (16.9 percent).595 Also referred to tested programs is often expressed as a as absent parent or non-resident parent. percentage of poverty.

Non-Resident Parent: See non-custodial Pro Se: A pro se client is someone who at parent. the time of filing a motion or case x i does d not n e p p A have legal representation. OCSE/Office of Child Support Enforcement: OCSE is an office within the Respondent: The party answering a Administration for Children and Families petition or motion. (ACF), a part of the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). TANF/Temporary Assistance for Needy It administers the federal child support Families: TANF is the federal block- program. grant program administered on the state level that offers assistance and work Obligor: A person who owes child support opportunities to needy families (welfare) pursuant to a child support order. for a limited period of time. On a federal level, TANF is overseen by the Office of Obligee: A person to whom child support Family Assistance (OFA) which is part is owed. of the Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health OAG/Office of the Attorney General: and Human Services. In DC, TANF is OAG is the governmental agency under the administered by the IMA (See ‘IMA’). Mayor that has authority over and conducts all law business in the District. The OAG Workforce Development: Refers to a operates under the authority of DC Official relatively wide array of learning-for-work Code § 1-301.111. The Child Support activities and programs, like vocational Services Division (CSSD) is a division education, work readiness, and job training of OAG. programs. Programs that provide career and technical education are included in Paternity Establishment: The legal workforce development. determination of fatherhood by court order, administrative order, voluntary acknowledgement, or any other method under state law.

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 175 Appendix B: Child Support Data

National National DC DC 2004 DC 2005 National 2006 2004 2005 2006

Caseload 92,847 15,854,475 85,117 15,860,753 77,651 15,844,238 Cases with Orders 32,425 11,753,603 33,707 11,994,590 35, 278 12,215,891 Established Number Orders 1,179 1,181,012 1,902 1,180,238 1,950 1,158,866 Established Cases with Collections 17,683 8,133,646 18,663 8,303,946 18,071 8,530,648

Number of Children 98,054 17,289,695 86,968 17,173,286 76,658 17,261,575

Statewide PEP 64.34 % 98.73 % 74.81 % 83.38 % 78 % 97.87% Percent of Cases with 34.92 % 74.37 % 39.6 % 75.9 % 45 % 77.3% Orders Percent of Current 51.22 % 58.99 % 52.89 % 60 % 52.5 % 60.35% Collections Distributed Percent of Cases with 42.33 % 59.87 % 43.68 % 60.04 % 41.7 % 60.07% Arrears Collection

Cost Effectiveness $3.14 $4.38 $2.45 $4.58 $2.55 $4.58 A p p e n d i x Statewide PEP: percentage of children born out of wedlock with paternity established/acknowledged.

Source: From HHS FY 2004 Preliminary Data Report, Child Support Enforcement Annual Data Report (Form OCSE-157) DC 2006, HHS 2005 Preliminary Data Report, and HHS 2005 Preliminary Data Report.

176 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Appendix C: CSSD Organizational Information

The Child Support Services Division is one of eight Divisions within the Office of the National National DC DC 2004 DC 2005 National 2006 Attorney General. Within CSSD there are five Sections, containing a total of 15 units. 2004 2005 2006 Two of these Sections, Systems and Automation and Fiscal Operations, do not involve individual case management. The other three Sections - Legal, Policy & Training Caseload 92,847 15,854,475 85,117 15,860,753 77,651 15,844,238 (which contains the Customer Service Unit), and Program Operations - have direct Cases with Orders responsibility to customers and/or handle cases. Within these three sections, 10 32,425 11,753,603 33,707 11,994,590 35, 278 12,215,891 Established managers oversee the operations and functions of 84 caseworkers, who are supported by 27 clerical assistants. Currently in CSSD, there are 16 vacancies amongst these three Number Orders 1,179 1,181,012 1,902 1,180,238 1,950 1,158,866 sections, a 19 percent vacancy rate. Established Cases with Collections 17,683 8,133,646 18,663 8,303,946 18,071 8,530,648 Systems and Automation Section contains six units with 53 current positions plus

a Section Chief and Administrative Assistant. Of the 53 positions, there are x 5 i d n e p p A Number of Children 98,054 17,289,695 86,968 17,173,286 76,658 17,261,575 vacancies, and 3 positions planned for the future. Fiscal Operations has 3 units and 24 current positions plus a Section Chief. There are 6 vacant positions, including one Statewide PEP 64.34 % 98.73 % 74.81 % 83.38 % 78 % 97.87% management position, and there is one administrative position slotted for the future. Percent of Cases with 34.92 % 74.37 % 39.6 % 75.9 % 45 % 77.3% Orders Percent of Current 51.22 % 58.99 % 52.89 % 60 % 52.5 % 60.35% Collections Distributed Percent of Cases with 42.33 % 59.87 % 43.68 % 60.04 % 41.7 % 60.07% Arrears Collection

Cost Effectiveness $3.14 $4.38 $2.45 $4.58 $2.55 $4.58

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 177 Endnotes

1 Dan Keating and V. Dion Haynes, Can D.C. Schools Be Fixed?, Wash. Post, June 10, 2007, at A01. 2 State Superintendent of Education, Annual Public School Enrollment Audit, 2006 Fall Enrollment Audit, District of Columbia Public Schools and Public Charter Schools, available at http://www.seo.dc.gov/seo/cwp/view,a,1222,q,560192.asp. 3 DC Kids Count Collaborative, Every Child Counts, 13th Annual Fact Book 2006 (2006). 4 Child Support Guideline Comm’n, July 2004 DC Child Support Guideline Commission Final Recommendations, Part II, Chapter 4 (July 2004). 5 Center for Law and Social Policy, Child Support Payments Benefit Children in Non-Economic as Well As Economic Ways: Research Fact Sheet (Oct. 2004). 6 Email from Cynthia Bryant, Clinical Professor and Director, University of Texas at Austin School of Law, to Judith Berman, Senior Program Associate, DC Appleseed Center (Mar. 20, 2007) (Dispute Resolution WICSEC 2006 (Nov. 2006)). 7 Interview with Jessica Pearson, Director, Center for Policy Research in Denver, CO, in Washington DC (Sept. 12, 2006). 8 Stacy L. Brustin, The Intersection between Welfare Reform and Child Support Enforcement: DC’s Weak Link, 52 Cath. U.L. Rev. 621 (2003). 9 Karen M. Roye, Enhanced Parental Involvement Collaboration (EPIC) Project Final Report, Executive Summary 4 (2005-2006) (Oct. 13, 2006). 10 Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Form OCSE-157 The Child Support Enforcement Annual Data Report, District of Columbia (2006). 11 Timothy S. Grall, Custodial Mothers and Fathers and their Child Support, 2003, US Census Bureau Current Population Reports (2006). 12 Supra note 4. 13 Drew D. Hansen, The American Invention of Child Support: Dependency and Punishment in Early American Child Support Law, 108 Yale LJ, 1123-1153 (1999). 14 See id. 15 See id. 16 Jacquelyn Bogess and Daniel Ash, Understanding Child Support: A Practitioner’s Guide for Working with Fragile Families, 3 (Flona D. Mincy, ed., Legal Protection for Fragile Families, 2001). 17 See id. 18 Lauren M Rich, Irv Garkinkel, and Qin Gao, Child Support Enforcement Policy and Unmarried Fathers’ Employment in the Underground and Regular Economies 1 (May 2006) (unpublished). 19 Bogess and Ash, supra note 16, at 4. 20 See id. 21 See id. 22 P.L. No. 93-647. 23 Child support enforcement policy and low-income families, 1 FOCUS 1 (2000) (Timeline of major changes in federal laws affecting child support enforcement). 24 See id. 25 House Committee on Ways and Means, 2004 Green Book, WMCP 108-6, pt. 8, at 15 (2004). 26 See id. 27 See id. at 16. 28 Id. 29 Child support enforcement policy and low-income families, supra note 23. 30 See id. 31 Bogess and Ash, supra note 16, at 20.

178 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 32 See id. 33 See id. 34 Child support enforcement policy and low-income families, supra note 23. 35 See id. 36 See id. 37 See id. 38 See id. 39 Bogess and Ash, supra note 16, at 24. 40 WMCP 108-6, supra note 25, pt. 8, at 8. 41 http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/newhire/library/brochures/fpls/fpls.htm. 42 See id. 43 Bogess and Ash, supra note 16, at 8. 44 WMCP 108-6, supra note 25, pt. 8, at 44. 45 See id. pt 44, at 29. 46 See id. pt 45, at 29. 47 Memorandum from the Office of Child Support Enforcement to State Child Support Enforcement Agencies, OCSE IM- 01-02, (Apr. 18, 2001) available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/IM/2001/im-01-02.htm. 48 Child support enforcement policy and low-income families, supra note 23. 49 WMCP 108-6, supra note 25, pt. 8, at 13. 50 See id. at 29. 51 Child support enforcement policy and low-income families, supra note 23. 52 WMCP 108-6, supra note 25, pt. 8, at 32. 53 See id. at 39. 54 Memorandum from the Office of Child Support Enforcement to State Child Support Enforcement Agencies, OCSE- IM-01-07, Legislation on Presumptive Eligibility for Medicaid and Final Rules for State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Medicaid Presumptive Eligibility (Aug. 31, 2001). 55 65 Fed. Reg. 85,124 (Dec. 27, 2000). 56 WMCP 108-6, supra note 25, pt. 8, at 30. 57 See id. at 40-41. 58 42 USC. § 666 (2007). 59 42 USC. § 666(a)(9)(C) (2007). 60 Cheryl Wetzstein, Child-Support-Law Amendment Comes to the Attention of the Hill, Wash. Times, April, 27, 1999. 61 Testimony of Keith McLeod, Committee on Ways and Means (2003), available at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/ hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=950. 62 WMCP 108-6, supra note 25, pt. 8, at 33. 63 See id. at 35. 64 See id. at 35. 65 See id. at 36. 66 See id. at 37. 67 See id. at 38. 68 See id. at 39. 69 See id. at 38. 70 Bogess and Ash, supra note 16, at 8. 71 See id. at 12. 72 H.R. Doc N9 108-6, pt 8, at 21 (2004). 73 See id. at 22. 74 See id. at 20. 75 See id. 76 See id.

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 179 77 See id. at 58. 78 See id. 79 Bogess and Ash, supra note 16, at 8. 80 S. 1932: Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, (Jan. 27, 2007); Interview with Federal Government Officials, US Department of Health and Human Services, DC (Feb. 7, 2006). 81 S. 803.IS (2007) and H.R. 1386.IH. (2007) 82 See id. States could formerly get credit for all paternities established in the state, and will now be limited to paternity establishment among children in the child support caseload. 83 WMCP 108-6, supra note 25, pt. 8, at 53. 84 See id. 85 See id. 86 Interview with Federal Government Officials, US Department of Health and Human Services, DC (Feb. 7, 2006). 87 H.R. Doc N9 108-6, pt 8, at 54 (2004). 88 See id. at 51. 89 See id. at 54. 90 http://ocse.acf.hhs.gov/ext/stateplanspublic/tc4.cfm?state_id=DC. 91 Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Strategic Plan 2005-2009 at 1 (1995). 92 See id. 93 See id. at 6. 94 See id. at 6. 95 See id. at 10. 96 See id. at 10-12. For discussion of debt leveraging, see Part IV, Section 1, Chapter 5, Management of Child Support Arrears herein. 97 See id. at 1. 98 H.R. Doc N9 108-6, pt 8, at 5 (2004). The Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984 (Public Law 98-378) extended the authority in section 1115 of the Social Security Act to the Child Support Enforcement program. This funding could be used for states to test innovative approaches to support enforcement so long as the modification does not disadvantage children in need of support nor result in an increase in Federal TANF costs. 99 http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/grants/1115_description.html. 100 http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/HHS-2006-ACF-OCSE-FD-0006.html. 101 Vicki Turetsky, Families Will Lose At Least $8.4 Billion in Uncollected Child Support If Congress Cuts Funds – and Could Lose Billions More, Center for Law and Social Policy (Jan. 18, 2006). 102 2005 American Communities Survey, available at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=04000US11&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_DP3&-ds_ name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-_lang=en&-_sse=on. 103 This number represents children under age 18. Child support in the District applies until the child reaches age 21. Butler v. Butler, 496 A.2d 621 (1985). 104 According to the US Census 2006 Federal Poverty threshold, poverty for a single parent with two children is $16,242. Two hundred percent of poverty for a single parent with two children would therefore be $32,484. Poverty thresholds are used to calculate the number of Americans in poverty each year. The Department of Health and Human Services uses a formula based on the poverty threshold (i.e., Poverty Guidelines) for administrative purposes, such as determining financial eligibility for certain federal programs. 105 Stephen Baskerville, The Politics of Fatherhood, PS: Political Science and Politics, No. 4, Vol. 35 (Dec. 2002). 106 Turning the Corner on Father Absence in Black America: A Statement by the Morehouse Conference on African American Fathers, Morehouse Research Institute and Institute for American Values (1999), available at http://www.americanvalues.org/ turning_the_corner.pdf. 107 Eirini Flouri, Fathering and Child Outcomes (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley 2005). 108 Elaine Sorenson, Testimony before the DC Council Judiciary Committee of the Washington, DC Council (June 5, 2003). 109 Former assistance cases are close to the national average (42.7% and 45.9% respectively) while non-public assistance recipients form a higher proportion of child support cases nationwide (27.7% in DC, compared to 38.3% nationwide). US

180 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Department of Health and Human Services, The Office of Child Support Enforcement, Preliminary Report FY 2005 (2006), available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2006/reports/preliminary_report/. 110 Gregory Acs and Pamela Loprest, A Study of the District of Columbia’s TANF Caseload, at ii (2003), available at http://www. urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410863. 2006 federal poverty guideline for a family of three is $16,600. The above statistics are based on a 2003 report using data from TANF recipients in 2002. 111 See id. 112 District Department of Employment Services, The District of Columbia’s Strategic Two Year Workforce Investment Plan 2005- 2007, at 49 (2004), available at http://www.does.dc.gov/does/frames.asp?doc=/does/lib/does/frames/State_Plan_Final_ Document.pdf. 113 See DC Kids Count Collaborative, supra note 3. 114 Ward 3, in contrast, had an unemployment rate of 3.2%. District Department of Employment Services, The District of Columbia’s Strategic Two Year Workforce Investment Plan 2005-2007, at 45 (2004), available at http://www.does.dc.gov/does/ frames.asp?doc=/does/lib/does/frames/State_Plan_Final_Document.pdf. 115 Irwin Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan, FOCUS, Fragile Families and Child Well-Being: A Survey of New Parents 9-11 (2000). 116 DC Kids Count Collaborative, supra note 3, at 46-47. 117 District Department of Employment Services, supra note 112, at 45. available at http://www.does.dc.gov/does/frames. asp?doc=/does/lib/does/frames/State_Plan_Final_Document.pdf. 118 Marcia Carlson, Sara McLanahan, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Unmarried but not Absent: Father’s Involvement with Children After a Nonmarital Birth, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing Working Paper #05-07-FF, at 7 (Dec. 2005). 119 The Sentencing Project, State Rates of Incarceration by Race (2004). 120 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Offender Statistics: Summary Findings, available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ crimoff.htm. 121 Interview with DC Government Official, in DC (Mar. 22, 2006). 122 The District has reasonable policies for issuing “good cause” waivers, which are waivers granted to custodial parents who have experienced domestic violence at the hands of the father. For example, an applicant is not required to produce evidence beyond a signed affidavit that she or her child has been a victim of abuse. And CSSD is a partner in the Superior Court Domestic Violence Center with attorneys dedicated to the domestic violence cases. There are some limitations to this policy, however, including some intake interview practices that do not encourage disclosure, according to some parents. In addition, some women in the child-support-eligible population have never been victimized by their partner but have reason to be afraid that applying for child support will trigger violence. These women are not necessarily protected by the good cause waiver since they would have to respond negatively to the question, “Have you ever been abused?” Ultimately, only 29 custodial parents were granted good cause waivers last year, which suggests that some women who might be eligible may not be applying. 123 http://csed.dc.gov/csed/cwp/view,a,3,q,636240.asp; see also “Pass-through” section in Part III, Chapter 3: The Child Support Process in DC herein. 124 Karen N. Gardiner, John Tapagna, and Michael E. Fishman, US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administrative and Judicial Processes for Establishing Child Support Orders (2002). 125 Testimony by Elaine Sorenson, supra note 108. 126 District of Columbia State Profile, available at http://ocse.acf.hhs.gov/ext/irg/sps/report.cfm?State=DC&CFID=759876&CFTOKEN=75bdff636ea9edbe-00EB3A24-F889- D7DE-FE4E8FCB87259070(last visited Apr. 24, 2007). 127 UIFSA replaced URESA, the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act in 1992, and was revised in 1996 and 2001. Though some of the issues we will be addressing in this report have equal relevance for interstate and local cases, we will not be separately addressing CSSD’s interstate procedures and practices. We believe that this issue warrants attention, but is outside the scope of our current investigation. 128 The Child Support Enforcement Amendment Act of 2001, authorized the “Mayor or any party who has a legal claim to any child support” to initiate a criminal action for failure to pay. The District of Columbia’s criminal contempt remedies for failure to pay child support are codified at DC Code Ann. § 46-225.02. 129 Interview with DC Government Official, in DC (Mar. 13, 2006).

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 181 130 CSSD represents the District and not an individual custodial parent. As noted, public assistance custodial parents are required to assign rights to child support to the District in order to allow District to recover costs associated with public assistance. Even when the custodial parent is not receiving public assistance and has not assigned rights to the District. 131 We would argue that the review of temporary orders, which in many cases remain temporary for many years, is a kind of de-facto enforcement role for the court which is both inefficient and costly. We will address this further in the Chapter “Improving Management of Child Support Cases.” 132 Memorandum from Talia Sassoon Cohen, Policy Counsel, OCC/CSED Policy Counsel Memo to All Child Support Staff, Revised New Representation Policy (Jan. 4, 2001). 133 See Part III, Chapter 2, History and Statutory Framework of the Child Support System. 134 42 USC § 667 (2007). 135 DC Code Section 16-916.01 (2007). 136 See surpa note 4, at 5. 137 The 1990 Guideline contained a formula which only went up to $75,000 which in effect meant that upper-income non- custodial parents paid a significantly lower proportion of income toward child support than their middle- and lower-income counterparts. The New Guideline accounts for combined incomes up to $24,000. 138 According to the US Census 2006 Federal Poverty threshold, 133% of poverty for a family of one equals $10,488. 139 District of Columbia Child Support Guideline Comm’n, supra note 4, at 24. 140 http://csed.dc.gov/csed/cwp/view,a,3,q,636240.asp. 141 As of March 2007, the District reports it has passed $1.7 million directly to TANF families. 142 Presentation by DC Government Officials to DC Appleseed Child Support Project Team (Dec. 19, 2005). 143 CSSD is working with an area think-tank to find resources to conduct an evaluation of the pass-through program. 144 Interview with Federal Government Officials, US Department of Health and Human Services, in DC (Feb. 7, 2006). 145 Testimony by Elaine Sorenson, supra note 108. 146 FY 2006 Child Support Enforcement Preliminary Data Report, Table 12: Unaudited Incentive Performance Scores FY 2006, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2007/preliminary_report/table_12.html. 147 These numbers, based on federal program performance reports, vary significantly from those that appear in the DC Council Committee on the Judiciary FY 2007 Budget Report. In the Budget Report, OAG reports at 21.71 percent change in support orders established, and an 11.52 percent increase in the collection of arrears. It appears that these numbers are based on changes in the number of cases and dollars, rather than rates which take into account the proportion. Memorandum from Phil Mendelson, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, to All Council members re: Recommendations of the Committee on the Judiciary on Fiscal Year 2007, at 52 (Apr. 28, 2006). 148 Telephone interview with Karen Roye, Director, San Francisco CA Department of Child Support Services (Oct. 27, 2006); and Telephone interview with Dan Welch, Colorado Child Support Enforcement Division (July 24, 2006). 149 See Best Practices section of this Chapter. 150 45 CFR § 303.6a(2) (2007). 151 See id. 152 See id. § 303.6a(4). 153 See id. § 308.2(c). 154 Interview with DC Government Officials, in DC (Mar. 30, 2006). 155 Telephone interview with Karen Roye, supra note 148. 156 Interview with DC Government Officials, in DC (Jan. 26, 2007). 157 Interview with DC Government Officials, in DC (Mar. 30, 2006). 158 Interview with Community Service Provider, in DC (June 12, 2006); Interview with Parents, in DC (Nov. 14, 2005). 159 Interview with Community Service Provider, in DC (June 12, 2006). 160 Interviews with Parents, in DC (Mar. 8, 2006, Aug. 21, 2006, and Nov. 14, 2005). 161 CSSD reportedly sent “thank you” letters to non-custodial parents who paid their child support in full and timely throughout 2006. This effort is laudable but it leaves open the issue of effective outreach to parents not in 100 percent compliance. 162 Paul Legler, Low-Income Fathers and Child Support: Starting Off on the Right Track 28 (2003). 163 U.S. Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Child Support Enforcement Customer Service: Parent

182 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Perceptions of Telephone and Office Visit Experiences in Four States, at i (2003). 164 See id. 165 Interview with Parents, in DC (Apr. 24, 2006). 166 Interviews with Parents, in DC (Apr. 24 2006 and Feb. 28, 2007) 167 Interview with Community Service Provider, in DC (Oct. 28, 2005). 168 The address to custodial parents is evidenced in the following language used to describe enforcement methods: the methods are used “to help you get your support payments.” http://csed.dc.gov/csed/cwp/view,a,3,q,514762,csedNav,|31158|.asp. 169 http://csed.dc.gov/csed/cwp/view,a,3,q,514741,csedNav,|31158|.asp. (emphasis added). 170 Karen M Roye, Enhanced Parental Involvement Collaboration (EPIC) Project Final Report, Executive Summary 3 (2005-2006) (Oct. 13, 2006). 171 See id. at 2. 172 Telephone interview with Karen Roye, supra note 148. 173 Roye, supra note 148, at 22. 174 Id. 175 Id. at 4. 176 Id. 177 Id. 178 Dan Welch, Presentation at the National Child Support Enforcement Training Conference in Arlington, VA: Early Intervention Opens the Door for Better Outcomes (Sept. 10-13, 2006). 179 See id. 180 See id. 181 See id. 182 See id. 183 Telephone interview with Dan Welch, supra note 148. 184 See id. 185 See id. 186 See id. 187 Id. 188 Id. 189 Email from Dan Welch, Director, Colorado Child Support Enforcement Division, to DC Appleseed Staff (Jan. 12, 2007). 190 Telephone interview with Cynthia Bryant, Clinical Professor and Director Mediation Clinic, UTA School of Law, (July 13, 2006). 191 See id. 192 See id. 193 See id. 194 See id. 195 For more information on this process, see Chapter on Legal Representation and Collaboration with the Court. 196 Telephone interview with Cynthia Bryant, supra note 190. 197 See id. 198 Texas Web-Based Training 4 (2004), available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/stsys/ref/state_tx_web_training. pdf. 199 http://www.ilchildsupport.com/noncustodial_parent_cs.html. 200 National Council on Child Support Director’s Annual Conference, Section 1115 Demonstration Grant Nebraska, at 2. 201 See id. 202 See id. at 4-6. 203 Legler, supra note 162, at 32. 204 See Interview with DC Government Official, in DC (Dec. 8, 2005). 205 Legler, supra note 162, at 30. 206 See Interview with Community Service Provider, in DC (Nov. 10, 2005).

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 183 207 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5671455 (last visited Dec. 27, 2006). 208 BLACK MALES LEFT BEHIND (Ronald Mincy ed., Urban Institute Press 2006). 209 Contracts for all government-assisted projects totaling $100,000 or more must contain the provision that 51% of the new employees hired for the project shall be District residents, and the Department of Employment Services First Source Register shall be the “First Source” used to identify potential employees. D.C. Code § 2-219.03 (2001). 210 In an evaluation of the one-stop centers conducted one year after the opening of the first full-service center in DC, the DC Jobs Council reported that not one of the 43 low-income job seekers who participated in the evaluation found a job as a result of their use of the one-stop center. The DC Jobs Council, Help Wanted: Low-income Job Seekers Assess the District of Columbia’s One Stop Career Centers: A Report of the DC Jobs Council (2001), available at http://www.dcejc.org/app/docs/HelpWanted.pdf. 211 Fannie Mae Foundation, Housing in the Nation’s Capital, 2006 (Supplemental Appendix). 212 DC Kids Count Collaborative, supra note 3. 213 Martha Ross and Brooke DeRenzis, Reducing Poverty in Washington, DC and Rebuilding the Middle-Class from Within, (at 13), (Brookings Institute 2007). 214 DC Kids Count Collaborative, supra note 3. 215 This estimate is based on court calendar observation over the course of several months. It does not include those who were not able to be served, or those who were served with process but did not attend court. 216 FFP [Federal Financial Participation] is available for identification and referral of unemployed non-custodial parents to job training, coordination with courts regarding compliance with court orders, tracking participation, and data collection. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, OCSE AT-00-08, Policy Questions and Responses Regarding Collaborative Efforts Between IV-D Agencies and Agencies or Organizations Administering the Welfare-to-Work Program (Sept. 15, 2000). 217 Doolittle and Lynn, infra note 420. The authors use the term “smoke out” to describe the process of identifying and initiating wage-withholding for non-paying non-custodial parents who are actually employed while seeking to identify and provide services to those who are unemployed. 218 42 USC § 666a(15) (2007), requiring that states have in place “procedures to ensure that persons owing overdue support work or have a plan for payment of such support.” 219 Kristin Ruth, Breaking the Cycle by Using Alternatives to Incarceration (2006); Cynthia Miller & Virginia Knox, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporations, The Challenge of Helping Low-Income Fathers Support Their Children, Final Lessons from Parents’ Fair Share (2001). 220 42 USC. § 666a(15)(B) (2007); DC Code § 46-226.09 (2007). 221 42 USC § 607d (2007). 222 45 CFR §§ 303.6c1, 303.100 (2007). 223 42 USC § 653a (2007). 224 See id. § 653i(1). 225 45 CFR § 303.32 (2007). 226 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, OCSE AT-00-08, Policy Questions and Responses Regarding Collaborative Efforts Between IV-D Agencies and Agencies or Organizations Administering the Welfare-to-Work Program, at A1 (Sept. 15, 2000). Emphasis added. 227 See Help Wanted: Low-income Job Seekers Assess the District of Columbia’s One Stop Career Centers: A Report of the DC Jobs Council (2001), available at http://www.dcejc.org/app/docs/HelpWanted.pdf. 228 In 2005, the Washington Metropolitan Area gained 81,600 jobs, of which only 11,700 were in the District. In 2005, the District lost 400 public sector jobs, while the Metro area gained 9400. DC Department of Employment Services, Labor Market Trends, No. 18 (Feb. 2006). 229 Ross and DeRenzis, supra note 213, at 2. 230 See id. 231 See id. at 1-2. 232 The Child Support Services Division’s Response to “Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System” by DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, June 11, 2007. 233 Matthew Lyon, Characteristics of Families Using Title IV-D Services in 1995 (1999), found that 44% of non-resident fathers whose children received TANF earned less than $15,000 a year and nearly 1/3 earned less than $10,000; Karin Martinson,

184 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Serving Non-custodial Parents Through Welfare-to-Work Grants: Labor Market Characteristics, Employment Barriers, and Service Strategies (The Urban Institute) (1998); Elaine Sorenson, Low-Income Non-custodial Fathers: Who Are They and What Are States Doing to Assist Them in Their Effort to Pay Child Support? (The Urban Institute) (1997). See also, Geraldine Jensen, Families Online Magazine, Who are the Fathers of Children on Welfare? Can they pay child support? available at http://www.familiesonlinemagazine. com/fathers.htm (Summarizes several studies on fathers). 234 Leticia Fernandez and Jeanette Hercik, Addressing the Needs of Non-Custodial Parents in TANF Families Workshop 5 (2001). 235 Karin Martinson, John Trutko, and Debra Strong, Serving Non-custodial Parents: A Descriptive Study of Welfare-to-Work Programs 1 (The Urban Institute Dec. 2000), available at http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/ncp-wtw-d00/index.htm. 236 Of 11 sites in the National Evaluation of the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 10 served between 79 and 99 percent women. Only one site served a predominantly male population. Thomas M. Fraker, Demetra S. Nightingale et al., US Department of Health and Human Services, The National Evaluation of the Welfare- to-Work Grants Program: Final Report (2004), available at http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/ WtWgrantsfinal.pdf. 237 Lawrence Mead, Op-Ed., And Now, ‘Welfare Reform’ for Men, Wash. Post, Mar. 20, 2007. 238 Interview with Community Service Providers, DC (Aug. 22, 2006); Amanda Miller, From Here to Paternity, Wash. City Paper, at 21 (Mar. 16, 2007). 239 Interview with Community Service Providers, in DC (Aug. 22, 2006). 240 Amanda Miller, From Here to Paternity, Wash. City Paper, at 21 (Mar. 16, 2007); Vicki Turetsky, Staying in Jobs and Out of the Underground: Child Support Policies that Encourage Legitimate Work Center, for Law and Social Policy Child Support Services (2007); Harry Holzer, Paul Offner, and Elaine Sorensen, Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Paper no. 1281-04, Declining Employment Among Young Black Less-Educated Men: The Role of Incarceration and Child Support (May 2004). 241 Donald W. Myers, Division of Child Support Enforcement and Virginia Department of Social Services, The Barriers Project: Evaluation and Final Report (2006), available at http://www.dss.virginia.gov/files/about/reports/children/child_ support/2006/barriers.pdf. 242 See id. at 40. 243 See id. 244 See id. at 41. 245 Cynthia Miller and Virginia Knox, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporations, The Challenge of Helping Low-Income Fathers Support Their Children, Final Lessons from Parents’ Fair Share, at v (2001). 246 Doolittle and Lynn, infra note 420, at 18-19. 247 Miller and Knox, supra note 219, at v. 248 David Gray Ross, Commissioner, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Memorandum to State IV-D Directors, September 14, 2000: State IV-D Program Flexibility with Respect to Low Income Obligors -- Imputing Income; Setting Child Support Orders and Retroactive Support; Compromising Arrearages; Referral to Work-Related Programs and Other Non-traditional Approaches to Securing Support, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/PIQ/2000/piq-00-03.htm. 249 Information on Fast Track program available at http://www.state.ga.us/GAFatherhood/jobs.html. 250 Information on Illinois’ NCPSU available at http://www.ilchildsupport.com/noncustodial_parent_cs.html. 251 Information on Earnfare available at http://www.dhs.state.il.us/ts/et/earnfare.asp. 252 Irma Perez-Johnson, Jacqueline Kauff, and Alan Hershey, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Giving Non-custodial Parents Options: Employment and Child Support Outcomes of the SHARE Program (2003), available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/HSP/wtw- grants-eval98/share03/report.pdf. 253 DC Bar Legal Beat, DC Superior Court to Establish Fathering Initiative (Jan. 2007). 254 Center for Law and Social Policy Research, Fact Sheet: Child Support Benefits Children in Non-Economic as well as Economic Ways (2004), available at http://www.clasp.org/publications/CS_Noneconomic_FS.pdf. 255 Letter from Margot Bean, Commissioner Office of Child Support Enforcement, to All State and Tribal IV-D Directors, Dear Colleague Letter, DCL-06-31 (Sept, 29, 2006); available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/DCL/2006/dcl- 06-31.htm. 256 Child Support and Fragile Families, supra note 16, at 3. 257 Jessica Pearson, Building Debt While Doing Time: Child Support and Incarceration, American Bar Association Judge’s Journal, Vol. 43, No. 1 (Winter 2004).

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 185 258 Pamela Oxurgho, Correne Saunders, and Catherine Born, The Intersections of Incarceration and Child Support: A Snapshot of Maryland’s Caseload, University of Maryland School of Social Work (July 2005). 259 Esther Griswold, Jessica Pearson, and Lavae Davis, Testing a Modification Process for Incarcerated Parents, at iii (Dec. 2001). 260 S. B. 277, (2004), 12-104.1 Child Support –Incarcerated Obligors – Suspension of Payments and Accrual of Arrearages. 261 45 CFR § 303.11 (b)(5) (2007). 262 David Gray Ross, Commissioner, Office of Child Support Enforcement, State IV-D Program Flexibility with Respect to Low Income Obligors—Imputing Income; Setting Child Support Orders and Retroactive Support; Compromising Arrearages; Referral to Work- Related Programs and Other Non-Traditional Approaches to Securing Support, PIQ-00-03 (September 14, 2000); available at http:// www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/PIQ/2000/piq-00-03.htm. 263 Child Support Guideline Revision Act of 2006, § 2r(5). 264 DC Child Support Guidelines at 5 (2006). 265 Eric Lotke, DC National Center on Institutions and Alternatives, Hobbling a Generation: Young African American Men in DC’s Criminal Justice System Five Years Later (1997). 266 Interview with DC Government Official, in DC (Nov. 28, 2006). 267 Modifying Orders for District of Columbia Prisoners, Proposal Under Priority Area 1 at 4 (2007). 268 See id. 269 See id. 270 Personal Communication, National Institute of Corrections Transition from Prison to Community Project Staff, Jan. 2006. 271 Interview with Federal Government Official, in DC (Mar. 20, 2006). 272 Final Report: Comprehensive Reentry Strategy for Adults in the District of Columbia 21 (June 12, 2003). 273 Bradley Amendment, 42 USC § 666a(9) (2007) (prohibits the retroactive modification of child support). 274 Interview with Community Service Provider, in DC (Jan. 19, 2006). 275 See id. 276 Interview with Federal Government Official, in DC (Mar. 16, 2006). 277 See id. 278 Memorandum of Understanding, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. 279 Interview with DC Government Official, in DC (Nov. 28, 2006). 280 Interview with Federal Government Official, in DC (Mar. 20, 2006). 281 See id. 282 Telephone Interview and Email with Dianne King (Aug. 2006). 283 Communication with Federal Government Official, in DC (Feb. 1, 2007). 284 Legis. B15-0712, 2004, Omnibus Public Safety Ex-Offender Self-Sufficiency Reform Amendment Act, (2004). 285 Modifying Orders for District of Columbia Prisoners, Proposal Under Priority Area 1 at 4. (2007) 286 Id. at 5. 287 Interview with Private Citizen, in DC (Sept. 20, 2006). 288 The Child Support Services Division’s Response to “Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System” by DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, June 11, 2007. 289 Offender Population Demographics, Court Services and Offender Services Agency (July 25, 2006). 290 Interview of Community Service Provider, in DC (Jan. 19, 2006) 291 Modifying Orders for District of Columbia Prisoners, Proposal Under Priority Area 1 at 5 (2007). 292 Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Working with Incarcerated and Released Parents: Lessons from OCSE Grants and State Programs (2006). 293 See id. at vii. 294 Re-entry Policy Council, Child Support and Re-Entry, at 129 (2005); see also at 198-200 (which emphasize the need for timely responses to requests for review by inmates); Amy E. Hirsch, Sharon M. Dietrich, Rue Landau, Peter D. Schneider, Irv Ackelsberg, Judith Bernstein-Baker, Joseph Hohenstein, Every Door Closed: Barriers Facing Parents with Criminal Records, No. 6 of 8 (2002). 295 Modifying Orders for District of Columbia Prisoners, Proposal Under Priority Area 1 at 4 (2007).

186 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 296 Working with Incarcerated and Released Parents: Lessons from OCSE Grants and State Programs, supra note 202, at ii. 297 Ovwigho, Saunders and Born, infra note 351. In one neighboring jurisdiction, Maryland, “[a]lmost one-half of incarcerated non-custodial parents need to have orders established in their cases (47.1%) compared to one-quarter of non-custodial parents” not in prison. There is no reason to believe that the District’s statistics regarding incarcerated non- custodial parents are any better. 298 Working with Incarcerated and Released Parents: Lessons from OCSE Grants and State Programs, supra note 202, at ii. 299 Id. at iii. 300 See id. at V. 301 Interview with Jessica Pearson, Director, Center for Policy Research, in Arlington, VA (Sept. 12, 2006). 302 Modifying Orders for District of Columbia Prisoners, Proposal Under Priority Area, at 10. 303 See id. at 13. 304 Interview with DC Government Officials, in DC (June 27, 2006). 305 Re-entry Policy Council, Child Support and Re-Entry, at 198-200 (2005). 306 Milwaukee County Project for the Incarcerated, Presentation at National Child Support Enforcement Conference, Lisa Marks, Deputy Director Milwaukee County Child Support Agency (Sept. 13, 2006). 307 Id. 308 Working with Incarcerated and Released Parents: Lessons from OCSE Grants and State Programs, supra note 202, at v. 309 Id. at 21. 310 Pearson, supra note 257, at 6. 311 Jessica Pearson, Nancy Thoennes, Lanae Davis, June C. Venohr, David A. Price, and Tracy Griffith, OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Client Characteristics and Program Outcomes, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Sept. 2003); Pearson, supra note 257, at 6-8; Jessica Pearson and Esther Ann Griswold, Lessons from Four Projects Dealing with Incarceration and Child Support, Corrections Today, American Correctional Association Inc., Vol. 67, Issue 4 (2005). 312 Pearson and Griswold, supra note 311. 313 Pearson and Griswold, supra note 311. 314 Working with Incarcerated and Released Parents: Lessons from OCSE Grants and State Programs, supra note 292, at 29. 315 Ex-offender Resource Guide (March 2005), available at www.oedworks.com/exoffender.htm. 316 Working with Incarcerated and Released Parents: Lessons from OCSE Grants and State Programs, supra note 292, at 29. 317 Pearson and Griswold, supra note 311, at 2-4. And, in the long-run its cost would seem to at least off-set the costs to society of recidivism. 318 E-mail from Private Citizen to DC Appleseed staff (June 28, 2006). 319 Pearson, supra note 257, at 4. 320 Id. 321 Dealing With Child Support Issues When You Are In Prison, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Doc 22-423, available at http://www1.dshs.wa.gov/dcs/resources/publications.asp. 322 National Institute of Justice, part of the U.S. Department of Justice, Washington State’s Corrections Clearinghouse: A Comprehensive Approach to Offender Employment (July 1999). In addition, the CSE involvement and flexibility were commented on favorably. Pearson, supra note 257, at 6. 323 Working with Incarcerated and Released Parents: Lessons from OCSE Grants and State Programs, supra note 292, at vii-viii 324 Oregon Admin. R. 137-005-3330. 325 See id. 326 David Gray Ross, US Department of Health and Human Services, The Office of Child Support Enforcement, OSCE-DLC- 99-59, Guidance on Definition of “Public Charge” in Immigration Law (June 9, 1999). 327 Interview with Community Service Provider, in DC at 2 (July 10, 2006); Interview with Community Service Provider, in DC at 1 (June 21, 2006). 328 National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, Not Just Another Single Issue: Teen Pregnancy Prevention’s Link to Other Critical Social Issues at 6 (2002). It is important to note that these mothers may no longer be teens or easily identifiable as former teen parents when they enter the child support caseload.

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 187 329 Id. at 7. 330 HR 78: American Child Support Enforcement Immigration Act of 2006 (Introduced Jan. 1, 2007). 331 45 CFR § 302.70(a)(iii) (2007). 332 Interview with Community Service Provider, in DC (July 10, 2006). 333 Policy Interpretation Question, PIQ-15099-01, affirms that States may work not only with ‘reciprocating countries’ but also continue working with existing reciprocity agreements and to declare new reciprocal agreements as needed under PRWORA. Child support services may to be provided to any U.S. citizen living abroad or to any non-resident alien who applies directly to the state for child support enforcement services. OCSE policy states there is no constraint on individuals from foreign countries from filing a signed application (section 302.33(a)(i) and 303.2(a)92) and (3)). 334 See id. Community Service Provider, in DC (June 21, 2006). 335 Interview with DC Government Officials, in DC (Mar. 30, 2006). 336 See id. 337 45 CFR § 302.70 (2007); 45 CFR § 303.5(g) (2007). 338 Not Just Another Single Issue: Teen Pregnancy Prevention’s Link to Other Critical Social Issues, supra note 328, at 4 (2002). 339 California Women’s Law Center, Policy Brief: Teen Dating Violence: An Ignored Epidemic (2001), available at http://www.cwlc.org/files/docs/policy_brief_teen_dating_violence.pdf (stating that abused teens are four to six times more likely to become pregnant than non-abused teens, and over 70 percent of pregnant teens are abused by their boyfriends, compared to six percent of adult pregnant women). 340 Child Support Service Division’s Response to “Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System,” supra note 232. 341 See id. 342 See id. 343 Telephone interview with Dan Welch, Director, supra note 148. 344 US Department of Health and Human Services, An OCSE Guide for Hispanic/Latino Customer Service (1999), at 58. 345 See id. at 50. 346 See id. at 19. 347 See id. at 19. 348 Judi Bartfield, University of Wisconsin – Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty, Forgiveness of State Owed Child Support Arrears, at i (2003). 349 Roberts and Sorensen, infra note 412, at 2. 350 Current Collections and Arrears Management: Peer-to-Peer Training Conference Summary Notes, La Jolla California 5 (2006), available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/DCL/2006/dcl-06-40.htm. 351 Pamela Ovwigho, Correne Saunders and Catherine Born, Baltimore, MD: Univ. of Maryland School of Social Work, Arrears Leveraging Pilot Project: Outcomes Achieved and Lessons Learned (2005). 352 Office of Child Support Enforcement, New Approaches to Child Support Arrears: A Survey of State Policies and Practices 2 (n.d.). 353 Ovwigho, Saunders and Born, Arrears, supra note 351, at i. 354 In a written reply to our questions about the makeup of the arrears, we could find out only what amount of arrears were owed on cases for current assistance recipients, former assistance recipients, and never assistance recipients. DC does not measure the concentration of arrears, nor average the amount of arrears, nor how arrears have accumulated. E-mail from staff at the DC Office of the Attorney General, to staff at DC Appleseed (Apr. 27, 2006). 355 Department of Health and Human Services and Office of Child Support Enforcement, The Story Behind the Numbers: Who Owes the Child Support Debt? (2004); Sorensen, Koball, Pomper, Zibman and the Urban Institute, Examining Child Support Arrears in California: The Collectibility Study 7 (2003) [hereinafter “The California Collectibility Study”]. 356 Vicki Turetsky, Center for Law and Social Policy in Washington DC (2006) (unpublished document). 357 US Department of Health and Human Services, The Office of Child Support Enforcement, OCSE-PIQ-99-03, Public Policy Supporting Two Parent Families/Compromise of Child Support Arrearages (Mar. 22, 1999). 358 Sherri Heller, Address at National Child Support Association Mid-Year Policy Forum, Washington DC (Jan. 2004). 359 See id. 360 Interview with DC Court Personnel, in DC (Jan. 25, 2006); Interview with DC Government Officials, in DC (Dec. 19, 2005).

188 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 361 This is contrast with California where the California Collectibility Study showed that 71% of child support debtors have a default order. 362 Interview with DC Government Official, in DC (Dec. 19, 2005). 363 Child Support Guideline Revision Act, DC Law L16-0138 (2006). 364 Roberts and Sorensen, infra note 412. 365 The California Collectibility Study, supra note 355. The California Collectibility Study found that one of three principal reasons for child support arrears in the state resulted from the assessment of interest on arrears at 10% per year – a full 27% of the total arrears amount was attributable to interest. The study evaluators recommended lowering the interest rate in California. 366 “Prior research has shown that once a child support order is in place, amending that order is difficult and not often done, especially among low-income families” Ronald Mincy and Lenna Nepomnyaschy, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, Child Support and Minority Fathers in Fragile Families 15-16 (2005) (citing Waller & Plotnick 2001). 367 Letter from Linda Singer, DC Attorney General to Judy Berman, DC Appleseed Senior Program Associate (May 15, 2007). 368 According to one DC Government Official, a custodial parent can call and ask for modification at any time based on changed circumstances, such as a third party providing child care for the child. 369 The Child Support Services Division’s Response to “Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System by DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice (June 2007). 370 Available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2005/reports/preliminary_report/table_19.html. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2005/reports/preliminary_report/table_20.html; The District’s averages would probably be higher if this data included 2005 and 2006 performance. 371 The California Collectibility Study, supra note 355, Executive Summary, at 2. 372 See id. 373 See id. at 10. 374 Interview with Jessica Pearson, Director, Center for Policy Research, (Dec. 12, 2005). 375 Ross, supra note 248. 376 Roberts and Sorensen, infra note 412, at 5. See also Bartfield, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Strategies to Contain the Growth of Arrears 6-11. 377 Jessica Pearson and Lanae Davis, Center for Policy Research, An Evaluation of the Colorado Arrears Forgiveness Demonstration Project, Colorado Department of Human Services (May 2002). 378 Center for the Support of Families, Inc. for The Minnesota Department of Human Services and the Hennepin County Child Support Division, Arrears Management for Low-Income Non-custodial Parents: Evaluation Report (2004). 379 See id. at 5. 380 Ovwigho, Saunders and Born, Arrears, supra note 351, at 5. 381 See id. at 31. 382 One pilot program was available only to men between the ages of 16 and 30, while other programs required participants to regularly attend fatherhood meetings, show progress towards obtaining a GED, establish paternity, and/or have regular contact with their children. No matter what criteria are used, the program should be well-publicized, easily understood by potential participants, and viewed as “fair,” not only to participants but also to other constituents, including government officials, taxpayers, and custodial parents. 383 Legal Beat, Washington Lawyer (2007), available at http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/resources/publications/ washington_lawyer/january_2007/legalbeat.cfm. 384 Gardner, Tapogna, and Fishman, supra note 124. 385 Testimony by Elaine Sorenson, supra note 108. 386 Department of Health and Human Services, OMB No. 0970-0177, supra note 109. 387 D.C. Council Committee on the Judiciary Budget Report, FY 2007. 388 Department of Health and Human Services, OMB No. 0970-0177, supra note 109. 389 Child Support Enforcement, FY 2005 Preliminary Report, May 2006 (accessed on Apr. 12, 2007). 390 45 CFR § 303.101a (2007). 391 45 CFR § 303.101b(2)(i) (2007). 392 Memorandum from Talia Sassoon Cohen, supra note 132.

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 189 393 With some exceptions, the language of the materials is oriented toward custodial parents. For example, the brochure on establishing paternity states: “if the man you suspect to be your child’s father disputes that he is the father…” (emphasis added). While there are materials in the folder that are addressed to the non-custodial parent, the packet was clearly not designed with the non-custodial parent’s needs and interests primarily in mind. 394 Interview with DC Court Personnel, in DC, (Mar. 5, 2007). 395 District of Columbia Bar Foundation, Civil Legal Services Delivery in the District of Columbia 1-2 (2003). 396 45 CFR §§ 304.23(j-k) (2007). 397 In some cases, the obligor has been paying but the money is not reaching the custodial parent, either because of error or fraud on the part of the employer withholding the wages, or an error by the child support clearinghouse. In these cases, the contempt charge would be dropped, but the non-custodial parent may still be required to return to court to ensure that the error has been corrected and the account is in good standing. 398 Based on Project Team court observations, DC Appleseed (2006-2007). 399 DC Code §16-916.01(o)(2); revised language at CSGRA 2006, Sect 2(r)(4)(A). 400 Different states have different formulas for imputing income. Imputing income is based on the earning capacity of a party rather than true income. If one if voluntarily unemployed or fails to seek gainful employment though is able-bodied, the judge may base that person’s income on their earning capacity. 401 This is not to suggest that CSSD attorneys would represent a non-custodial parent in such a matter, but rather provide the information and assist with the contacts that will help the non-custodial parent move his claim forward and/or help secure the paperwork necessary to process the child support matter. 402 Margot Bean, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Dear Colleague Letter DCL-06-37: National Judicial - Child Support Task Force Strategic Plan (Oct. 30, 2006). 403 Lee Morhar, Diane Nunn, and Michael Wright, PowerPoint presentation Collaboration between Child Support and the Courts CALIFORNIA, Chicago IL, Emailed June 1, 2006. 404 Ruth, supra note 219. 405 http://support.fathers.com/site/PageServer?JServSessionIdr004=j8bhvyvff3.app2b&pagename=ncf_ fathering_court. 406 See id. 407 http://support.fathers.com/site/PageServer?JServSessionIdr001=b2whfefi33.app6b&pagename=ncf_ fathering_court. 408 Alicia Key, PowerPoint Presentation, CSRP- The Alternate Solution (Nov. 2006) (Emailed Mar. 20, 2007). 409 Email from Cynthia Bryant, Clinical Professor and Director, UTA School of Law, to DC Appleseed staff, Dispute Resolution WICSEC 2006 (mar. 20, 2007). 410 Cynthia Bryant, supra note 6. 411 Id. 412 Paula Roberts and Elaine Sorenson, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Strategies for Preventing the Accumulation of Child Support Arrears and Managing Existing Arrears: An Update 8-11 (2005). 413 Alicia Key, supra note 408. 414 Paula Roberts and Elaine Sorensen, supra note 412. 415 Alicia Key, supra note 408. 416 See id. 417 Delaware Service Documents, Delaware Division of Child Support Enforcement. 418 Presentation by Cynthia Bryant, Dispute Resolution WICSEC 2006 (Nov. 2006) (emailed Mar. 20, 2007). 419 Vicki Turetsky, Washington DC: Center for Law and Social Policy, You Get What You Pay For: How Federal and State Investment Decisions Affect Child Support Performance 3 (1998), available at http://www.clasp.org/publications/you_get_what_you_pay.pdf. 420 Fred Doolittle and Suzanne Lynn, Working with Low-Income Cases: Lessons for the Child Support Enforcement System from Parents’ Fair Share (1998), available at http://www.mdrc.org/publications/144/full.htm#I.%20CSE%20Reform:%20A%20Middle- Class%20Paradigm. 421 45 CFR §§ 302.70a, 303.101b (2007). 422 See id.§§ 302.85, 307. 423 Beginning with the issuance of revisions to 45 CFR Part 95, Subpart F (Automated Data Processing Equipment and Services; Conditions for Federal Financial Participation), published in final form in the Federal Register on February 7, 1990, 55 FR 4364 and OCSE-AT-90-11 of October 9, 1990, Policy Clarification Relating to Automated Child Support Enforcement

190 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System Systems (CSES), the Office of Child Support Enforcement has been working to assist states in meeting automation requirements. The OCSE website now has an entire section dedicated to facilitating automation practices: available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/stsys/dsts_auto.html. 424 See 45 CFR § 303.101 (2007). 425 Karen N. Gardiner, John Tapogna and Michael E. Fishman, prepared for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administrative and Judicial Processes for Establishing Child Support Orders (2002). 426 45 CFR §§ 303.3b, 303.11b (2007). 427 See id. § 303.11b. 428 45 CFR § 302.70 (2007); DC Code § 46-207.01 (2007). 429 45 CFR § 303.100b (2007). 430 See id. § 303.100e. 431 See id. §§ 303.6a, 303.6c. 432 See id. § 303.6c. 433 See id. § 303.11. 434 Office of Inspector General and Office of Evaluation and Inspections, Region VI, Barriers in Closing Child Support Enforcement Cases, Document #OEI-06-00-00471 (2002). 435 45 CFR § 303.11 (2007). 436 Office of Child Support Enforcement and US Department of Health and Human Services, Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement: A Guide for Automating Case Closure (2004). 437 The process was not concealed from DC Appleseed Project Team members. In fact, the team conducted interviews in the room where the analysis was taking place, and work products were visible on the walls. The process is extensive, however, and we were not invited nor allowed to spend time studying the specific components. 438 Interview with DC Government Official, in DC (Mar. 13, 2006). 439 Vertical Prosecution Implementation, CSSD document (2007). VPP began in January 2007 with partial implementation. It could not be fully implemented until after impact and effect bargaining with the union regarding job description changes. 440 See id. 441 See id. 442 See id. 443 See id. 444 Interview with DC Government Employees, in DC (Jan. 27, 2007); See also http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/grants/ abstracts/fy2004_1115_abstracts.html#90FD0100. 445 Department of Health and Human Services, supra note 10. 446 Brustin, supra at 8. 447 See id. at 677-678. 448 Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Form OCSE-157 The Child Support Enforcement Annual Data Report, District of Columbia (2006). 449 Interview with DC Government Official, in DC (Nov. 16, 2005). 450 US Department of Health and Human Services, The Office of Child Support Enforcement, FY 2002 Annual Statistical Report, and FY 2003 Annual Report to Congress, FY 2004 Preliminary Data Report, and FY 2005 Preliminary Data Report, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/index.html#annual. CSSD reported that case closures over two years resulted in a reduction in open cases from 118,000 to just over 85,000. Thus, despite a reduction in orders established from ‘02-‘04, and an increase in orders of only 2% in ‘05, CSSD is able to claim a 5 percent increase in the order establishment rate from 35% to 40%, still about 35 percentage points lower than the national average. 451 Legler, supra 1620. 452 State of Arizona Office of the Auditor General, Arizona Department of Economic Security, and Division of Child Support Enforcement, Arizona Performance Audit: Report No. 01-01 at 45-46 (2001). 453 See id. at 44-46. 454 Vicki Turetsky, Washington DC: Center for Law and Social Policy, Realistic Child Support Policies for Low Income Fathers: Kellogg Devolution Initiative Paper (2000).

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 191 455 Elaine Blackman, Early Intervention and Case Management: ‘Reunion Call’ Highlights Key Issues, Child Support Report Vol. XXVI, No. 4, (Apr. 2004) 456 See id. 457 Linda Singer, supra note 367. 458 U.S. Office of Child Support Enforcement Best Practices – Automation, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ cse/pubs/1995/best_practices/bpenfd.htm (last visited Mar. 15, 2007). 459 Email from Monica Scanlon, Regional Director Metro Boston Region, Massachusetts Department of Revenue, to staff at DC Appleseed Center (Mar. 19, 2007). 460 See id. 461 Department of Health and Human Services and Office of Child Support Enforcement, Compendium of State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement at FL 1 (5th ed. 2000). 462 State of Arizona Office of the Auditor General, supra note 452. 463 Compendium of State Best Practices, at MD 1. 464 US Department of Health and Human Services, The Office of Child Support Enforcement, FY 2005 Preliminary Report, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2006/reports/preliminary_report/. 465 Vicki Turetsky, Realistic Child Support Policies for Low Income Families, Center for Law and Social Policy (Mar. 2000). 466 Interview with Jessica Pearson, Director, Center for Policy Research, CO, in Arlington VA (Sept. 12, 2006). 467 Stacy L Brustin, The Intersection between Welfare Reform and Child Support Enforcement: DC’s Weak Link 52 Cath. U.L. Rev. 621, (2003). 468 Doolittle and Suzanne Lynn supra note 240, at 18-19. 469 Paula Roberts and Elaine Sorenson make a specific recommendation in Strategies for Preventing the Accumulation of Child Support Arrears and Managing Existing Arrears, An Update (Oct. 6, 2005). 470 45 CFR §§ 302.70a, 303.101b (2007). 471 See id.§§ 302.85, 307. 472 See supra note 423. 473 Child Support Enforcement Basic Services Packet, available at http://csed.dc.gov/csed/cwp/view,a,3,q,514937.asp (last visited Feb. 28, 2007). 474 45 CFR § 303.2a (2007). 475 See id. § 303.2b. 476 45 CFR § 303.3b (2007). 477 DC Code § 46-206a (2007); 45 CFR § 303.3b (2007). 478 45 CFR § 303.4d (2007). 479 See id. § 303.101. 480 See id.§ 46-206b(2). 481 See id. 482 See id. § 46-206s. 483 DC Appleseed Center, Profile of DC Child Support System 3-4 (Jan. 2007) (depicting “CSSD CS Order Initiation Process” chart). 484 See DC Code § 46.266.10 (2007) (“The IV-D agency shall have a single, District-wide automated data processing and information retrieval system...”). 485 42 USC. § 653 (2007). 486 DC Appleseed Center, supra note 483 at 10. 487 See id. 488 Employers must report new employees to the DC New Hires Database within 20 days of the date the new employee begins employment. DC Code § 226.06b (2007). 489 Meeting with DC Government Officials at 5 (Oct. 26, 2005); DC Appleseed Center, supra note 483 at 10. (Crediting: Interviews with DC Government Officials (Dec. 19, 2005 and Mar. 13, 2006)). 490 Interview with DC Government Officials, in DC at 5 (Oct. 26, 2006). 491 See id. 492 DC Code § 46-206b1 (2007).

192 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 493 See id. 494 Robert J. Spagnoletti, Public Oversight Hearing, FY 2005 Performance of the Office of the Attorney General before the Committee of the Judiciary 5 (Nov. 3, 2005); Council of the District of Columbia Committee on the Judiciary Budget Report (Apr. 28, 2005). 495 See id. 496 Interview with DC Government Officials, in DC (Mar. 13, 2006). 497 See id. 498 Interview with DC Government Officials, in DC (Nov. 28, 2006). 499 See id. 500 A child support order can also be transferred from one state to another or from foster care. 501 FY 2005 HHS data, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Preliminary Child Support Enforcement Report for FY 2005 (2006). 502 Federal law, also codified in the DC Code, mandates that TANF recipients assign their right to child support to the state. 42 USC. § 608a(3) (2007); DC Code § 4-205.19b (2007). DC passes through $150 of any child support sent to the state by the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent. DC Code § 4-205.1c(5) (2007). 503 See 42 USC. § 654 (2007) (an individual receiving TANF must cooperate with the state agency and supply all necessary information). However, a custodial parent can apply for a “good cause” exception to participating in the child support process, if, for example, the custodial parent fears that supplying information concerning the non-custodial parent may threaten the safety of the custodial parent or the child. See 42 USC. § 654(29) (2007). 504 Meeting with DC Government Officials, in DC at 1, 3-4 (Jan. 27, 2007). 505 See id. at 2. 506 Comments of DC Government Official, in DC, at 3 (Oct. 26, 2005). 507 42 USC. § 608a2 (2007). 508 IMA is allowed to apply only one sanction per pay period, so if a TANF participant is already being sanctioned for another programmatic issue, she will not suffer any additional consequences for refusing to cooperate with child support. 509 Comments of DC Government Officials, at 2 (Oct. 26, 2005). 510 Interview with Parents, in DC (2006). 511 See id. 512 Meeting with DC Government Officials, in DC, at 1 (Oct. 26, 2006). 513 See id. 514 See id. 515 Interview with DC Government Officials, in DC, at 2 (Oct. 26, 2006). These changes were a byproduct of the extensive reengineering process that CSSD has undertaken. 516 See id. at 2-3. 517 45 CFR § 303.2b (2007). 518 See CSSD SEMA Functions. 519 Interview with DC Government Officials, in DC, at 4 (Oct. 26, 2006). 520 45 CFR § 303.3b(3) (2007). 521 Interview with DC Government Officials, in DC, at 4 (Oct. 26, 2006). 522 Interview with DC Government Officials, in DC (Mar. 12, 2006). But see CSSD’s New Initiatives Report wherein it states: “Currently, the Locate Unit has four investigators to serve an average of 800-1,000 notices per month.” And more recently, the May 15, 2007 response to an early draft of this report which states the volume of notices as 1400 a month. 523 PA Code, Ch. 400 (See especially Rule 410), see www.pacode/serve/data/231/Chapter400/S410.html. 524 Interview with DC Government Officials, in DC (Oct. 26, 2006). 525 Id. 526 See id. 527 Interview with DC Court Personnel, in DC (Oct. 18, 2005). 528 Interview with DC Government Officials, in DC (Nov. 30, 2005); Interview with DC Court Personnel, in DC (Jan. 3, 2006). 529 For example, the Washington Post reported that one field investigator “served five summonses in a one-month period, compared with a new hire, who after six weeks was averaging 40 a month.” Longtime Employees Among 10 Fired, The Wash. Post, July 8, 2006. There has also been some anecdotal evidence that field investigators are out working at other jobs when

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 193 they are supposed to be serving summons for CSSD. 530 Interview with DC Court Personnel, in DC (Dec. 9, 2005). 531 Interview with DC Government Officials, in DC at 2 (Nov. 30, 2005). 532 CSSD Initiatives 2007-2008, CSSD Document (Feb. 7, 2007). 533 District Department of Employment Statistics, The District of Columbia’s Strategic Two Year Workforce Investment Plan 2005- 2007 at 49 (2004). 534 Interview with DC Government Officials, in DC (Nov. 28, 2006). 535 See id. 536 CSSD Initiatives 2007-2008, supra note 532. 537 http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/newhire/library/training/mn_newhire.pdf. 538 Office of Child Support Enforcement, Compendium of Best Practices of 2006, at 42-43 (9th ed. 2007). 539 It must submit several subpoenas for each parent since the companies all keep separate records. 540 http://www.dss.virginia.gov/files/division/dcse/facts_statistics/FACTSheet_11_01_06.pdf. 541 Telephone interview with Dan Welch, supra note 148, at 1. 542 See id. 543 See id. at 2. 544 See id. at 2-3. 545 See id. 546 Center for Policy Research, Reducing Child Support Default Orders in Colorado, Preliminary Evaluation Report, Colorado Department of Human Services 1 (Oct. 2005). 547 Karen M Roye, Enhanced Parental Involvement Collaboration (EPIC) Project Final Report, at 24 (Oct. 13, 2006). 548 Id. at Appendix B. 549 Id. at 24. 550 Id. at 4. 551 See 48 D.C. Reg § 1270 (Feb. 16, 2001). 552 DC Kids Count Collaborative, supra note 3. 553 Gregory Acs and Pamela J. Loprest, The Status of TANF leavers in the District of Columbia, The Urban Institute, at 3 (Jan. 3, 2001). 554 Id. 555 Pub. L. No. 104-193 at § 382 (1996). 556 Laudan Y. Aron, DHS Office of the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation, Health Care Coverage Among Child Support-Eligible Children (Dec. 2002); available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/CSE-health-ben02/index.htm. 557 45 CFR § 303.31a(1) (2007), DC Code § 16-916.01(i)(5) (2001). 558 42 USC § 1396ka(1)(A) (2007). 559 See id. § 1396ka(1)(B). 560 42 CFR § 433.148b(1) (2007). 561 Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA) must also be provided to those simultaneously participating in Medicaid and TANF cash assistance and who lose their TANF eligibility due to earnings or child support. Those who leave due to earnings may receive up to 12 months of TMA, while those who leave due to child support receive four months of TMA. 42 USC § 1396r-6a (2007). 562 The legislation is found in Title XXI of the Social Security Act. 563 Judith Wooldridge, Ian Hill, Mary Harrington, Genevieve Kenney, Corinna Hawkes, and Jennifer Haley, Children’s Health Insurance Program, Interim Evaluation Report: Congressionally Mandated Evaluation of the State (2003). 564 The NMSN was issued on December 27, 2000 and took effect March 27, 2001; it is required to be identified as a qualified medical support order under ERISA by health care administrators. 45 CFR 303.32 (2007), as cited in Alisha Griffin, New Jersey Department of Human Services, Final Report: A Feasibility Study of Review and Adjustment for Medical Support and CHIP Collaboration (2002). 565 45 CFR §§ 303.32c(2), 303.32a (2007). 566 Fact Sheet, NMSN, CSSD document.

194 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 567 See Part II: History and Statutory Framework of the Child Support System herein. 568 Interview with DC Government Officials, in DC (Nov. 28, 2006). 569 See id.; They are required to have 75% completed by the end of FY 07. 570 2007-2008, supra note 532. 571 Interview with DC Government Officials, in DC (Nov. 28, 2006). 572 45 CFR § 303.8d (2007). 573 US Department of Health and Human Services, The Office of Child Support Enforcement, OCSE-PIQ-02-03, Medical Support Enforcement Policy Clarifications (Dec. 20, 2002). 574 Interview with DC Government Officials, in DC (Nov. 28, 2006). 575 According to CSSD, approximately 1,100 NMSNs were sent out between November 2006 to April 2007. 576 45 CFR § 303.32c(8) (2007). 577 Children’s Health: Our Shared Responsibility, The Medical Child Support Working Group’s Report to the Honorable Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services and the Honorable Alexis M. Herman, Secretary, Department of Labor (June 2000) at 3-22 includes the following recommendation: “When neither parent has access to private health care coverage at reasonable cost but a step-parent does, enrolling the children in the stepparent’s coverage should be considered under certain conditions. These conditions are: (a) the coverage is accessible to the children; (b) the stepparent is willing to provide such coverage; and (c) there are no employer/insurer constraints for enrollment of the child. When these conditions are met, the parent who is married to the step-parent should be ordered to provide health care coverage for the children. The order should specify that this obligation may be met by enrolling the children in the step-parent’s health care coverage. Moreover, the order must make it clear that if the obligated parent and the step-parent later commence proceedings for a separation or divorce, the obligated parent has responsibility for obtaining information about the cost and availability of COBRA coverage for the children and enrolling the children in this coverage. The order should also specify that if COBRA (or other) coverage is not available or affordable, the obligated parent must immediately seek modification of the medical provisions of the child support order. As an alternative, the custodial parent should seek publicly-funded coverage in order to minimize any lapse in coverage for the children.” Available at http://fatherhood.hhs. gov/medsupport00/FullReport.pdf. 578 Interview with DC Government Officials, in DC (Nov. 28, 2006). 579 Department of Health and Human Services, Child Support Enforcement Annual Data Report, Form OCSE-157, District of Columbia (2006). 580 Paula Roberts, Center for Law and Social Policy, Recent State Efforts in Medical Child Support 2-3 (2005). 581 See id. at 3. 582 See id. at 3. 583 Phone interview Cathy Bennett, Policy Studies, Inc. (July 11, 2006). 584 45 CFR § 303.31a (2007). 585 Paula Roberts, Center for Law and Social Policy, Failure to Thrive: The Continuing Poor Health of Medical Child Support 12 (2003). 586 DC Code § 16-916.01(n). 587 Child Support Enforcement Program; Medical Support, 71 Fed. Reg. 54,965-54,974 (Proposed Sept. 20, 2006). 588 Email from Cathy Bennett, Policy Studies Inc., to DC Appleseed Center staff (Jan. 4, 2007). 589 See id. 590 Policy Studies, Inc., Increasing Healthcare Coverage for Children: A New Coordinated Approach Findings from Colorado 6 (2004). 591 See id. at 11. 592 See supra note 583. 593 See also http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/fct/glossary.htm. 594 Timothy S. Grall, Custodial Mothers and Fathers and their Child Support, 2003, US Census Bureau Current Population Reports (2006). 596 http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh06.html.

Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System 195 DC Appleseed

196 Taking Care of the District’s Children: The Need to Reform DC’s Child Support System

1111 14th Street NW, Suite 510 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-289-8007 Fax: 202-289-8009

[email protected] www.dcappleseed.org