OCSE Home . Program Information . News . Publications . Policy . State Links . OCSE Search . Help

OCSE Awards Grants for Child Support Development Projects

The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) has awarded more than $1.2 million in new grants to states, faith-based, and non-profit organizations to further advance the performance of the nation's child support enforcement system. The grants, which provide resources to help recipients improve their child support programs, will examine new ways to augment child support enforcement services to increase collections for children and to promote responsible parenthood.

Several grants are designed to help parents involved with the criminal justice system provide more reliable and regular child support for their children. The State of Washington will test methods to increase employment and child support for noncustodial parents who are in the correctional system. This will include collaboration with other State agencies such as the State's Department of Corrections and Department of Employment Security and Workforce Development.

Minnesota will work with noncustodial parents who are incarcerated, are unemployed/underemployed, or who are low-income to investigate potential means to improve compliance with child support orders. This will include collaboration with the State's Department of Corrections. Principal research activities will be conducted in Hennepin County.

In the District of Columbia, STRIVE Inc. will demonstrate new methods to increase child support collections through services to unemployed noncustodial parents on probation or parole.

Four grants were awarded to enhance outreach to the Hispanic/Latino community. In Yakima County, Washington, a grant will determine the barriers to the provision of effective child support services and will include a consumer education component. Local community leaders will provide community outreach and communication on child support services.

The grants . . . will examine new ways to augment child support enforcement services to increase collections for children and to promote responsible parenthood.

The United Migrant Opportunities Services in Milwaukee, Wisconsin will design and test new means to reach out to the Latino/Hispanic community to improve child support services in Milwaukee and throughout Wisconsin.

The Christian Family Gathering, also in Milwaukee, will provide community outreach that includes involving church members as advocates to assist individuals in need of child support services.

In Connecticut, the Women's Education and Legal Fund will provide child support outreach to the Hispanic/Latino communities in Bridgeport, Hartford, New Britain, and the Willimantic areas. This will include identifying and developing community leaders to provide child support education and advocacy services.

In addition, the National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA) received funding to pursue a plan for developing standards for and implementing a national child support caseworker certification program.

Grant Recipients by Project and Funding

Services to noncustodial parents

• Washington $175,000
• Minnesota $300,000

Interstate

• National Center for State Courts $40,000

Outreach to Hispanic/Latino Population

• Yakima, Washington $150,000
• United Migrant Services, Milwaukee $142,626
• Christian Family Gathering, Milwaukee $99,895
• CT Women's Education & Legal Fund $183,313

Other

• NCSEA $74,900
• STRIVE Inc., DC 75,000

Total $1,240,734.

Child Support and Education Expenses Past Age 18

All state child support guidelines include an age at which financial support normally ends, but nearly all allow for deviations in certain cases. Most guidelines focus on children's college or vocational education expenses, or on children who have special needs and are unlikely to become self-supporting. Frequently, state legislators build these common deviations into their guidelines.

Thirty-eight states terminate support at the age of 18 unless the child is still attending high school. Most of these states permit support until the age of 19 or graduation from high school, whichever occurs first.

Most guidelines focus on children's college or vocational education expenses, or on children who have special needs.

Seventeen states make provisions specifically for higher education within their guidelines or in case law. Four states address higher education needs generally within their guidelines without specifying college support. Twenty-seven states have not addressed child support for higher education in their statutory or case law. These states, however, do permit courts to enforce private agreements between the parents concerning educational expenses.

Pennsylvania is the only state where the duty to provide college support has been found unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court. The Pennsylvania legislature enacted a statute in 1993 allowing courts to order that parents provide for higher education expenses if the parents are separated, divorce, unmarried, or otherwise subject to an existing support obligation.

In 1995, however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the statute violated the constitutional right to equal protection because, under the law, divorced parents could be required to pay for a child's college education while married ones could not.

The above is a revised version of a LegisBrief (April/May 1999) prepared by Stephanie Walton of NCSL's Child Support Project. NCSL's Child Support Project is funded by OCSE.

Uniform Mediation Act Update

Richard C. Reuben

In a unique partnership, cooperating drafting committees of the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws are working together to draft a Uniform Mediation Act.

The hope of the two drafting committees is to make the law affecting mediation more consistent and easier to access and understand regardless of the location of one's practice or one's professional orientation.

The mass of current state laws affecting the field at best varies widely and at worst is often inconsistent. This, in part, is because of the dramatic expansion in the number of statutory provisions adopted by states over the last 20 years. Today, there are more than 2,500 state mediation-related statutes, resulting in a complex tangle of legal requirements regarding mediation that vary by state, type of program, and subject matter.

. . . to make the law affecting mediation more consistent and easier to access and understand regardless of the location of one's practice or one's professional orientation.

Mediation confidentiality presents a great example. In this area alone, there are more than 250 state statutes. Yet remarkably, only about half the states have enacted laws that apply to all mediations conducted in the state, and even those statutes vary considerably in terms of the scope of their application and the degree of protection they provide. The other half also has widely varying provisions that are scattered within the provisions of other substantive statutes-such as laws regulating farmer-lender relations or medical malpractice claims. In those states, unless a mediation falls within the subject-specific statute, it proceeds without any statutory protection whatsoever.

While some mediators are able to work under the protection of specific mediation statutes or court rules, many mediations in the country are conducted without any legal protection or guidance whatsoever. Many mediators who believe that they could not be called to testify about what happens during their mediations, for example, might well be surprised to find they may not have such protection after all.

After factoring in the many mediators who practice in more than one state or have multistate clients and the uncertainty about which state law would apply in such cases, the need for uniform strong protections seems clear enough. The challenge, however, is to design a statute that is easy to read and understand, encourages diversity in practice, strengthens the mediation field, guards the essential elements of mediation, and protects parties and mediators' interests.

The following are some highlights of the most recent draft (June 1999), as amended for consideration by the Drafting Committees in December 1999.

• The act would apply to disputants who enter mediation by written agreement or at the request of a court, government entity, or mediator.
• Confidentiality is the centerpiece of the proposed statute: The proposal addresses this by prohibiting mediators from disclosing mediation communications, including reports to a judge, agency, or authority responsible for rulings or investigations related to the parties.
• The act also offers additional confidentiality protections in the form of a privilege that can be asserted by the disputants or the mediator (similar to the doctor/patient, priest/penitent, and attorney/client privileges) in civil, juvenile, criminal misdemeanor, arbitration, and administrative proceedings. There are relatively few exceptions to this general rule. Several are familiar exceptions, such as those permitting a written settlement agreement to be introduced as evidence in a court proceeding, allowing mediators to disclose mediation communications that evince a risk of serious bodily or property harm, and making it possible for mediators to comply with other statutory reporting obligations, such as child or elder abuse.
• Information that would be otherwise admissible or subject to discovery would not become inadmissible or protected from disclosure if used in mediation.
• Mediators would be required to disclose reasonably known conflicts of interest, and, if requested, to provide information about their qualifications.

Richard Reuben is the Reporter for the ABA Drafting Committee.

This article originally appeared in the newsletter of the Association of Family, Court, and Community Professionals, Winter 2000, Volume 19, No. 1, and is used with AFCC's permission.

Reviewing Child Support Guidelines

Stephanie Walton

In 1984, Congress passed legislation requiring all states to formulate guidelines for determining the appropriate amount of child support awards, and in 1988, Congress required states to make the guidelines presumptive (having reasonable grounds for acceptance) rather than advisory.

Before the federal requirements, child support awards were sometimes not adequate to meet the needs of the children, and award decisions could be inconsistent. Two families with similar circumstances and income levels might have very different support awards, even within the same court jurisdiction. Presumptive guidelines ensured that child support awards were more uniform.

The 1988 federal law also required states to conduct a review of their child support guidelines every four years. Within that review, states must examine current economic data to ensure that the awards resulting from the guidelines are meeting the economic needs of children.

States vary in how they initially adopted and currently review their child support guidelines. In the great majority of states, guidelines are adopted either by the legislature through statute or by the court system through court rule. In a few states, the child support agency adopts guidelines through administrative rule.

States approached guideline formation in a variety of ways. Most adopted the income shares model, in which child support is determined based on both parents' income. The most common alternative to the income shares model is the percentage of income model, which considers only the income of the noncustodial parent.

A few states adopted the Melson model, which is somewhat more complex than the other models and provides a self-support reserve for the noncustodial parent. Many states, particularly those with income shares and Melson models, also permitted a variety of deviations from the basic child support calculation to provide for expenses such as health care, child care, and private education.

Award amounts reflected in state child support guideline tables are based on economic estimates of the expenses of raising children. Child support experts have not reached a consensus on which economic model is the most accurate, so states have generally continued to follow the model they used when first adopting their guidelines, making small adjustments for inflation or regional variations in the cost of living.

In addition to studying the economic basis for the guidelines, states are required to conduct a review of case data to track common deviations from the guidelines. Deviation reviews focus on the number and types of deviations, which can help states in adjusting the guidelines to account for specific expenses and thus reduce the necessity of deviations.

The unique challenges of helping low-income noncustodial parents pay child support are being recognized and discussed in many states, and some have responded by including a variety of adjustments for low-income parents in the child support guidelines. Many states have also incorporated a self-support reserve into their guidelines for low-income parents.

Variations in states' guideline review processes are independent of whatever governmental entity formulates the guidelines. In states with administrative rules, for example, some reviewing bodies seek substantial public input early in the review process. In other states, agencies draft changes to the guidelines and wait for formal public hearings for public input.

Many states form review committees that examine the current guideline for a period of time before recommending policy changes. Review committees or task forces often include legislators, members from advocacy groups representing both custodial and noncustodial parents, judges and clerks of court, and representatives of the state child support agency. In states with statutory guidelines, an interim committee may be appointed to study the guidelines and draft a bill for introduction in the next legislative session.

Most policymakers value public input throughout the process, and advocacy groups are gaining increasing influence in the review process. Parents and representatives of advocacy groups can identify issues of concern and also point out issues likely to be controversial. Child support experts advise review committees to research the data and information provided and confirm its accuracy.

Quadrennial review of the child support guidelines give states the opportunity to regularly examine the goals of their guidelines. In addition to updating formulas for economic reasons, the reviews allow policymakers to consider current issues that are affecting families and change policy accordingly. The guideline review process helps states ensure that their child support guidelines meet the needs of the children and families they serve.

Stephanie Walton is a Senior Policy Analyst on the National Conference of State Legislature's (NCSL) Child Support Project.

The NCSL Child Support Project is funded by OCSE.

Are the Demographics of the Child Support Population Changing?

OCSE recently funded a demographic study of and report on the child support program's possible future population, seeking information about its likely composition in the years 2004 and 2009. The projections made in the report for the years 2004 and 2009 are built on baseline data developed by the contractor for 1988 and 1998.

The following is excerpted from the final report.

The rapid growth of the child support population of the United States over the past decade is projected to slow between 1998 and 2009. Our projections suggest that the growth of the child support population over the next 10 years will continue to outpace the total population growth in the United States, but will not be as remarkable as the growth of the previous 10 years.

In 1998, the child support population of the United States reached an estimated 62 million people, a 32 percent increase from 1988. By 2009, we project that the child support population of the United States will reach 72 million people, a 15 percent increase from 1998. More than 19 million custodians will be the primary caregivers for 30 million children, with a projected 22 million noncustodial parents.

Our projections suggest that the growth of the child support population over the next 10 years will continue to outpace the total population growth in the United States, but will not be as remarkable as the growth of the previous 10 years.

The rate of growth of the child support population is projected to slow for three reasons.

• First, the population of the United States is aging out of the prime parenthood years. Over the next 10 years, the large cohorts of baby boomers will begin to be replaced by the much smaller cohorts of the baby bust.
• Second, nonmarital fertility has been fairly constant over the past five years and is projected to remain so (albeit at a very high level by historic standards).
• And third, divorce rates in the United States have declined from their peak in the early 1980s.

Despite the slowing in the overall rate of growth of the child support population, . . . the number of custodial fathers will increase dramatically, as will the number of nonparent custodians (including grandparent custodians), and never-married custodians.

Despite the slowing in the overall rate of growth of the child support population, certain segments of the population will continue to experience rapid growth rates. For example, the number of custodial fathers will increase dramatically, as will the number of nonparent custodians (including grandparent custodians), and never-married custodians.

Each of these subgroups is projected to grow substantially faster than the overall child support population. Likewise, Hispanics and Asians will experience faster growth rates than any other race or ethnic group. Finally, growth will be stronger in the early part of the projection period, from 1998 to 2004, than in the latter part of the projection period from 2004 to 2009.

The report from which this excerpt is taken is entitled, "Getting to Know the Future Customers of the Office of Child Support: Projections from 2004 and 2009." It was written, under contract to OCSE, by Hans P. Johnson and Margaret O'Brien-Strain of Acumen, LLC, in Burlingame, California.

Video Conferencing Interviews Save Travel Time and Costs in Washington State

The Division of Child Support (DCS) office in Everett, Washington serves the northwestern part of Washington State, a 6,350 square mile area that includes five counties and a number of islands. The distance from the eight Community Service Offices, where TANF applications are accepted, to the DCS office in Everett, ranges from 5 to 60 miles.

Until 1997, child support staff had to rely on paper applications alone, or customers had to travel long distances to initiate a child support case. When paternity establishment was necessary, a paternity interview with the prosecutor's staff was a prerequisite.

The distances between staff and client frequently posed real barriers for cooperative clients without good transportation and sometimes provided a convenient excuse for clients who were less than enthusiastic about establishing paternity. Similarly, administrative hearings required extensive travel for Administrative Law Judges, Claims Officers, and Conference Board Chairs.

In the spring of 1997, the Everett DCS began using video conferencing technology to support enforcement interviews, paternity interviews, administrative hearings, and other activities.

Support Enforcement Interviews: TANF applicants can complete their applications and walk into another room to be interviewed over video camera by DCS staff in Everett. DCS staff and the applicant see each other on television screens and speak by phone. Current locate information is provided and clarifying questions can be asked on the spot. Some documents are left with Community Service Office (CSO) TANF staff to be forwarded to child support staff in Everett.

Paternity Interviews: After applying for TANF and completing the initial child support interview by video with DCS staff, appropriate cases are referred for video paternity interviews. The applicant moves to equipment that has the capability of sharing documents. The prosecutor's staff conducts the paternity interview remotely. Paternity questionnaires are prepared and signed before the applicant ever leaves the office.

Administrative Hearings: Washington State uses an administrative process to establish child support in most cases. When the parties cannot agree on the amount, an Administrative Law Judge hears the case. Agency attorneys and judges travel around the region to conduct and attend hearings. Video conferencing equipment was installed in two TANF offices and in the Everett DCS office to permit these administrative hearings to be held by video. These procedures were instituted to increase the time available to hold the hearings by reducing travel time and costs for Claims Officers and Administrative Law Judges.

Video conferencing to conduct child support interviews has been successful in thousands of cases. The technique has proved especially beneficial in cases in which there was already a support order and DCS needed to initiate an enforcement action. The video interviews facilitated DCS staff to obtain and quickly act on new employer information. Almost twice as many video interview cases as paper application cases saw enforcement action commenced within 60 days of application (31 percent versus 16 percent).

Customers like the process. Ninety-two percent reported they were comfortable with the video equipment and 97 percent believed the DCS interviewer was helpful in answering questions.

Increased collaboration between DCS and TANF staff also resulted. Significant TANF staff involvement is required to explain the video interviews to applicants, show them how to use the equipment, and to fax or transmit documents to DCS. Monthly meetings between DCS and TANF staff to discuss the video interview process laid the ground work for further collaboration on other issues.

For more information, contact Kathy Ellington, Support Enforcement Program Administrator, Division of Child Support, Washington Department of Social and Health Services, at (425) 438-4848. considered large offices, their combined caseload is about 35,000 cases.

OCSE and Head Start Collaborate

The HHS/Head Start Bureau recently awarded 21 Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration Grants that will engender collaboration between the Head Start and Child Support programs. Early Head Start programs serve families with children from birth to age 3 years.

Since these ages correspond to the period in which an unmarried father tends to be most involved with mother and child, OCSE and the Head Start Bureau regard Early Head Start programs as prime opportunities for collaboration.

Applicants for the fatherhood demonstration grants were required to include "a viable plan to collaborate with the local child support office." Each of the 21 Early Head Start programs awarded a grant have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the local child support office that specifies how the two programs will collaborate to promote the goals of the fatherhood demonstration project.

Each of the 21 Early Head Start programs awarded a grant have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the local child support office that specifies how the two programs will collaborate to promote the goals of the fatherhood demonstration project.

Typically, these agreements provide for the child support staff to train Head Start staff on the child support program, to speak to Head Start parent groups about child support, and to provide on-site private counseling to parents on their child support issues.

If you would like more information, contact John Doyle at (202) 205-4590.

Interstate Website Available

The Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Enforcement Association (ERICSA) promotes the development of effective family and child support programs through professional training, materials development, and technical assistance.

. . . to improve communication and cooperation among states and jurisdictions for the interstate enforcement of child support obligations.

A special focus of ERICSA is to improve communication and cooperation among states and jurisdictions for the interstate enforcement of child support obligations.

To that end, they have developed a place on their website that is intended for the use of child support workers within the interstate arena. For example, a worker in one state who is having difficulty moving forward with an action in another state can post a question regarding procedures, local statutes, rules, or practices.

Any other worker can respond. If others also respond, a discussion can ensue. We encourage states to take advantage of this resource. The address for the site is: http://www.ericsa.org/interstateforum.htm.

Plan Ahead for OCSE's 11th National Training Conference

This year's conference will be held in Arlington, VA at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City Hotel, September 10 - 12, 2001.

These conferences are unique in focusing on practical information and techniques that can improve managers and caseworkers job performance. Sample workshops from last year's conference:

• How to enhance meetings through video conferencing;
• Facilitation skills;
• Integrating internet solutions into child support enforcement statewide systems;
• The changing faces of security and privacy;
• Certification for CSE workers;
• Issues of concern to America's fathers;
• Federal offset programs and passport denial;
• Data reliability audits; and
• Effective presentations.

Plan now to be at this year's training conference. Contact OCSE's Bertha Hammett at (202)401-5292.