COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman
PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut AMO HOUGHTON, New York WALLY HERGER, California JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana DAVE CAMP, Michigan JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota JIM NUSSLE, Iowa SAM JOHNSON, Texas JENNIFER DUNN, Washington MAC COLLINS, Georgia ROB PORTMAN, Ohio PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania WES WATKINS, Oklahoma J. D. HAYWORTH, Arizona JERRY WELLER, Illinois KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado RON LEWIS, Kentucky MARK FOLEY, Florida KEVIN BRADY, Texas PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin	CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York FORTNEY PETE STARK, California ROBERT T. MATSUI, California WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin JOHN LEWIS, Georgia RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee XAVIER BECERRA, California KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
Allison Giles, Chief of Staff Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel  SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES WALLY HERGER, California, Chairman
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut WES WATKINS, Oklahoma SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana DAVE CAMP, Michigan PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania RON LEWIS, Kentucky	BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland FORTNEY PETE STARK, California SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process is further refined.

Brookings Institution, and Annie E. Casey Foundation, Ron Haskins

Castle, Hon. Michael N., a Representative in Congress from the State of Delaware

Cox, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State of California

Johnson, Hon. Nancy L., a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut

National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership, Jeffrey M. Johnson, accompanied by, Raymond Byrd, Baltimore, MD

National Council of Child Support Directors, Virginia Department of Social Services' Division of Child Support Enforcement, National Child Support Enforcement Association, and Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association, Nathaniel L. Young, Jr.

National Women's Law Center, Joan Entmacher

Sorensen, Elaine, Urban Institute

Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents' Rights, Burbank, CA, John Smith, statement

Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc., Sacramento, CA, statement and attachment

Austin, Rev. Dennis, Salisbury, NC, statement and attachments

Brien, Robert E., Ledyard, CT, letter

Caffrey, Patrick R., Seeley Lake, MT, statement

Chandel, Tom, Bridgton, ME, letter

Children's Defense Fund, Daniel L. Hatcher, statement

Children's Legal Foundation, Charlotte, NC, Bill Wood, and Jay Gell, statement

Children's Rights Council, David L. Levy, statement

Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, Decatur, GA, Carnell A. Smith, letter and attachments

Comanor, William S., University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, letter

DADS of Michigan, P.A.C., Southfield, MI, James Semerad, letter and attachments

Davis, Martha, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York, NY, statement

Gell, Jay, Children's Legal Foundation, Charlotte, NC, statement

Green, Richard M., M.D., Los Angeles, CA, letter

Hatcher, Daniel L., Children's Defense Fund, statement

Hemenway, Jim, San Ramon, CA, letter

Hodges, William Whitley, Society of Just Men, Columbia, SC, letter

Levy, David L., Children's Rights Council, statement

NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York, NY, Jacqueline K. Payne, and Martha Davis, statement

Overton, James R., Pittsburgh, PA, letter

Payne, Jacqueline K., NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York, NY, statement

Peterson, Paul W., and Wendy G. Peterson, Cary, NC, statement

Protecting Marriage, Inc., Wilmington, DE, Phyllis H. Witcher, letter

Semerad, James, Dads of Michigan, P.A.C., Southfield, MI, letter and attachments

Smith, Carnell A., Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, Decatur, GA, letter and attachments

Smith, John, Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents' Rights, Burbank, CA, statement

Society of Just Men, Columbia, SC, William Whitley Hodges, letter

Witcher, Phyllis H., Protecting Marriage, Inc., Wilmington, DE, letter

Wood, Bill, Children's Legal Foundation, Charlotte, NC, statement

CHILD SUPPORT AND FATHERHOOD PROPOSALS

House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in room 1100 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wally Herger (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]

Chairman HERGER. Welcome to this afternoon's hearing on child support and fatherhood proposals.

Our hearing today will provide oversight on the child support program as well as allow us to explore further changes such as those in legislation introduced by our colleagues, Nancy Johnson and Ben Cardin.

Substantial reforms of the child support enforcement program were enacted in the 1996 welfare reform law. For example, we have seen the creation of a new hire database, improved paternity establishment, use of financial institution data matches, and revocation of driver's licenses and other privileges for parents delinquent in paying child support.

This Subcommittee has and will continue to monitor the effects of such changes. Here is what we know already. In 2000, $17.9 billion in child support was collected, which is a 50-percent increase since 1996. By using the passport denial program, $7 million in lump-sum payments were collected in the last year, and the number of paternities established in 2000 reached a record 1.6 million, an increase of 46 percent since 1996. Overall, the system seems to be operating more efficiently with total collections per program dollars spent on the rise as well.

Yet, with all that, we also know that in 1999, the program collected child support payments for only 37 percent of its caseload. So this leads to a number of questions: which of the recent changes have been most effective, which need further refinement, and what else can be done to improve child support collections?

The options for further improvements include the second topic of our hearing today, fatherhood proposals. Single-parent families benefit in many ways from the contributions of a non-custodial parent, most often a father. Unfortunately, many fathers are poor, and as a group, unmarried poor fathers face greater challenges than other dads such as elevated rates of unemployment and incarceration. Some were themselves raised by single moms, often without the benefit of a positive male role model.

The fatherhood initiatives we will hear about today are designed to help break this cycle, to help fathers meet their responsibilities as parents, providers, and hopefully husbands. That should improve child support collection, but this effort is about much more than just that.

For too long, government seemed to care only about the provider side of this role, which is important to be sure. But children need more than just financial support to grow into healthy, productive members of society. Every child deserves a father for all the roles a dad plays in a child's development--parent, mentor, disciplinarian, coach, and friend.

In addition to helping fathers and children improve their emotional and financial connections, fatherhood programs also can help both fathers and mothers better understand the positive aspects of marriage.

For example, a recent study indicates that teenagers living with their married biological parents have lower levels of emotional and behavioral problems, higher levels of school involvement, and fewer school suspensions or expulsions than teens living in step-families, with single mothers, or in cohabiting families.

I am encouraged that many fatherhood programs let young people know about the benefits of marriage, especially for their children. The House is on record supporting such efforts, and the President has proposed additional funding. So support seems to be growing, at least in part, because, as we will hear, the need for fatherhood programs is great.

To discuss these topics and more, we have a distinguished group of witnesses with us today. We will start by hearing from Members of Congress about proposals they have introduced. Then we will hear from the States, advocates and researchers, about what is working and what more should be done.

Finally, I note that Ron Haskins is joining us as a witness today for the first time since his departure as this Subcommittee's staff director last year. We welcome him back and thank him for his many years of service to this Committee and the Congress.

Without objection, each member will have the opportunity to submit a written statement and have it included in the record, and at this point, Mr. Cardin, would you like to make an opening statement?

[The opening statement of Chairman Herger follows:]

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad you pointed out that Ron Haskins is here so I have the opportunity to cross-examine him when he gets up here. I have been looking forward to that for a couple of years.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for holding this hearing. We need to look at our child support collections system, and we need to reform it. We can work in a very bipartisan way in order to try to improve the quality of life for families to depend upon the collection of child support.

I particularly want to acknowledge our colleagues that are here. Mrs. Johnson, the distinguished Chair of this Committee in the last Congress, forged a very strong coalition among Democrats and Republicans to reform our child support system. It wasn't her first actions last year, and when we were able to pass a bill very similar to the one that we are considering today by a vote of 405 to 18 on the floor of the House, but for over the years that she has been working on the child support issues.

It was my pleasure last year to join her in that legislation, and again this year to join her in the legislation that reforms our child support system so that more money, in fact, can go to the families and that we can make it simpler for our local governments to administer our child support system.

I also want to acknowledge Mike Castle, who has come up with a very important tool to help families collect child support, and I applaud Mike's actions on this issue.

Chris Cox has come up with a proposal to help use our Tax Code in a more effective way to help families collect child support. So I appreciate all three of our colleagues being here today to assist us as we develop legislation to reform our child support collections system.

Mr. Chairman, child support should go to the children. I guess that is why we call it "child support," but, today, the arrearages in many cases go to government, not to the families. Our laws require that the governments be paid back first. If a State wants to pass through more child support to the families, the Federal laws penalize those States by requiring the State to pay the Federal share which can be anywhere between one-half to three-quarters of the total amount that is passed through to the family.

We just recently had a debate on the floor of this Congress about what marginal tax rates should be, and I heard many of my colleagues talk about in-the-30's percent being too high of a marginal tax rate. Well, we have 100-percent tax rate on child support collections today, 100-percent rate for the poorest people in our country, and that makes absolutely no sense at all.

That is why we need to enact legislation that Mrs. Johnson and I have been working on that would allow States to pass through child support to the families first. Many of these families are not on welfare today. To encourage work, we should be doing this, without having to pay the Federal share as long as the State disregards the money for the purposes of determining eligibility.

I think that makes a lot of sense. I think we need to move forward on that legislation. Let me just give you a few reasons more. First, it will provide resources to families that need it. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated this will be about $6.3 billion over the next 10 years going to these families. That is a significant amount of resources going to low-income families.

Second, it is incentive for the non-custodial parent to pay child support. If it goes to the families, it is much more likely that the non-custodial parent will, in fact, pay child support.

Third, it helps the family unit to work together. The non-custodial parent feels that he is part or she is part of the family, which is not the case today in many cases.

Lastly, as I mentioned earlier, it certainly simplifies the administration of the child support systems in this country.

So, for all of these reasons, I hope that this Committee and this House will do what we did last year and pass this legislation and hopefully convince the other body to do the same.

Lastly, let me point out that the fatherhood provisions that were worked on and passed at least twice by the House in the last Congress were carefully worked on by Mrs. Johnson and I and a group of people in a very bipartisan way, which sets up a way that we can really work to help the non-custodial parent, by developing some national models and some local efforts to improve efforts to help the non-custodial parent be part of the family and a constructive provider of support.

So I would hope that the Committee would look kindly on this legislation, and I do look forward to hearing from all the witnesses today.

[The opening statement of Mr. Cardin follows:]

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Cardin.

Before we move on to our testimony this afternoon, I want to remind the witnesses to limit their oral statements to 5 minutes. However, without objection, all of the written testimony will be made a part of the permanent record.

For the first panel today, we are honored to have several of our House colleagues. I would like to welcome the Honorable Nancy Johnson of Connecticut, a member of this Subcommittee, the Honorable Christopher Cox from my home State of California, and the Honorable Mike Castle of Delaware. Again, I welcome each of you here.

With that, we will begin with your testimony, Mrs. Johnson.

Mrs. JOHNSON OF CONNECTICUT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

As you and Mr. Cardin both know, I am intensely interested in the work you are doing and commend you on moving forward on the important issues that face our children and families in America.

Let me be brief because I know you both know a good deal about the bill that I am going to talk about and, in larger measure, the subjects I am going to talk about.

First of all, I am pleased that Mr. Cardin and I did pass legislation in the last session that had overwhelming support and was a real advance in the concept of the child support law. We did pass very tough enforcement a few years ago, and we are collecting a lot more child support than we ever have, but it is not going directly to the woman. It is not going directly to the mother of the child. It is not going directly into the family's resources. So, as we move forward with welfare reform, we need to have this money flow to the mother of the child in order to create the bond between the mother of the child and the father of the child that will allow the development of the human relations, the emotional ties that are essential to the well-being of that child.

So our bill does say that when they leave welfare, the money goes directly to them, but, more importantly--and it was more controversial--it says that the money can flow to the mother while she is still on welfare. This is extremely important.

When that young man is making child support payments, he needs to feel he is contributing to his family, and the mother of the child needs to feel that contribution. Unless it comes directly--and with today's technology, we can easily account for that in our system. Instead of having it flow to the State and from the State to the mother, which it does now, it must flow directly because then the mother gets it; that the father is there and is a part of this child's life and a part of the economic security of this child. It is one of the most compelling facts in the whole hemisphere of facts associated with all of these issues is the fact that when a child is born out of wedlock, 80 percent of the women and men believe the relationship that produced the child was a serious and important one and, furthermore, was going to last into the future. In 2 years, the fathers are gone. So we need to look seriously at our responsibility to make sure the fathers are not gone, and part of that is to enforce the child support laws, but to make sure that the flow of those dollars into the family give that male standing in that family as the father of that child.

If you combine the child support changes that we are proposing in our legislation with the fatherhood provisions--and these, at this point, only apply to the fathers of children on welfare or who have been on welfare within the last year--the goal is to give the men the same support we are giving the women, so that not only can they grow economically in parallel, but so that they can grow emotionally in parallel.

One of the reasons the men are gone in 2 years is because during that time, the woman has had job service, some career counseling. She has gone through a process which helps her see what her capabilities are. She often has started her first job, and she has begun to see herself as a mother and as an earner and as a competent adult.

Meanwhile, her male friend down here is still on the streets, unemployed, or with a very low level or very sporadic pattern of employment. So, if he has the same experiences, if he is helped into the same legitimate structure of work and reward, then they experience the same things. They both grow in their understanding of their own power as economic providers, and they have the chance to both participate in the kind of parenting programs and money management programs that we know will fill gaps in their educational experience, so that they can be competent adults.

I just want to point to one thing that Ben Cardin did mention because it is absolutely critical. We took a lot of flack on this last year from some groups, but if we do not do something to help these young men with the problem of arrearages, then we will not get them into the workforce that pays Social Security and on retirement is eligible for benefits and Medicare.

Right now, because we cannot deal with the problem of arrearages, because they have all that debt, they stay out of the legal employment system. They do not contribute to Social Security. They will not be eligible for Medicare, and, furthermore, there is a limit to how much they can earn and help with their family. So that is one of the reasons they are gone.

We have to help them earn off those arrearages, and we can give them, for instance, credit for in-kind services and things like that.

We did not define what you ought to do because we need to see what States think up that they want to do, but we have got to face squarely the underground economy we force these young men into, not just for a year or two, but for the rest of their lives.

So I thank you for your consideration of the child support issues and of the fatherhood issues, and I look forward to working with you and thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Johnson follows:]

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mrs. Johnson, again, for all the work that you have put into this and your leadership.

Now we will hear from Mr. Cox for testimony.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRISTOPHER COX, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. COX. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cardin, and Chairwoman Johnson as well for all of your leadership on these issues.

I am trying to speak loudly enough so I do not need a microphone, but I think it would be helpful for the record if I use it.

I wanted to thank the Chairman, Mr. Cardin, and Chairwoman Johnson for all of your leadership on these issues this year and in years prior.

I am here to speak about the Child Support Enforcement Act. As we are considering ways to improve the well-being of kids who are often short-changed because fathers are absent and because child support payments are not made, we have to come face to face with some statistics. A staggering 93 percent of child support is in arrears. It is the norm for child support not to be paid or not to be paid on time, and oftentimes, as with other receivables, the older the obligation gets, the longer it is not paid, the more likely it is it will never be paid at all. Mountains of past-due child support will simply never be paid at all.

What then happens to the custodial parent, often the mother, sometimes the father? What happens to the kids when a family court says you are entitled to a substantial amount or at least an adequate amount to pay for clothes, for medical care, for food for these children, for their education in some cases, when they get nothing, when they get absolutely nothing?

Some years ago, Senator Dale Bumpers had an idea, and I found it to be an especially attractive idea and adopted it myself and it is the basis for this legislation. It is that in the same way that the Tax Code gives a measure of relief to someone who is owed a debt, but finds that it goes bad, we could give tax relief to custodial parents and to those kids of the child support is owed them, but is not paid. They could, in essence, get a bad-debt deduction.

At the same time, the Tax Code, in a mirror-image provision, provides for the recognition of income for the cancellation of indebtedness. So, in this case, the parent owes child support, but does not pay it, who is in the position of essentially canceling his or her own debt, would recognize cancellation of indebtedness income.

Because of the mirror-image tax treatment, there is no negative revenue effect. Moreover, because statistically the custodial parents are in lower tax brackets on average, there is a modest positive revenue effect from this legislation.

There are questions that one can anticipate with a proposal such as this. They have, in fact, been raised by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and by staff of this Committee in past years. I have been working on this for a number of years now, and, in particular, the hearing that Chairwoman Johnson conducted last year was an opportunity to remedy some of these technical issues.

Specifically, in the bill that is now before you, both the recognition of income and the bad debt deduction take place in exactly the same 12-month accounting period, and so there is no problem of a mismatch of revenue and expense from the standpoint of the Treasury.

Second, there are no obligations imposed upon the IRS in connection with this legislation. It is self-reporting, using Form 1099C, a form that already exists for the cancellation of indebtedness. It is, therefore, a simple administrative proposal, but it might well be a powerful relief for parents who do not have the child support that family court judges tell them they ought to have.

The problems that we are talking about here today are serious ones indeed. I wish they did not affect so many people in our country, but they do, and I think that anything we can do to help, we ought to do. This is certainly something that is within our power to do, and I urge your consideration and appreciate very much the interest that you have shown already and in the past.

Thanks.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cox follows:]

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Cox, for your testimony and appearing before our Committee. Now we are delighted to hear from Mr. Castle of Delaware. Mr. Castle?

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Chairman Herger and Ranking Member Cardin, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Camp.

I am also pleased to be here, and I want to thank you for giving me as well as others who are going to be testifying today the opportunity to testify on the extremely important subject of the child support enforcement in this country.

It is a fundamental principle that parents who bring a child into this world are both responsible for providing that child's physical needs, regardless of any conflicts in their relationship. It is rewarding for me to join you here today to discuss how we can improve the laws of this country to enforce that principle.

I want to take a few minutes to discuss the Child Support Fairness and Federal Tax Refund Interception Act of 2001. Recently, I introduced this bill to remove a legal barrier that is preventing the Federal Tax Refund Offset program for more effectively ensuring that child support is paid to all those entitled to it.

As you know, under current law, the Federal tax refunds to parents who owe back child support can be intercepted and used to reduce that debt. After garnishing wages, this program is the most effective means of recovering back child support that accounts for approximately one-quarter of all back child support collections.

However, unlike garnishing wages and many other child support enforcement tools, eligibility for this program is restricted by the age of the child. Eligibility for the program is limited to cases where the child is still a minor, the parent is receiving public assistance, or the child is a disabled adult. This fails to protect non-disabled college-aged children and their custodial parents even if the child support deficit accrued while the child was a minor. The unintended effect of the program is that it rewards non-custodial parents who are successful in avoiding their child support obligations while their children are still minors, and, believe me, many do that. The age limit removes the threat of one of the most effective child support enforcement tools, the Tax Refund Intercept. That is what my legislation would correct.

I think we should just ask ourselves whether there is any good reason why we should allow delinquent parents to collect Federal tax refunds to use for their enjoyment while custodial parents struggle to recover from years of raising their children alone on one income.

I hope Congress will alleviate the tremendous burden on single parents who have to work even harder to provide for their children. Artificial barriers such as the age limit on the Federal Tax Refund Offset program should be torn down. A non-custodial parent should not be able to escape their child support responsibilities by playing a waiting game until their child is 18. The Federal Tax Refund Offset program is responsible for retrieving approximately a quarter of all back child support collections, and the time has come to make it a greater success by helping all children and custodial parents by removing the age limits.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I thank you, Chairman Herger.

I have actually approached the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee on this. I believe this is excellent legislation. I introduced it last year. We were unable to get it through, but I think it is so good that if we put it on the suspension calendar for the Tuesday that we come back and you are able to get this done, I can see your colleagues raising you on their shoulders and carrying you out of the chambers. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but, nonetheless, I think it is good legislation, and I hope it would help a lot of people. Hopefully, we can move forward with it.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Castle follows:]

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Castle. Mr. Watkins to inquire.

Mr. WATKINS. Let me say to the panel that I have the greatest and deepest respect for all three of you in the different directions you are coming from, but maybe I am raised in the old school of the situation where no one is talking about young men accepting some responsibility.

If we do not tell them they have got a responsibility to fulfill their obligations, if people just feel like there is--80 percent of them feel like they were in some kind of serious relationship, what do we--if it is a court order they are supposed to be fulfilling in their child support payments, what is the responsibility they have from that court order? Is it anything at all that they--

Mrs. JOHNSON OF CONNECTICUT. A lot of these--

Mr. WATKINS. What is their penalty if they do not abide by it? Is there any penalty for them not abiding by the court order saying you make the payments to that young lady? I think there should be a responsibility on that young man to make those payments. If not, he maybe should go to jail.

Now, I think somewhere there has got to be a responsibility. I do not know--I know the gentlelady from Connecticut, she knows I had a little bit of difficulty with it last year, but where are we missing that situation?

I know my friend from Delaware, you have been the leader of a State and you have probably seen it from several different angles than my colleague from California, but I think we need to put some teeth into saying you abide by that court order, male or female.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, if I might.

I think you make an excellent point, and in the Child Support Enforcement Act, which I have just described, if the person who owes child support fails to pay it, then he or she is required to take the amount that he or she was supposed to pay into income, and if that person was, let us say, in the 30-percent income tax bracket, that means that there is a 30-percent penalty that is owed for not paying child support for a full year. That is exactly the kind of thing you are talking about, I believe.

Mr. WATKINS. That is at least a step in the direction of saying you have a responsibility because I think too many times, we have said to people you can go out and have a fling and all these kind of things, and they think that is serious--not out one night, but it is not. They waltz away without paying anything, and I think they need to try to be responsible. I think we need to at least step there first and say what do we put the teeth of responsibility in if you--

Mrs. JOHNSON OF CONNECTICUT. If I may comment. I agree with you absolutely. In the end, this is about personal responsibility. Do not bring children into the world unless you are going to be responsible for them, but remember we have had out there for many, many years before 1994 when we reformed welfare a system that said it is all right to have kids out of wedlock, do not worry, the government will support you. So we have a system out there now since welfare reform that says to the young mother, "Hey, wait a minute. Let's look at what job you are capable of," and so on and so forth.

But we do not set the father down, even though we require a paternity determination. We do not set the father down and say, "Okay, you have just had the baby. This is what you are going to owe. This is how it is going to accumulate if you do not do it. This is how you manage money. Let us help you get into the workforce." We do not give them any of the support services, and they are mostly unemployed or have a very poor work history. We do not give them the job placement support services. We do not give them the career counseling, the budget management, the parenting courses to help them bond into this situation that they have helped create that is so important to this child. So I want to help them take their responsibility.

Now, this arrearages issue should not be an issue if we help people take their responsibility from the beginning. The arrearage issue really comes from the fact that for years, we did not. So now you have a lot of gentlemen who would like to be active parents of their children who have this history of debt that they often were not even aware they were building up. They thought the mother was on welfare. She was on welfare. They did not understand that they were liable for all that.

So I am not saying forgive arrearages. I want our States to begin thinking about as people get into the workforce and we help them--some of these guys have $40,000 debt, $30,000 debt. They are never going to make more than $8 an hour. You cannot repay that debt. Do you want them to be paying Social Security and get into Medicare?

Mr. WATKINS. A lot of college students have a lot bigger debt than that. Nancy, there is a lot of college students that have a lot more debt than that, and they have the responsibility--

Mrs. JOHNSON OF CONNECTICUT. At least they have a college degree.

Mr. WATKINS. But I am willing to work with you on it very closely to see if we have got those areas of responsibility worked out because I know that there are differences. We are dealing with a variable here of human beings, but I think somewhere, we have got to have that step of responsibility.

Mrs. JOHNSON OF CONNECTICUT. I think your point is very well taken.

Mr. WATKINS. And I think these others can come in place, also, but I think we have got to make sure they understand that, just like working and raising children.

Mrs. JOHNSON OF CONNECTICUT. And we did in our bill really only provide a preference for demonstration projects that attacks this problem because we know so little about how to solve it, for just the reasons you point to. Thanks.

Chairman HERGER. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Cardin to inquire.

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me associate myself with the response by Mrs. Johnson. It is clear we could do a better job in child support collection. I think we all agree on that, and we do not want to condone any parent not paying their obligations, but what I think we should acknowledge are some of the positive steps that Congresses have taken, the last past Congresses have taken, to make it easier.

We have the suspension of our licenses that is now a requirement. We have the trade licenses. We have the wage lien laws. Last time I checked my State of Maryland, people are going to jail for not paying child support. We have criminal laws and civil contempts on this around the Nation.

So the point about whether we should be more stringent in the use of those penalties really rests with our States, and I agree with Mrs. Johnson. Sometimes you need to look at the practical circumstances in which a family is in, and that is why I really applaud the legislation that is before this Committee because I think it is well balanced.

We are trying to get the non-custodial parent engaged in the emotional part of the family, which we think will encourage a family unit and the payment of child support obligations, and that is part of our bill.

We also believe that on the arrearages that the money can go to the family. It is much more likely that the payments will be made.

Right now, why wouldn't you look for a way of escaping your obligations if the money is going to the government? If it is going to your child, it is much more likely you are going to be more interested in making the payments real. So I think the bill is very well balanced.

Mr. Castle, I just might point out that I am not sure we would carry Mr. Herger out on his shoulders, but I think the other body would. Our problem, I think, is with the Senate. It is not with the House on this legislation. As you know, you might want to talk to Chairman Thomas about it, but he is always leery about sending a tax bill over to the Senate as non-controversial as it may be because, as you know, tax bills only can originate in the House, and the Senate has a habit of taking a very nice non-controversial bill and making it very controversial.

Mr. Cox, I just want to applaud you for the improvement in the legislation, but I just would urge as we look at this bill that you be prepared how to address the problem of how the IRS would reconcile a dispute between the custodial and non-custodial parent as to how much is owed. As I understand your bill now, the custodial parent would send a 1099 form, and if the non-custodial parent disagreed with that, I would be curious as to how the IRS would reconcile that dispute.

You do not need to answer now, but it is one of the issues that I think we would want some attention paid.

Mr. COX. I will undertake to give you a more elaborate answer, but on the face of it, because it is self-implementing, self-administrating, both parents can file a 1099C, redesigned perhaps only slightly for the purpose, and they are responsible for their own tax returns.

Mr. CARDIN. But if there is a difference between what the custodial parent files and the non-custodial parent, the IRS would be in a very difficult position to determine who is correct in that.

Mr. COX. Yes. In fact, one of the reasons that we have these information returns and 1099's and so on is to know when to trigger an audit. It is some evidence that somebody is cheating.

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Cardin. Mr. Camp, the gentleman from Michigan, to inquire.

Mr. CAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congresswoman Johnson, could you tell us a bit about the pro-marriage features of the fatherhood portion of your legislation, please?

Mrs. JOHNSON OF CONNECTICUT. Yes. They are very important. In the hearing that we had and this Subcommittee held on promoting marriage, it is very, very important. Too many of these young people are growing up in neighborhoods where there is no example at all of a married couple. So they do not have any opportunity to learn what are the advantages for them and for the child of marriage, and so we do give preference to those projects that have in them some effort to educate people about marriage because, if we do not do this, it is almost as egregious a policy error as it was to pay people not to work.

Welfare was really a terrible system because it paid people not to work, and in life, if you do not work, you do not know who you are and you are not part of the real world, unless you are disabled. We understand that some people cannot work.

In the same way, to not educate young people about marriage when they have no opportunity to learn from their environment is to ignore the enormous amount of research that has been done that demonstrates that children do much better. They do better in school. They do better emotionally. They have a brighter future if they are part of a married unit. It is really astounding that we have utterly ignored what is now a very significant body of research that children need both parents, and they do, do better in marriage.

Mr. CAMP. Thank you very much.

I want to thank all of you for your testimony as well, and thank the Chairman.

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Camp.

I want to thank each of our witnesses for your outstanding testimony, and with that, I would at this point like to call on our second panel to come forward, please.

I would also like to insert at this point in the record the statement of Frank Fuentes, acting deputy commissioner of the Office of Child Support Enforcement, who is not able to be here today to testify on behalf of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, without objection.

[The following was subsequently received:]

Statement of Frank Fuentes, Acting Deputy Commissioner,
Office of Child Support Enforcement Administration for Children and Families,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

This initiative shares many of the same goals as the fatherhood legislation supported by this Subcommittee. We commend Representatives Johnson and Cardin and the Subcommittee for your leadership in focusing attention on responsible fatherhood and we look forward to working with you on this critical area of mutual commitment. As the President recently said at the Fourth National Summit on Fatherhood, "For our children, and for our nation, nothing is more important than the national fatherhood initiative."

Chairman HERGER. On the second panel this afternoon, we will be hearing from Mr. Nathaniel Young, Jr., director of the Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement, and president of the National Council of Child Support Directors; Dr. Jeffery Johnson, president and CEO of the National Center of Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership (NPCL), accompanied by Mr. Raymond Byrd; Dr. Ron Haskins, senior fellow in Governmental Studies at The Brookings Institution and senior consultant at the Annie E. Casey Foundation; Dr. Elaine Sorensen, principal research associate at The Urban Institute; and, finally, Joan Entmacher, vice president and director of Family Economic Security at the National Women's Law Center.

With that, Mr. Young to testify, please.

STATEMENT OF NATHANIEL L. YOUNG, JR., DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES' DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA; PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS; BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION; AND BOARD MEMBER, EASTERN REGIONAL INTERSTATE CHILD SUPPORT ASSOCIATION

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, sir. My name is Nick Young, and I am the director of Child Support Enforcement for the Commonwealth of Virginia, and I am also the president of the National Council of Child Support Directors, the 54 child support directors of the Nation. I appreciate being here today. Thank you very much.

I looked at a calendar and saw that our birthday, the Nation's birthday, is next Wednesday, 225 years. Then I saw it took us 199 years to pass the Social Security Act in 1975 to where we realized that this was as a problem that we needed to address.

Then, in the ensuing 25 years that we have been doing child support, as is in the statement that you just entered from Mr. Fuentes, we have collected $100 billion through good hard work of the child support program and through the laws and the tools that you have given us, and we are very appreciative of that.

I would like to mention that the $18 billion that was collected last year shows the significant improvement that has been made. If you tried to break the $100 billion by 25 years and then looked at one year that you got $18 billion, it is getting better.

While you are precisely correct that the average may be 37 percent, some States do better than that. Some do worse. All in all, though, we are very proud of the $18 billion, and we do appreciate the tools you have given us. I think we have demonstrated that we have used them responsibly, not necessarily to deliver child support services, truly at the end of a billy club, but try to bring the personal responsibility into the picture here by working with a number of the people that are here at the table as well as the other groups.

I have two or three things to recommend. My testimony has some examples from each of your States, from many of the States, anyway, and I will let that stand for itself.

One of the things that we would encourage you to do is to literally stay the course. Remember that this is not a speed sport, that it is behavior modification. It is difficult. As Representative Johnson just spoke and the others as well very eloquently, we are trying to fix a long-term problem, and we are trying to do it in a fairly short period of time, and it is behavior modification, not always out-of-wedlock births, which in my particular State make up 70 percent of the caseload. While 30 percent of the out-of-wedlock births occur every year, they cumulatively make up 70 percent of the caseload. I submit to you that that is the problem we have to fix before we try to fix the outcome which is getting the child support paid.

We support the simplification of distribution. It is far too complex. Most of us cannot understand it. We cannot explain it. We can eventually program it into logic, but we could not explain it if we had to.

I would only ask you to look at how the child support program is funded concurrently with your desires to fix distribution. You may be fixing distribution, but you could break the way that a State delivers the child support services, depending on whether or not they had retained earnings or whether or not they totally general-fund a child support program, and about half the States used retained earnings. We think that they are inextricably intertwined; that you have got to look at them simultaneously.

We would also encourage you to look at removing the cap on the incentive pool. Clearly, we believe that pay for performance is the way to go. We incentivize most of our child support workers on how well they do. Currently, with the incentive cap, somebody has to lose because it is a fixed amount of money. So, if Virginia does very well, perhaps Maryland or some other State will be disadvantaged, and we do not think that is a good way to do it. We would ask you to examine that and to consider removing the cap.

One other issue that is problematic is the penalties. The penalties were enacted for a very good reason, to get people's attention, primarily not the Title IV-D of the Social Security Act (IV-D) director, the child support director, but beyond that in the State legislatures.

We are convinced as an association that the penalties have done their job, and they have gotten people's attention. I would ask you to look at some reinvestment options in amending the law some States face up to, including $152 million in penalties. That will certainly get your attention because that is twice as much as most programs even spend. We would only ask that there are some ways to allow reinvestment and to encourage reinvestment instead of just having the penalty stand alone by itself.

Lastly, the IV-D directors, the child support directors clearly understand the need for more fatherhood initiatives. Access and visitation is a wonderful program. It has brought people together that were not talking, both government as well as within the family structure. We realize there are a number of these people that are dead broke, not necessarily deadbeat.

We are willing to work with any of the programs on fatherhood, and we will appreciate any of the initiatives that are coming out. And some of the ladies and gentlemen who are with me can speak far more eloquently on that.

Thank you very much, sir.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Young.

Now we will hear from Dr. Johnson, and, Dr. Johnson, I do notice that you are accompanied by Mr. Raymond Byrd. If he would like to join you at the stand, he is welcome to, and perhaps even make a short statement if he would like to.

Thank you. Welcome to our Committee, Mr. Byrd.

Dr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Chairman Herger, Mr. Cardin, and the Committee for inviting me and Mr. Byrd for this opportunity.

I would also add that I have also invited a nationally recognized leader in the fatherhood movement and also the program administrator for the program that Mr. Byrd is a part of, Mr. Joe Jones. I also asked another young father who is improving his life, Mr. Joe Lewis, to join us today in this testimony. Additionally I have asked Ms. Teresa Kaiser who is the director for Child Support for the State of Maryland, to join us today. She has some interesting ideas on arrears management that the Committee might be interested in.

Before I say some things, let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that today is both a good day for me, for this opportunity to talk about fatherhood, but it is also a day of reflection for me because it is also the thirty-sixth anniversary of my own father's death, and that I come to this Committee in reflection of the good things that my father demonstrated to me. I think that those things contributed in many respects to the work that I do, but also how important it is to have fathers in the life of children. I think that is really what this Committee and this work is all about.

With that, let me just say that the work that we do at NPCL is focused on building the capacity of local agencies to strengthen communities and foster family and neighborhood empowerment.

One critical element of family empowerment, particularly in inner cities, is the return of fathers to families. Our current focus is to build the capacity of community-based organizations to provide services to low-income fathers so they can adopt their critical roles as nurturers and economic providers which at a time when society seems to be suffering from numerous breakdowns is good for families and communities, but especially children.

Any policies we develop should not pose additional barriers to low-income dads. So, when this Committee considers child support, Welfare to Work, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) commitments and others, do not forget our fragile families. These are young, low-skilled, never-married couples with children. We are talking about dead-broke dads versus deadbeat dads. The difference between deadbeat dads and dead-broke dads is that the former can pay child support, but will not, and the latter are willing to pay child support, but cannot. Deadbeat dads should be punished. Dead-broke dads need support and help.

Any responsible fatherhood proposal should provide for employment, peer support, parenting education, parenting skills development, conflict management, as well as a combination of short-term job acquisition, interim job training, and long-term career development strategies. Child support enforcement proposals should consider different provisions for handling dead-broke dad cases.

For example, orders established for low-income fathers should be based on their ability to pay. This approach has been embraced by child support leaders such as the National Child Support Enforcement Association and has been a topic of NPCL's peer learning college where we bring together child support people to talk about these issues.

Other important strategies include arrears management. Again, I will say that Teresa Kaiser who is here for the State of Maryland has implemented a very innovative program that I think this Committee would be very interested in hearing about.

My more extended written testimony, discusses in detail our Partners For Fragile Families Project which brought to us Mr. Byrd. This is a 10-city initiative that targets young fathers, 16 to 25, and builds upon 40 years of social policy research and experimentation in this area. Each demonstration site seeks to implement community-level partnerships between child support enforcement agencies and local community-based fatherhood programs in an effort to increase the long-term involvement of low-income fathers in the lives of their children.

Eliminating policy and program barriers as well as placement of fathers in jobs that have a wage potential are also key aims of the demonstration, but the foundation of the program, which is consistent with much of the provisions in H.R. 1471, is looking at where a client is and working with that client to bring them up to the point where they can marry, but if they don't marry, make the best decision in the interest of their child.

The basic model includes One on One case management, job placement, peer support. The community should know that peer support has been the most successful element of programs working with fathers over the last 20 years, at least as far as demonstration projects are concerned.

Peer support groups are anchored in this program in what we call the Fatherhood Development Curriculum which is now being used by over 3,000 practitioners nationwide. The curriculum includes a range of topics from life skills to preventing domestic violence. The father development curriculum also includes a focus on family planning with topics such as marriage and team parenting.

In terms of systemic change, we think that efforts should be focused on public-private partnerships, employability, and earnings for fathers. Research seems to suggest that men who are employed and earning are more likely to pay child support and stay in a relationship and often marry the mother of their children.

H.R. 1471, we believe comes closest to providing the scope of policy reforms, we need to strengthen father involvement, as well as a reasonable start on funding. Given the scope of services needed to support a father's role until a dad can support his family, we need a significant public investment.

While conceptually sound, neither the President's proposal nor the Carson proposal is comprehensive enough to really do the work necessary for fathers in fragile families. Child support funding changes that will allow for pass-through payments and new fatherhood demonstrations that are included in H.R. 1471 is a start in the right direction, we believe.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Committee again for this opportunity and encourage you now to hear from Mr. Byrd, and Mr. Lewis, and also, if time permits, to also hear the innovative strategy that Ms. Kaiser is working on for the record. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Johnson follows:]

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Dr. Johnson. Mr. Byrd, would you like a couple minutes?

Mr. BYRD. Yes. Could you speak up? I cannot really hear you that much.

My name is--well, you already know my name, but I am in this trial program, and I am not a deadbeat dad, but I was a dead-broke dad, but recently I got a job. It really, actually gave me the positivity knowing would I be able to go get a job. I went to like two, three group meetings. I have been to three fatherhood conferences with Mr. Joe Jones and I spoke on that panel three times, and I am not really saying that I am like underskilled or underachieved, but it is just that most people do not give us a chance because they would judge us by what they see us as instead of not getting to know the person, not knowing the person that is behind the clothes.

What I am here for today is to know what type--

I am kind of nervous, as you can see.

Chairman HERGER. You are doing just fine. You are doing just fine.

Mr. BYRD. And mostly, when I go to the group, like when I have problems, I call and I talk to either Mr. Rice or Mr. Joe Jones. They give me input on different situations, and right now, what I am going through, they was telling me about how I got to learn how to play the ball game. Like if I am going for a certain job, I have to look like the people working in order for them to look at me to put me on their team. I just cannot go into a job and say, "Hey, this is me. I want to get this," without having the proper attire or the proper frame of mind. I cannot go in there if I am comfortable. I have to go in there looking like I am ready to play their game. That is all.

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Byrd. I appreciate that. Dr. Haskins?

STATEMENT OF RON HASKINS, PH.D., SENIOR FELLOW, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, AND SENIOR CONSULTANT, ANNIE E. CASEY FOUNDATION, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

Dr. HASKINS. Chairman Herger, thank you for having me today. I am pleased to be here on the other side of the microphone and learn that all of the members actually have a front to their bodies. For several years, I got to study the backs of members for hours and hours. Also, I believe this is the first hearing I have been to in probably a decade that I did not write the opening statement. I was especially pleased that Matt agreed to write my statement for me. So I did not have to write anything for this hearing.

Chairman HERGER. I hope the front looks almost as well as the back.

Mr. HASKINS. Pardon?

Chairman HERGER. I hope the front looks almost as well as the back.

Dr. HASKINS. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, of course, it is.

Mr. Cardin, I am afraid we will not have much of a chance to disagree today. There may be a few little things in child support that we could disagree about, but I hope you invite me back again when you talk about welfare.

Mr. CARDIN. Since you wrote the bill, I would hope you do not have too much to say critical of it.

Dr. HASKINS. Let me first say that I think the first thing the Committee should do in considering reauthorization is to reflect on the success that this bill has had. There are failures, of course, but in almost every title, not just the TANF title, not just because of more work, but in the child support title, in the Supplemental Security Income titles, the bill has achieved its intended effects. and I would say on the whole that we probably have fewer people in the United States today dependent on welfare benefits as their primary source of income than we have had probably since the depression or certainly since the 1950's. That is a major achievement and this Committee is the first Committee that wrote the original draft of the bill. So I think that is a remarkable achievement.

However, I do think there are three things in child support enforcement that the Committee should attend to. Two of them, I believe would have immediate or intermediate impacts, the Committee would not have to wait very long to have good impacts, and the third one may avoid a crisis. So I would like to talk about each of those three in turn.

The first is who gets the money, and Mrs. Johnson and others have already spoken eloquently about this. When we started the child support program way back in the 1970's, the main idea was cost recovery. We were trying to reimburse taxpayers for paying for welfare. That is still a worthy idea, but since then, our welfare system has changed dramatically, and now we emphasize to a great extent people becoming independent of welfare. As that goal has shifted of our welfare program, more and more members have come to see that the child support system should also shift. So the arrearages that we used to retain to repay taxpayers and the money that we retain (all the money when the family is on welfare) a lot of people think should be given back to the families.

We made a very important step in that direction at the initiative of this Subcommittee in 1996. We were blocked from taking the entire step by the United States Senate, which often happens to our magnificent legislation, and last year, we tried to take this step and, again, were prevented by the Senate from doing it. But I would guess that if this bill passes again that the Senate will act on it and that we will, in fact, be able to return that money to the mothers--get the money from the fathers to the mothers.

I want you to know that when fully implemented, this provision would provide about $900 million per year to mothers who have left welfare. So that is a lot of money. It is money that the father paid. This is extremely worthy legislation, and I hope the Subcommittee can pass it.

The second issue is fatherhood. Many other witnesses have talked about that, so I can just skim through that very briefly. But I do want to point out, I think there is no question that, especially Republicans, but on a bipartisan basis, I believe, in the next 18 months or so, we will emphasize marriage. There will be a huge emphasis on marriage in welfare reform reauthorization, and I would point out to the Subcommittee that, to some extent, to reemphasize marriage without emphasizing fatherhood and particularly the problems that are experienced by low-income fathers, is somewhat hypocritical because we could not in all good conscience promote marriage when we have so many fathers who are unemployed. Their income has been declining for approximately the last decade. They have lots of other problems. Many are incarcerated. We simply need to find a better way to deal with these young men and to help them to a greater extent than we have in the past. Unless we do that, the marriage agenda, I think, has a very serious flaw.

Finally, I would like to call the Committee's attention to what I think is a long-term problem that will be very important for the States in the years ahead unless something is done. If you look at pages 6 and 7 of my testimony, you will see that there have been huge increases in collections in the non-welfare program, but if you look in the welfare program, collections are actually decreasing, and the reason for that is obvious. We have many fewer cases on welfare than in the past.

The Committee should take this into account. The average State gets 30 percent of the money to finance their child support program from their welfare collections. So, as these collections go down, many States are going to have difficulty, especially the half that Nick Young referred to that finance their program directly out of those collections. They are going to have greater and greater trouble, and they are going to have to go back to their State legislatures and ask for more money.

So I do not know what the solution to this problem is. I have not heard of a good solution, but I think this Subcommittee with its long history of looking ahead and emphasizing financing issues and nitty-gritty issues about this program should look into this very carefully, should work cooperatively with the administration, with the IV-D directors and other bureaucratic organizations to see if, within the next 2 or 3 years, we can really develop a solution for this problem.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to especially call to your attention in closing the fact that if this Committee were able to pass the provision to distribute more of the collections to the mothers that we would have an immediate impact on these families. The year after it passes, these families will start to have more money, and within 5 or 6 years, they will be receiving $900 million of money paid by the fathers. So that is an extremely important action for this Committee to take.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Haskins follows:]

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Dr. Haskins. Again, the Committee, and I, want to thank you for your many years of guidance and support on this Committee.

Dr. HASKINS. Thank you.

Chairman HERGER. With that, we will turn to Dr. Sorensen.

STATEMENT OF ELAINE SORENSEN, PH.D., PRINCIPAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, INCOME AND BENEFITS POLICY CENTER, URBAN INSTITUTE

Dr. SORENSEN. Chairman Herger and other members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I have been working on this issue for many years, and I would like to make three points today.

First, child support enforcement has made a difference in poor children's lives, and that is the success that we should commend Congress for encouraging.

Two, despite this success, there are many non-custodial fathers who are poor themselves and need help.

Three, child support enforcement, to be successful in the future and reach more poor children, will need to face the problems of poor, non-custodial fathers.

My research and that of many others show that expanding the child support enforcement program has improved child support collections, especially for never-married mothers who, 20 years ago, were very unlikely to receive child support. So we have had success. The specific policies that have been very successful are the in-hospital paternity establishment program, and immediate wage withholding. More recent programs like the new hire program, State disbursement units have been very successful in specific States.

My research shows, that child support for poor children has increased since the enactment of welfare reform in 1996. We find that 29 percent of poor families were receiving child support in 1996, and that is up today. Also, the amount of family income coming from child support compared to 1996. So child support is playing a more important role in poor families' lives.

Despite these gains, though, we still have 5.5 million poor children who are poor and do not receive child support. Part of the reason that child support has not reached these poor kids is because their fathers have a limited ability to pay child support. There are about 2.5 million non-custodial fathers who are poor themselves, and they have many of the same employment barriers that poor moms do.

We find that 43 percent of them are high school dropouts, 40 percent of poor non-custodial fathers have health problems, most of them do not have health insurance, about a third of them have not worked for a long time. When they do work, their earnings are low. They are having a hard time meeting their own needs as well as their non-custodial children.

One of the employment barriers that disproportionately affect fathers that does not affect mothers as much is incarceration. We estimate that about 30 percent of poor, non-custodial fathers are incarcerated.

Despite these employment barriers, very few non-custodial fathers receive assistance in the employment area. We find that only about 6 percent of poor fathers, all of whom could benefit from employment services, are getting employment services.

In order for child support to be more effective in the future and reach more poor kids, research shows that more money needs to go towards the father to get him employed. Employment-oriented programs right now are mostly funded out of the Welfare to Work program, but this program ends soon. The question is how will employment programs for low-income fathers be funded in the future.

As a society, we have invested in poor mothers so that their children can live with them in their homes, and we have been successful. We have invested in the child support enforcement program so that children can count on the financial support of both their mom and their dad.

To build upon this success, it is time to invest in poor, non-custodial fathers so that they, too, can contribute to the financial support of their children.

Thanks.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Sorensen follows:]

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Dr. Sorensen. Now Ms. Entmacher to testify.

Ms. ENTMACHER. Thank you.

Chairman Herger and members of the Human Resources Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Women's Law Center.

There are three main points I want to make in my testimony. First, the child support reforms enacted by Congress in 1996 have substantially improved the performance of the child support program. We have been critical of the performance of the program for a number of years. We have worked to improve it virtually since it was enacted, and so it is very exciting to be able to say that the preliminary data show that collections have doubled over the last 5 years. This is a real thrill for an advocate.

The second point is that while these increases in child support are benefiting many low-income families, some poor children are not receiving support because the money the child support system collects on their behalf does not go to them, but instead goes for welfare reimbursement. For once, I can simply refer to Dr. Haskins' testimony and say he is absolutely right that nearly $1 billion a year should be going to children and their custodial parents. So we completely agree on the importance of that reform which is in 1471.

Third, some custodial fathers, like many custodial mothers, are poor themselves and have limited capacity to support their children. We need to improve services for both parents and the earning capacity of both parents in the next stage of welfare reform if we want to bring children out of poverty and not just off of welfare. However, we do have much less information about the effectiveness of different service strategies for non-custodial parents as compared to the research that has been done on custodial parents, and the funding for demonstration programs in H.R. 1471, which is targeted to non-custodial parents, would help fill this gap.

To return to point one, the 1996 reforms were designed to create a more automated, integrated, and nationwide child support enforcement system. Implementing these reforms has not been easy, as you, Chairman Herger, have reason to know in California, and the process is not yet complete, but, even so, the improvements have been dramatic.

Between 1995 and 2000, the collection rates for cases with orders in the IV-D program doubled. In 1995, even when an order was put in place, collections were made in only about a third of cases. In 2000, collections were made in more than two-thirds of cases, and as you have heard, collections have risen 64 percent from 11 to $18 billion.

Child support is extremely important for the low-income families who receive it. It accounts on average for 16 percent of family income of families who get child support, but for poor families not on welfare who are eligible to receive all the current support that is collected, child support provides over a third of the family's income. So that brings me to my next point which is the importance of changing the assignment and distribution rules to give more child support to families.

The National Women's Law Center has been working with the Center on Fathers, Families, and Public Policy, and a group of other advocates, practitioners, and researchers who work with low-income mothers and similar people who work with low-income fathers to see if we can come together on recommendations to improve policies for mothers, fathers, and children.

This policy change of giving child support to families was one that people clearly agreed on, not just because of the value of the income, which was certainly important, but also because of the costs that are paid in terms of hostility to the child support system and hostility toward the other parent that are generated by our current system.

Mothers are frustrated because they do not see any contribution by the fathers. Fathers are frustrated because child support is being collected from them, but it is not getting through the child, and instead of bringing people together, current policies drive them apart.

We also know something that we did not have information about last year when this policy was being considered. Wisconsin implemented a policy of passing through and disregarding all child support to children, and the results of that experiment are now in. We see that mothers got more support. Fathers were more likely to pay support, and there was not an increase in overall government cost because, even though the State was giving up these collections, it was offset by savings in other government programs.

I would urge the Committee to act quickly on this reform. The simplification of the distribution system would make a difference to States like California that are still in the process of designing their computer systems. So sooner rather than later would make a big difference.

I see my time is up.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Entmacher follows:]

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Now to inquire, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Watkins.

Mr. WATKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to you and Mr. Cardin for your commitment, and also to the entire panel. I have been very impressed with the sincerity and commitment. I know Dr. Haskins is truly a champion.

Welfare reform has been a truly remarkable piece of work. I think it has been one of the things that has really changed society. I totally agree with Dr. Johnson about employment.

Three of four of you have talked about employment, and that is what I have been all about in my years of public service is the fact that I think without question, the destruction of many families has come about because they have had to go and search for other jobs. I probably am a little harder about this than most people, and I ask forgiveness of my Committee here and I apologize to you, but I was born in dirt-poor poverty and my family had to leave Oklahoma and go to California three times before I was 9 years of age. It destroyed my family, and my father became an alcoholic and died as an alcoholic. My mother raised three of us children on a dirt-poor farm, and I had to work three part-time jobs to get an education. So I know the importance of that work.

I also had to work my way through college to get a college education. So it can be done.

So I probably take a harder nose on this than I should be, and I apologize for that. That is why I like to say we each have to accept some responsibilities as we go along. I am not saying that is the whole answer, but working and providing some work. You are right. Child support is not near the amount that it should be, and many times it is misused, a lot of times. Most cannot make it on child support, but the person that is responsible for bringing that child into this life should be responsible and should be also working to make some payments, whatever that job is, for the community or wherever it may be.

I think we found that out in welfare reform, and I know my father did not pay child support. Lots of times, we did not know where the next meal was coming from.

So I apologize for being a little stronger about this, but I think let's do not miss that dimension; that we have to try to make sure we provide the jobs for, yes, holding the families together, but also to provide the jobs for that person to accept the responsibility to know that they are working these hours because they have brought someone in the world and they are going to have to help pay for, the responsibility for that child's life.

So I do not disagree with the testimony I have heard here at all. I think it is great, and let me say again the welfare changes have been marvelous, just tremendous. Maybe we need to tweak the child support situation more around work and some responsibilities along that line.

So thank you very much for what you are doing each and every day and for your testimony.

And, Mr. Byrd, may you have God's speed. It takes a lot of strong will. My mother used to say, "Wesley, if you have a will, there is a way."

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Watkins. Mr. Cardin to inquire.

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank all the witnesses for their testimony. I particularly want to thank Mr. Byrd for being here, not just because you come from, as Mayor O'Malley says, the best city in America, Baltimore, but that you give a face to the issues.

A lot of times, we talk about statistics, number of people that are impacted in the policies here, and we never get to see the people that are individually impacted. We thank you for being here because you add a dimension to this hearing that is very important for us to see and here.

Dr. Johnson, I take it from your testimony--and I would like you to respond a little more to this--that to the extent that the non-custodial parent, the father, is employable or has a skill means it is more likely that the mother would consider the father a candidate for marriage. Is that a positive correlation?

Dr. JOHNSON. That is a definite positive correlation, and it has been made by sociologists. It is being made by economists right now. When fathers are made marriage-able, they are attractive marriage mates.

It is interesting. We did have an opportunity to bring some young fathers from Mr. Jones' program before the Committee when Mr. Shaw was Chair, and one of the young men indicated, asked Mr. Shaw, "Would you want your daughter to marry me?," looking at his situation. In a situation where he was trying to do the best he could, he had had some challenges in his life, and that he really needed to get those things together to make himself attractive. I think the thing that is often overshadowed sometimes is the young father's willingness to be the best man he can be, to be the best father he could be, and to also in the future be a good husband.

I can recall when my older brother--I am from the Detroit area originally. I have been in this area about 22 years. When he got his first job at Ford Motor Company, when those jobs were available, I can remember him getting the phone call from Reverend S.L. Roberson from the Ford Motor Company down the street from me, and he said that once he got the call that he was going to get him a car, get him an apartment, and he might even get married because he made a positive correlation between his financial stability and being able to make those type of choices. I think that given the chance--I think that Mr. Byrd said, do not look at the cover of the book, look at what is inside of the book, and here is a man trying to do the best for himself, trying to do the best for his family, but we need programs like the Center for Fathers, Families and Workforce Development in place to create an on ramp for people like Mr. Byrd so that they can reach their dreams and be the best parents to children as possible.

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you for that response.

Dr. Haskins, it is a pleasure to have you return to our Committee, and I, once again, want to congratulate you on your public service. You have reason to be proud, as we are proud, of the accomplishments that we have made in reforming our welfare system and our child support system, and you were by far one of the key individuals. So I applaud you for that and congratulate you on your public service.

I think my list, though, is longer than two in modification of the 1996 law. I am one of those who supported those.

Dr. HASKINS. Yes, but you have more than 5 minutes, Mr. Cardin.

[Laughter.]

Mr. CARDIN. That is true, also.

Let me also point out, I know that your quip about marriage and Republicans--let me just tell you that I have been married for 36 years, and my spouse and I are both Democrats. So there are Democrats who do believe that marriage is a very important institution.

But let me just caution you that we support--the Democrats support, and I think there is a bipartisan agreement, the importance of marriage and the importance of two-parent families, but we also as Republicans have a concern about spousal abuse and child abuse. We are concerned about safety of families. We want to make sure that our policies are the right policies for families.

You made a very interesting point, and I think it is worth emphasizing. For a while, our policy was cost recovery. Now it is really family support and bringing the family together. It is really nice to see that from all sides, there is agreement that passing through child support makes sense.

If you could just clarify for me why did we--we put families first for families that left welfare on just about everything except for the tax intercept program. Why didn't we give them access to tax intercepts in 1996?

Dr. HASKINS. In the 1996 legislation?

Mr. CARDIN. Yes.

Dr. HASKINS. Oh, very simple answer. The Senate would not accept giving the entire amount to the families. So staff in the middle of the night was casting about trying to figure out a way that you could plausibly, logically divide up the money, and we received information that about half the money came from the tax intercept. So we used the tax intercept. States get to keep all collections from the tax intercept, and the rest goes to the family. That is 100 percent of the reason. It was just a convenience, and as many things that staff thinks up in the middle of the night, it cluttered up the--

Mr. CARDIN. It just goes to show you should not work in the middle of the night.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Cardin.

I want to thank each of our witnesses.

Mr. WATKINS. If I might make one comment. We are talking about self-esteem here, trying--and what do we do, Mr. Chairman, to help young men and young women develop a self-esteem that they can achieve and they can do those things, and that is inside. You can hardly measure that commitment or that determination to do that, and how we can help our young people develop more self-esteem is going to be very crucial for us to succeed.

Chairman HERGER. A very important point. Thank you.

Mr. Byrd, again, it is good to have each of our witnesses. It is particularly--I want you to know that we particularly appreciate you being here. You had mentioned how you were a little nervous. I think everyone is a little nervous who perhaps is here, and, again, I commend you.

I would like to have you respond, if you would, to what perhaps you have learned through the fatherhood program that you are involved in, do you feel you have changed in any ways because of that, and what are your hopes for the future.

Mr. BYRD. Well, actually, through the fatherhood programs, I actually learned a couple of things about myself, and the day someone directed me, it was like some things I do--I still have a little immaturity in me, and I kind of like thought that I--I honestly tried to like not look at it, but then I thought about it. Some things I do, do, it is kind of immature. Then, hopefully, in the future--well, actually, I will actually look at--when I get out of school, maybe I might join a branch of the government and then I am looking to buy a computer. I was up in the Families Helping Families Center, looking at the computers they had up there, and maybe in the future--I was thinking about--they kept like haggling me about getting married, and marriage was not something I wanted right now. It is something that I look for in the future, but as you look at it, a lot of people you see married, and you are like, "I will see this person for the rest of my life," and it is like you really got to think on it because you do not want to rush into nothing and that you cannot get out of, and then marriage is a big responsibility. It is just like when you have a kid. You always got that person. You always know you have to look after that person. That person is going to be there for you.

Chairman HERGER. Thank you.

Mr. BYRD. A lot of things I did learn was that if you are down and you are trying to help yourself, if people see you helping--if you struggling and you need help and you are not trying to help yourself, no one is going to help you, but if you ask for help and someone will help you if they see you are trying to help yourself. Nobody is going to help you if you are not trying to help yourself, and you cannot do--nobody cannot make you do something you do not want to do. If you are going to do it and you ask for help, they are going to give you the proper guidance and the proper assistance for you to do whatever task that you are trying to complete.

Chairman HERGER. Good. Thank you very much, Mr. Byrd.

Again, I want to thank each of our witnesses for your fine testimony this afternoon. I trust that each of you would respond to additional questions on these issues for the record. It has been a very informative hearing on an issue that is important to members of this Committee and to the President.

With that, this Committee stands adjourned. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 3:32 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Questions submitted from Chairman Herger to the panel, and their responses follow:]

National Council of Child Support Directors
Richmond, Virginia 23219
July 11, 2001

The Honorable Wally Herger, Chairman
Subcommittee on Human Resources
U.S. Committee on House Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Herger:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Subcommittee’s follow-up questions to testimony I presented on June 28. The following responses are presented in the order of the questions in your June 29 letter.

A.  Since the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996, additional emphasis has been placed on the importance of children having the financial and the emotional support of both parents. Programs that provide services such as education and training, job placement, parenting classes, and mentoring are now viewed as critical to helping low-income children escape poverty.

Because welfare today is time-limited and child support is becoming a key family resource, our focus has shifted somewhat from a cost recovery program to one of preparing both parents to take responsibility for the support of their children. In Virginia’s child support enforcement program, we are involved in several innovative programs that vary by community in promoting self-sufficiency. For example, we have fourteen of our seasoned child support staff co-located in the local social service agencies. This offers the customer " one stop shopping" in that they can communicate with their eligibility worker about benefits, and can communicate with the child support worker to provide critical information that will assist our staff in locating the noncustodial parent, establishing paternity and a child support obligation, and collecting their support order. This co-location also provides an opportunity for information sharing and program understanding between the child support worker and the social service worker. In other areas where co-location is not feasible, we have child support staff who appear periodically at service points to facilitate child support services for both custodial and noncustodial parents.

Virginia is fortunate in that we are an administrative state, which allows us to more efficiently process child support cases rather than going through the courts. We issue 75 percent of all orders administratively and preclude further judicial action, unless requested by either party. This provides for services that are quicker, requires no lawyers or judges, and gets the child support monies to the custodial parent much faster than if we had to process all actions through the courts.

We know that many noncustodial parents take seriously their responsibility to pay child support regularly. For the majority of parents who do not readily meet their financial obligations, enforcement tools such as income withholding, driver’s license revocation, or passport denial will encourage parents to meet their financial obligations to their children. However, for a small minority of noncustodial parents, even tougher enforcement tools have been utilized. In Virginia, we have implemented enforcement tools such as vehicle booting. As described in my testimony of June 28, 2001, this enforcement technique was first utilized in Virginia in 1998. Since it’s inception, more than $420,000 has been collected from 79 bootings.

Another enforcement remedy, which is used, by Virginia and other states is our KidsFirst Campaign which was first implemented in 1997 and offered limited amnesty to 57,000 of our most egregious support evaders. To date, Virginia has collected more than $150 million in past due child support as a result of this initiative. This initiative enhanced our rapport with the law enforcement community and with the judiciary.

Many of our courts utilize alternatives to incarceration such as work release or in home incarceration. These programs allow the noncustodial parent to avoid jail time by continuing to work and meet their child support obligation as well as making them available to provide emotional support to their children. This alternative is a savings to the taxpayer and contributes to the self-sufficiency of the family.

Unique enforcement remedies, such as the two mentioned above, serve us well in that they educate the public about child support services that are available, the resulting press encourages other noncustodial parents to pay their support to avoid these enforcement remedies and the resulting child support payments assist the families in becoming self sufficient.

Several states, including Virginia, are involved in grants that identify barriers to custodial parents applying for child support services and also barriers to noncustodial parents contributing financial support to their children. Since these studies have just recently begun, I am not prepared to discuss findings or make recommendations.

We currently have more than 70 community based fatherhood initiatives underway in Virginia. One very recent example is the result of a collaborative effort between Total Action Against Poverty (TAP) and several agencies including child support enforcement, that provides outreach to noncustodial parents under the age of 30, who are unemployed or underemployed. TAP was successful in obtaining a $750,000 grant from the Charles S. Mott Foundation to target this populace in the Roanoke, Virginia area. This grant will provide a child support worker at the district office to identify fathers who might be eligible for the program and refer them for services to enhance their job skills, help them secure jobs and encourage them to become more involved in their children’s lives. One caveat to participate in this program is to ensure the fathers acknowledge paternity and pay their child support on a regular basis.

Many states, including Virginia, have entered into partnerships with local Head Start associations. We provide literature regarding child support services and periodically speak to Head Start participants about our services and the importance of both parents being involved in the financial and emotional upbringing of their children.

Some of our offices, particularly in rural localities, have entered into agreements with faith-based organizations, community partners, employers and local social services agencies under the Workforce Investment Act. This partnership provides another opportunity to distribute information on child support services and assist both custodial and noncustodial parents in accessing these services.

Our core responsibility is to collect and disburse child support, and we will continue to focus our efforts in that role, remaining mindful that our partnerships with agencies such as those listed above are crucial to furthering the self-sufficiency of families. Unfortunately, our caseloads continue to increase, and we must remain flexible in managing our resources while staying focused on our primary mission, which is child support enforcement.

A.  The Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) provided states with powerful new tools to assist in the collection of child support. The National Directory of New Hires and the Federal Case Registry provide information not previously available to states in their collection efforts. These new databases have allowed states to increase the level of automation in their statewide computer systems. The combination of the new tools and the improved automation are primarily responsible for the increase in the percentage of collections. Even for states, like Virginia, which have met all the requirements for PRWORA, there is more that can be done to increase the level of automation and improve on the use of the new tools.

There are two things Congress can do to help states further improve the percentage of child support collections. One is to extend the deadline for using the 80 percent enhanced funding for child support computer systems. Congress designated a pool of 80 percent federal funding to assist states in meeting these requirements. The deadline for using the 80 percent funding is October 1, 2001. Many states will not be able to use the full amount of the 80 percent money allocated to them by the deadline.

Extending the deadline to October 1, 2005, will allow states to take full advantage of enhanced funding to improve and enhance the PRWORA mandates.

The second is to refrain from making major changes to the child support program until the full benefits of the existing laws are realized. In other words "stay the course." Although passed in 1996, the PRWORA changes were numerous and complex. States continue to expand and increase their use of the new tools and laws. Major changes to the program would divert valuable resources and prevent states from continuing their effort to make full and complete use of the tools provided by PRWORA.

A.  The Grants to States for Access and Visitation Grant Programs (A&V) are demonstration grants funded by the federal government in an effort to increase parental involvement of noncustodial parents in the lives of their children. Specific activities such as parent education, counseling, visitation, development of parenting plans and mediation, are eligible for funding. States are given oversight, monitoring, and evaluation responsibilities for utilization of grant funds. Some states are further along with their A&V programs, while others are just beginning to implement programs to increase parental involvement.

Allocations are made to each state from a $10 million appropriation. Each state must submit an application annually and provide a ten percent match to receive the funds.

Each state is given the leverage to explore initiatives and determine how families can benefit best from A&V funds. States administer A&V programs based on the prevailing needs of their respective populations.

Across the country, A&V programs are administered in different ways. In California, A&V funds are used to help finance a statewide-supervised visitation program. Missouri uses A&V funds to administer a statewide mediation program for its citizens. One year, the State of Michigan used A&V funds to develop an excellent two-part parent education video presentation that demonstrated to fathers how to effectively get involved with their children.

In Virginia, A&V funds are used to help finance community-based programs, some of which are quite unique. In Northern Virginia, a program that provides mediation, counseling, and education services to teenage parents, primarily Hispanic, benefits from A&V funding. A parent education and visitation program for incarcerated noncustodial parents in Williamsburg, Virginia and surrounding counties received A&V funding. In Newport News, A&V funding is used to help noncustodial parents, who may have fallen victim to substance abuse or incarceration, regain custody of their children. In Winchester, Virginia and surrounding counties, a parent education program where divorced parents are the predominant population served, A&V funds are used to foster healthier relationships between divorced parents and their children. Children also attend this program. At least four supervised visitation centers across the Commonwealth receive A&V funding.

We do not have information available on specific state efforts to target divorced fathers. Typically, divorced fathers are included in parent education, mediation, visitation, and counseling services offered under A&V programs.

A.  As I described in my written testimony to the Subcommittee, the National Council of Child Support Directors (NCCSD) supports a policy that allows a state, which is under automation penalties, to reinvest those penalties into program improvements and system compliance. You requested more information on that proposal. Therefore, I am including the full text of the NCCSD resolution describing this reinvestment approach. I am also including resolutions passed by the National Governor’s Association (NGA), the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) and the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), all of which support the same proposal for penalty reinvestment.

You also asked about the potential costs to the federal government of the reinvestment proposal. It is difficult to know any exact costs of reinvestment because penalties are in place only as long as a state remains out of compliance with system requirements. Once a state incurring penalties comes into compliance, the penalties end. Second, any federal costs will depend on how much a state elects to reinvest into its program and system development. Under the proposal described above, the penalty base is adjusted by the amount that a state spent for information technology in the previous year. Thus, any potential costs would depend on the amount that states incurring penalties are expending on information technology costs. What is known is the estimated penalty amount that states which are currently incurring penalties will pay in this budget year: South Carolina: $5.3 million; Michigan: $38.7 million; and California: $111 million. The estimated amounts for the next fiscal year are: South Carolina: $6.4 million; Michigan: $46.8 million; and California: $152 Million. Importantly, under this proposal any penalty amount reinvested is going directly into the Child Support Program to support system and program improvements.

Finally, you inquired about other reinvestment suggestions. One proposal currently calls for the establishment of a "base year" for both penalty amounts and reinvestment amounts. Under this concept the "base year" would be the fiscal year before the penalty was applied. The amount the state spent in that "base year" would be used to calculate the penalty for every year the state is under the penalty. In addition, the amount of the state’s general fund spent in the previous fiscal year that is in excess of the amount of the state’s general fund spent in the "base year" would be available for reinvestment. If reinvested in the IV-D program, the state’s penalty would be reduced by the amount reinvested. This approach clearly corrects the unintended consequence of penalizing someone for trying to fix a problem. For example, California’s penalty increased by 48.4 percent ($36.2 million) this year alone just because it has increased program spending. In Michigan, the penalty increased by 29.97 percent ($11.6 million) due to increased program spending. In South Carolina, spending did not significantly increase due to the state being in mediation with its contractor. South Carolina expects spending to increase in the next fiscal year in the 20-30 percent range. The cost of the reinvestment component would be based on whatever the states choose to reinvest up to the total amount of the penalty.

Q.  Is Virginia promoting fatherhood programs through your State’s child support office? Are these programs receiving support through TANF funds? What do other states do in terms of fatherhood program funding?

A.  In Virginia, the Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE) partners with the Virginia Fatherhood Campaign (VFC) through a Memorandum of Understanding between the two entities. DCSE grants funds to VFC for the purpose of promoting responsible fatherhood throughout the Commonwealth. VFC accomplishes this through seed grants to community Fatherhood programs, workshops for service providers, media advertising, printed materials and brochures for dissemination to the general public. DCSE employs a Fatherhood Coordinator whose responsibilities include educating the public about the child support program and fostering positive working relationships between community Fatherhood programs and DCSE. DCSE district offices are encouraged to collaborate with community Fatherhood programs.

In Virginia, TANF accounts for 100 percent of the funding granted to VFC through the Memorandum of Understanding between DCSE and VFC. In other states, TANF funds can and are used as well as combinations of TANF and State General Funds.

A.  There are no easy answers to the issue of funding the child support program in the face of decreasing collections for parents on welfare. A small piece of good news is that for the first time in several years, these collections in Virginia did not decrease. The National Council of Child Support Directors (NCCSD) recently conducted a survey of child support directors to solicit funding ideas. Some thoughts included increasing Federal Financial Participation (FFP) to 75 percent and eliminating the state share of retained collections, developing creative ways to use TANF block grant dollars to fund the child support program, and perhaps up-fronting the federal share of program costs instead of reimbursing costs after the fact. Any new concept will require additional analysis and study to assess the impact. NCCSD encourages Congress to work with states, OCSE and professional organizations to develop a viable funding structure to ensure adequate and stable funding for this critical program. NCCSD recently developed a resolution on funding for the child support program. The recommendations are repeated here.

The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services (OCSE) and Congress should provide for full and sustained Federal Financial Participation (FFP) for all aspects of the Child Support Program at current or enhanced levels.

Congress should ensure the continuation of 90 percentage FFP for genetic testing.

Congress should amend federal law to extend the use of 80 percent FFP to October 1, 2005, for enhancements to automated systems required by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, including implementation of the medical support notice which is required by federal regulations issued in March 2001.

When states are required to implement new mandates, or make substantial revisions to existing program requirements, Congress should provide enhanced FFP to reduce the impact on the states’ child support budgets.

To ensure timely and consistent implementation of any of the Medical Child Support Working Group’s recommendations that require State child support agencies to assume new responsibilities, Congress should provide enhanced 90 percent FFP for medical support activities for a limited 5-year period.

OCSE and Congress should work with state IV-D Directors to identify methods for ensuring that stable and adequate levels of investment in the program by federal, state, and local governments advances the child support program’s evolving mission and improves outcomes. This investment should reflect overall trends and future directions in the nation’s human services delivery system rather than a point-in-time analysis, and adhere to a set of principles that properly relate funding approaches to program needs, goals and performance.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide additional information on your questions.

If I may provide additional information, please call me directly at (804)692-1501.

Sincerely,

  Nathaniel L. Young, Jr.
President

National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership
Washington, DC 20036
July 12, 2001

Brookings Institution
Washington, DC 20036
July 25, 2001

    These were the first major programs that attempted to help poor fathers be better providers and better parents. The history of innovative social programs is one of major failures and minor successes. Thus, the key to success is to keep trying, as the nation did with welfare-to-work programs. Although the first generation of programs for poor fathers produced only modest positive outcomes, they did show that poor fathers were willing participants and that the overwhelming majority of poor fathers indicated that they wanted to do a much better job of having contact with children and providing support for them. The fact that more poor fathers paid child support is consistent with this conclusion.

National Women's Law Center
Washington, DC 20036
July 12, 2001

The Honorable Wally Herger, Chairman
Subcommittee on Human Resources
House Committee on Ways and Means

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to the additional questions posed by the Subcommittee following the hearing on June 28, 2001.

With the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), welfare became a time-limited program. ⁽¹⁾ Giving more child support to families while they are on welfare helps them to get this important source of income in place before they leave welfare, furthering PRWORA's goal of making welfare a transitional assistance program. Wisconsin's experimental policy of passing through all child support to families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and disregarding all of it in determining the TANF grant, has been demonstrated not to increase welfare stays. On the contrary, Wisconsin's full pass-through and disregard, as compared to a more limited pass-through policy, has stimulated an increase in child support payments that has enabled families to leave welfare more quickly, and provided additional income that can help them avoid a return to welfare.

To transform their welfare programs into programs of transitional assistance, most states have adopted policies to encourage families receiving TANF to develop the sources of income they will need when they leave TANF. Given the flexibility to develop their own policies concerning disregards for earned income, all but five states have adopted earnings disregards more generous than those that existed under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. ⁽²⁾ Although these policies also, in theory, could make it easier to stay on welfare, they have coincided with an increase in work participation and a dramatic decline in the welfare rolls. In addition, programs that increased family income as well as parental employment were found to produce improvements in child well-being that were not matched by programs that increased parental employment alone; and, the positive effects of earnings supplement programs on children were most pronounced for the children of long-term welfare recipients. ⁽³⁾

States have had less flexibility to experiment with giving more child support to families because of the requirement that they repay the federal share of all child support collections for children receiving TANF. Wisconsin, however, was able to pursue a full pass-through and disregard policy as part of its "W-2" program under a federal waiver it received before the passage of PRWORA. In this experiment, for most custodial parents receiving cash assistance, all child support paid was passed through to the family and disregarded in calculating their grant. A randomly assigned control group received only a partial pass-through and disregard of child support.

Wisconsin's full pass-through and disregard policy was found to increase significantly the percentage of noncustodial parents who paid support and the amount of support paid. ⁽⁴⁾ The effects were particularly strong among parents of children without a history of AFDC receipt, because they did not have expectations based on the old system, in which payments went to reimburse welfare costs. ⁽⁵⁾ Connecticut tested a more limited pass-through and disregard policy. In its "Jobs First" program, all child support was passed through and the disregard was increased from $50 to $100. Average child support payments for "Jobs First" participants were found to be higher than for the control group subject to AFDC rules. ⁽⁶⁾

Under Wisconsin's full pass-through and disregard policy, mothers received more child support than under the old rules, in part because of the increase in child support paid and in part because they were allowed to receive more child support income. However, refuting the concerns that some Members may have that such a policy would increase welfare stays, the researchers found that:

receiving child support is associated with an increased likelihood of moving to an upper tier [in which families receive supportive services but not cash] or off the program by the end of the first year. Thus, to the extent that the reform increases support, it may also decrease W-2 participation. ⁽⁷⁾

In addition, researchers found that the Wisconsin policy produced no difference in overall government costs, because cost savings in other programs offset the child support payments that were given to families instead of retained. ⁽⁸⁾

Receipt of child support also reduces the length of time a family receives welfare by helping families avoid a return to welfare and increasing their well-being. ⁽⁹⁾ Analysis of national data found that women receiving any amount of support are less likely to return to welfare; that support received by a young woman in the first years of a child's life is positively related to her later self-sufficiency; and that women who received support in each of the first five years after exiting welfare were among those who achieved modest levels of economic well-being. ⁽¹⁰⁾ A study in Washington State found that good child support payments were associated with lower recidivism rates, which substantially increased time off of welfare. ⁽¹¹⁾ An analysis in Texas found that for every $100 in child support received per quarter by a caretaker who left AFDC, the probability of welfare recidivism in that quarter was reduced by one percentage point, and the receipt of child support had over a three times larger effect on recidivism than an equivalent dollar amount of the caretaker's own earnings. ⁽¹²⁾ After reviewing all of the available research, the 1999 Report to Congress on child support and welfare recidivism concluded:

Based on research findings, even small amounts of child support payments reduce welfare recidivism ... As the residual [TANF] caseload decreases over time, it increasingly comprises hard-to-place individuals who face substantial barriers to employment. ...[T]he relative value of even incremental increases in child support will be greater for the hard to place. Additionally, if these individuals reside in a low-benefit State, the relative replacement value for the TANF grant will be greater. This combination of factors suggests that PRWORA distribution policies that increase child support payments to these families may have an even greater effect on welfare exits. ⁽¹³⁾

Congress has recognized the importance of giving more child support to families that have left welfare. PRWORA gave families leaving TANF greater claims to their past-due child support than they had under AFDC. This Subcommittee is considering H.R. 1471, which would eliminate remaining exceptions to "Family First" distribution for families that have left TANF. The changes to the post-TANF assignment and distribution rules in H.R. 1471 certainly would increase the amount of child support that families leaving TANF receive, and would help them avoid a return to welfare. However, changes that also would make it feasible for states to change the distribution rules for families while they are on welfare could produce additional increases in the amount and timeliness of the child support that families receive when they leave welfare for two reasons.

First, if child support payments were passed through to families while they were on welfare, there would be no disruption in payments when they left welfare. Although families are legally entitled to receive current support payments after they leave welfare, in practice there have been delays of several months in some states in redirecting payments from the state to the family. ⁽¹⁴⁾

Second, the incentive effects on support payments are likely to be greater if states are able to change the mission and message of the child support program in a more comprehensive way. As noted above, Wisconsin had a harder time explaining the new policy to families that had experienced the old system, and the increases in payments, although they occurred, were lower among prior recipients than among those new to the system. This suggests that the incentive effect would be greater if states could give parents a simple, consistent message: than whenever noncustodial parents pay support, whether their children are receiving assistance at the time or not, those payments directly increase their children's well-being. This would complement the efforts of programs working with low-income fathers to encourage and help them to provide more economic and emotional support to their children.

In sum, the evidence shows that giving more child support to families on welfare will make the child support program a more effective tool for promoting self sufficiency. At a minimum, federal policy should eliminate the barriers to states' adopting such policies.

As of January 1999, the latest date for which complete state-by-state information is available, slightly more than half the states (28, including the District of Columbia) did not pass through and disregard child support to families receiving TANF. Eighteen states passed through and disregarded child support up to various amounts: $50 per month (15 states), $40 (1 state), $75 (1 state), $100 (1 state). One state passed through and disregarded all child support for TANF recipients. Four states had policies other than a pass-through and disregard that permit TANF recipients to benefit from child support paid on their behalf. One of the four retained child support payments, but increased the TANF grant by up to $50 per month for those on whose behalf current support is collected. (This has the same effect on family income as a $50 pass-through and disregard, but is administered differently.) Three of the four had no specific child support disregard, but allowed recipients to use other income, including child support, to "fill the gap" between the state's maximum benefit and the income eligibility standard. If the earnings of a family receiving TANF did not fill the gap, child support income would be disregarded. (Two states with a $50 pass-through and disregard also had fill-the-gap policies.) ⁽¹⁵⁾

The Congressional Budget Office estimates, based on conversations with state representatives, that if federal law were changed to eliminate the requirement that states reimburse the federal share of child support collections passed through and disregarded for TANF families, about half the states that do not currently have a $50 pass-through and disregard would adopt such a policy (about 14 states). In addition, 10 to 20 percent of states that have a $50 pass-through and disregard would increase it (two to three states). ⁽¹⁶⁾

I know of no other estimates of the number of states that would change their policies in response to the legislation. However, organizations representing states have expressed both considerable interest in experimenting in this area and concerns about fiscal impacts in some states, ⁽¹⁷⁾ suggesting that state responses will vary.

    3. Please expand on the importance of requiring review and modification of child support orders for TANF recipients every three years and for reviewing the child support cases of families leaving TANF.

Making an extra effort to ensure that families leaving TANF receive appropriate child support and medical support would benefit families and reduce returns to welfare (see research cited in response to question 1, above). Unfortunately, few IV-D agencies are systematically undertaking such an effort. Requiring that IV-D agencies conduct a full review of the cases of families leaving TANF would ensure that states make a priority of improving services to this vulnerable population.

Under PRWORA, periodic reviews of child support orders are no longer required in TANF cases. States are supposed to notify all parents, TANF and non-TANF, custodial and noncustodial, every three years, of their right to request a review of their order. However, a 1999 review of state policies and practices in this area by the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services found that 18 states did not notify parents of their right to request a review, and nine had no plans to do so, despite the requirements of federal law. No state used proactive measures to promote review requests from parents close to exiting public assistance. And, although all states reported that it was their policy to check for and add medical support to orders they reviewed, in seven of the ten states visited by the OIG, the IV-D staff interviewed said that they did not always pursue medical support if the order did not otherwise require adjustment. ⁽¹⁸⁾ Without adequate notice to parents, including the financial information parents need to make an informed decision about whether to request a review, the current "on-request" review and modification system will not ensure that orders reflect the changing circumstances of parents and children.

Requiring that IV-D offices conduct a full case review for families leaving TANF and take additional actions, if appropriate, to locate noncustodial parents, establish paternity and support awards, review and modify awards, and collect support, could produce significant increases in child support. In 1999, only 24 percent of current assistance cases had collections as compared to 42 percent of never-assistance cases. ⁽¹⁹⁾ The main reason for the difference was that fewer current assistance cases had orders: 44 percent as compared to 64 percent of never-assistance cases. Once an order was established, the difference in collection rates was smaller; 56 percent of current assistance cases with orders had collections, as compared to 66 percent of never-assistance cases.

Intensively working the cases of parents who are about to leave welfare will require additional resources -- but can produce results. In Minnesota, for example, several years ago the state legislature offered performance bonuses to counties for establishing paternities, reviewing orders, and enrolling children in the noncustodial parent's insurance plan. Hennepin County substantially increased its staffing in those areas -- and increased the number of paternities established each month by 40 percent, conducted four times as many modification reviews, and increased threefold the number of children enrolled in the noncustodial parent's medical insurance plan. Moreover, results were obtained even in the older AFDC cases.

"[C]lients are now better prepared for self-sufficiency because more cases have orders and older orders now have higher amounts. We were much better prepared for welfare reform than we would have been without this program." ⁽²⁰⁾

    4. Dr. Johnson's testimony (in his attachment "NPCL Peer Learning College," Page 4) cites a report that suggests that...

"...arrears will remain high unless child support agencies enter realistic orders in low-income cases, compromise uncollectible arrears, and work cooperatively with community-based organizations and state agencies that can help noncustodial parents overcome the underlying problems that prevent them from getting and keeping the kinds of jobs needed to support their children."

Would you agree with his statement? What does it take to, for example, "compromise uncollectible arrears?"

I would agree generally with the statement, but emphasize that it refers to low-income obligors and to arrears owed to the state, not to custodial parents. Some arrearages accumulate because noncustodial parents with the ability to pay have avoided paying child support; however, those noncustodial parents and those arrearages are not the subject of Dr. Johnson's testimony, or this response.

The large arrearages that many low-income noncustodial parents owe to the state are a problem not only for them, but for custodial parents and children, as representatives of both groups explained in the "Common Ground" project of the National Women's Law Center and the Center on Fathers, Families, and Public Policy. ⁽²¹⁾ Many states pursue a variety of policies that create particularly high arrears for the low-income parents of children receiving public assistance. For example, the vast majority of states order noncustodial parents to pay retroactive support in public assistance cases, and a few order parents to reimburse Medicaid birthing costs, creating large debts to the state as soon as an order to pay support is entered. Orders may be entered that are unrelated to ability to pay; some states set a high percentage of their orders by default, and set the amount of the award by imputing income when the obligor's income or earning capacity is unknown. In the case of low-income obligors who have very low and sporadic earnings, these imputed orders may far exceed the obligors' ability to pay. Or, awards that are realistic when entered may be difficult or impossible to modify when circumstances change. ⁽²²⁾

Policies that create huge arrearages for low-income noncustodial parents make it less likely that these parents will make current support payments. The Inspector General found that noncustodial parents who were charged for more than 12 months of retroactive support were two and a half times more likely to make no support payments following the establishment of an order than noncustodial parents who were not charged retroactive support. ⁽²³⁾ Noncustodial parents that owe large arrearages, and face the prospect of having up to 65 percent of their wages garnished indefinitely for repayment of the debt, may quit their jobs, move, or join the underground economy, which is already an important source of income for some. ⁽²⁴⁾ Programs that work with low-income noncustodial fathers have found arrearage policies, along with policies that give current support payments to the state instead of to their children, to be major barriers to recruiting participants and encouraging them to participate in the formal child support system. ⁽²⁵⁾ Thus, harsh and unrealistic arrearage policies can deprive children of badly needed support, and ultimately increase public costs.

In addition to developing policies that prevent the build-up of arrearages, some states have begun to consider compromising arrears owed to the state. Under federal law, a child support obligation becomes a final judgment when it comes due and cannot be retroactively modified. 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9). However, as with other judgments, the individual or entity to whom the child support judgment is owed may agree to a compromise. Thus, states already have the ability to compromise arrearages permanently assigned to the state. ⁽²⁶⁾

States can consider a variety of factors in determining when and how they will compromise arrearages owed to the state. For example, the state could consider the source of the arrearage. Was it the result of an on-going failure to pay a support order by someone with the ability to pay? If so, compromise might be rejected. Or did it arise all at once, as retroactive support or for Medicaid reimbursement? Was the order, when set, based on unrealistic assumptions about the obligor's ability to pay? Did the arrearage accumulate while the obligor was unemployed, incapacitated, or incarcerated? States also could link forgiveness of the debt to current behavior; for example, tying adjustments to payment of current support or participation in a program. States also might treat forgiveness of interest or fees differently from forgiveness of the obligation, or limit forgiveness policies to low-income obligors. ⁽²⁷⁾

Principled policies allowing the compromise of arrearages owed to the state are consistent with the message of parental responsibility that the child support program seeks to convey. They recognize that some debts to the state are not only uncollectible today, but may have been unrealistic from the beginning, and that securing parental support for children should take precedence over cost recovery.

    5. In his testimony, Ron Haskins raises the issue that, as the welfare caseload declines, there are fewer potential child support collections for parents on welfare. This has been a partial funding source for operating child support programs. Aside from simply expecting the State or Federal governments to provide more funds to fill this gap, can you offer us any other creative ideas for addressing this problem, which is likely to be with us for the long term?

I would emphasize to the Subcommittee that the financing gap that is projected in the child support program is the result of declining welfare caseloads; state child support agencies have increased their collections per welfare case. If federal and state welfare policies are to continue to emphasize family self-sufficiency, with only transitional use of public assistance, then state and federal governments must be prepared to provide adequate and stable financing for the child support program to help families become self-sufficient and enforce the legal responsibility of parents to support their children. ⁽²⁸⁾

There is no easy alternative. Attempting to finance the child support system by charging families for the child support services they receive will not provide the child support enforcement system with a stable source of financing and would significantly harm the low and moderate income families who depend on the IV-D system. Over 75 percent of the families served by the IV-D program have incomes below 250% of poverty. ⁽²⁹⁾ They can ill afford to lose part of their child support income. Agencies might consider charging fees only to higher income families; but the small amount that could be collected from this small group of families would hardly justify the administrative expense.

It is for these reasons that few states make significant use of fees against voluntary users of the IV-D system. According to a report on the financing of the IV-D system done for the Department of Health and Human Services, child support fees collected from parents represented only two percent of the funds states use to finance their child support programs. And, although when the study was conducted state and federal governments were already aware that falling welfare caseloads would mean falling welfare collections, it also found that most states were not contemplating making greater use of fees. ⁽³⁰⁾

Some have suggested that fees could be paid by noncustodial parents instead of deducted from support. In the end, this approach also is likely to result in lower child support payments, especially for low-income families. Excessive fees could discourage parents from paying through the formal system, increase administrative costs as cases moved in and out of the IV-D system, and increase tensions between custodial and noncustodial parents. Child support awards could be reduced to adjust for the amount being charged in fees. Finally, for low-income noncustodial parents, assessing large fees could simply increase uncollectible arrearages, and ultimately reduce the amount of child support paid.

Ensuring that children receive support from both parents by enforcing support obligations and helping low-income parents to provide support is a vital public function. Effective child support enforcement not only increases family income and reduces reliance on public assistance, but is linked to reductions in divorce and nonmarital birth rates, ⁽³¹⁾ and to increases in children's educational attainment. ⁽³²⁾ Moreover, child support enforcement is a function that must be performed and financed jointly by the state and federal governments.

There are a number of important financing questions to consider: how much of the funding should come through incentive payments and how much through matching funds; whether the incentive system could work more effectively if the pool of funds was not capped; when states should be able to use TANF or TANF MOE funds for functions related to child support. However, the focus should be on restructuring public financing. Low-income families that are struggling to support themselves without public assistance should not be expected to continue to bear the burden of financing the child support enforcement program.

Sincerely,

Joan Entmacher 
Vice President and Director

1. Congress set a 60-month lifetime limit on federally funded TANF benefits and 20 states have adopted shorter time limits. State Policy Documentation Project (SPDP), State Time Limits on TANF Cash Assistance, (February 2000), http://www.spdp.org/tanf/timelimits/tlovervw.pdf.

2. SPDP, Financial Eligibility for TANF Cash Assistance (June 2000), http://www.spdp.org/tanf/ financial/finansumm.htm; Treatment of Earnings as of January 2000, http://www.spdp.org/tanf/ financial/treatmentearnings2000.PDF.

3. Pamela Morris et al., How Welfare and Work Policies Affect Children: A Synthesis of Research, ES-4-ES-6, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (March 2001).

4. Daniel Meyer and Maria Cancian, W-2 Child Support Demonstration Evaluation Phase 1: Final Report, Executive Summary, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin (2001), http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/irp/csde/phase1-vol1-es.htm.

5. Id., Volume II, Chapter 2, at 6-7.

6. Dan Bloom et al., Jobs First: Implementation and Early Impacts of Connecticut's Welfare Reform Initiative 119, 117, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (2000).

7. Id., Volume I, Chapter 4, at 49-50.

8. Id., Executive Summary.

9. See generally, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), 1999 Report to Congress: Analysis of the Impact on Welfare Recidivism of PRWORA Child Support Arrears Distribution Policy Changes, http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/ rpt/1999rpt/1999report.htm.

10. Daniel Meyer and Marcia Cancian, "Child Support and Economic Well-Being Following an Exit from AFDC," in OCSE, XIX Child Support Report (May 1997).

11. Carl Formoso, "Early Findings of the Effect of Child Support and Self-Sufficiency Programs in Washington State on Reducing Direct Support Public Costs," in OCSE, XXI Child Support Report (January 1999).

12. Deanna Schnexnayder et al., The Role of Child Support in Texas Welfare Dynamics 6, Center for the Study of Human Resources, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs (1998).

13. 1999 Report to Congress, supra, Executive Summary.

14. Vicki Turetsky, What If All the Money Came Home? 6, Center for Law and Social Policy (2000), http://www.clasp.org/pubs/childenforce/pilr2300.htm

15. Paula Roberts, State Policy Re: Pass-through and Disregard of Current Month's Child Support Collected for Families Receiving TANF-Funded Cash Assistance As of January 1, 1999, CLASP (1999), http://www.clasp.org/pubs/childenforce/1999cht.htm.

16. Information about the assumptions CBO used in estimating the cost of H.R. 4678 (106^th Congress) and H.R. 1471 (107^th Congress) obtained in conversations between NWLC staff and CBO analyst Sheila Dacey in fall 2000 and spring 2001.

17. See, e.g., American Public Human Services Association, Crossroads: New Directions in Social Policy 62 (2001, http://www.aphsa.org/reauthor/crossroads.pdf; National Governors' Association Policy Position, Child Support Financing Policy, Passthrough, § 14.3.1 (2001), http://www.nga.org/nga/legislativeUpdate/1,1169,C_POLICY_POSITION^D_530,00.html.

18. DHHS, OIG, Review and Adjustment of Support Orders 7-8, OEI-05-98-00100 (1999).

19. OCSE, Child Support Enforcement FY 99 Preliminary Data Report, Table 2 (2000).

20. OCSE, Compendium of State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement 2000, Fifth Edition, "Management Methods (Hennepin County Bonus Incentive Program), quoting Barry Bloombren, Hennepin County Child Support Division Manager, http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/reports/best/minnesota.html#N15ad.

21. National Women's Law Center and Center on Fathers, Families and Public Policy, Family Ties: Improving Paternity Establishment Practices and Procedures for Low-Income Mothers, Fathers and Children 9-11, 28, http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/commgrnd.pdf.

22. DHHS, OIG, The Establishment of Child Support Orders for Low-Income Non-custodial Parents, OEI-05-99-00390 (July 2000); Paula Roberts, An Ounce of Prevention and a Pound of Cure: Developing State Policy on the Payment of Child Support Arrears by Low Income Parents, CLASP (2001).

23. OIG, Establishment of Child Support Orders, supra.

24. Fragile Families Research Brief No. 3, Unwed Fathers, the Underground Economy, and Child Support Policy, Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing and Social Indicators Survey Center, Columbia University (January 2001).

25. Fred Doolittle and Suzanne Lynn, Lessons for the Child Support Enforcement System from Parents Fair Share, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (1998); Wendell Primus and Kristina Daugirdas, Improving Child Well-Being by Focusing on Low-Income Noncustodial Parents in Maryland, Abell Foundation (September 2000).

26. David Gray Ross, Commissioner, OCSE, "State IV-D Program Flexibility with Respect to Low-Income Obligors," PQI-00-13 (September 2000).

27. For more details on these and other options see Roberts, An Ounce of Prevention, supra.

28. See Turetsky, What If All the Money Came Home, supra.

29. DHHS, ASPE, Characteristics of Families Using Title IV-D Services in 1995 (1999).

30. Michael Fishman, et al., State Financing of Child Support Enforcement Programs, Final Report to DHHS/ASPE, Lewin Group (1999).

31. Irwin Garfinkel, Theresa Heintze, and Cheien-Chung Huang, Child Support Enforcement: Incentives and Well-Being 14, Paper Presented at the Conference on Incentive Effects of Tax and Transfer Policies, Washington, DC (2000); Burt Barnow et al., The Potential of the Child Support Enforcement Program to Avoid Costs to Public Programs: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature 39-45, Final Report Prepared for DHHS (April 2000).

32. Barnow, Potential of the Child Support Program, supra, at 46-48.

[Submissions for the record follow:]

Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents' Rights, Burbank, CA, John Smith, statement

Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc., Sacramento, CA, statement and attachment

Austin, Rev. Dennis, Salisbury, NC, statement and attachments

Brien, Robert E., Ledyard, CT, letter

Caffrey, Patrick R., Seeley Lake, MT, statement

Chandel, Tom, Bridgton, ME, letter

Children's Defense Fund, Daniel L. Hatcher, statement

Children's Legal Foundation, Charlotte, NC, Bill Wood, and Jay Gell, statement

Children's Rights Council, David L. Levy, statement

Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, Decatur, GA, Carnell A. Smith, letter and attachments

Comanor, William S., University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, letter

DADS of Michigan, P.A.C., Southfield, MI, James Semerad, letter and attachments

Davis, Martha, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York, NY, statement

Gell, Jay, Children's Legal Foundation, Charlotte, NC, statement

Green, Richard M., M.D., Los Angeles, CA, letter

Hatcher, Daniel L., Children's Defense Fund, statement

Hemenway, Jim, San Ramon, CA, letter

Hodges, William Whitley, Society of Just Men, Columbia, SC, letter

Levy, David L., Children's Rights Council, statement

NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York, NY, Jacqueline K. Payne, and Martha Davis, statement

Overton, James R., Pittsburgh, PA, letter

Payne, Jacqueline K., NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York, NY, statement

Peterson, Paul W., and Wendy G. Peterson, Cary, NC, statement

Protecting Marriage, Inc., Wilmington, DE, Phyllis H. Witcher, letter

Semerad, James, Dads of Michigan, P.A.C., Southfield, MI, letter and attachments

Smith, Carnell A., Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, Decatur, GA, letter and attachments

Smith, John, Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents' Rights, Burbank, CA, statement

Society of Just Men, Columbia, SC, William Whitley Hodges, letter

Witcher, Phyllis H., Protecting Marriage, Inc., Wilmington, DE, letter

Wood, Bill, Children's Legal Foundation, Charlotte, NC, statement