- FATHERHOOD LEGISLATION

PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
BILL THOMAS, California FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania
AMO HOUGHTON, New York SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
WALLY HERGER, California BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
DAVE CAMP, Michigan GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
SAM JOHNSON, Texas MICHAEL R. McNULTY, New York
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
MAC COLLINS, Georgia JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio XAVIER BECERRA, California
PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
MARK FOLEY, Florida

A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff

Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel

______

Subcommittee on Human Resources

NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut, Chairman

PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
RON LEWIS, Kentucky ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
MARK FOLEY, Florida WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana
DAVE CAMP, Michigan

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.

C O N T E N T S

__________

Page

Advisory of September 29, 1999, announcing the hearing........... 2

WITNESSES

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc.,
Toledo, OH, Geraldine Jensen, statement........................ 114
Bacarisse, Charles, Harris County, TX, statement................. 119
Coalition of Patent Support, Livermover, CA, Richard Bennett,
statement...................................................... 120
Supportkids.com, Austin, TX, Casey Hoffman, statement............ 123
Men's Health Network, Tracie Snitker, statement and attachments.. 125
Texas Office of the Attorney General, Child Support Division,
Howard G. Baldwin, Jr., letter................................. 135

FATHERHOOD LEGISLATION

----------

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1999

House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12 noon, in
room B-318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nancy L.
Johnson, (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]

Advisory

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225-1025

September 29, 1999

No. HR-11

Johnson Announces Hearing on Fatherhood Legislation

Congresswoman Nancy L. Johnson (R-CT), Chairman, Subcommittee on
Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced
that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on fatherhood legislation,
specifically the Fathers Count Act of 1999. A draft copy of the
legislation is now available in the Subcommittee Office in room B-317
Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing will take place on Tuesday,
October 5, 1999, in room B-318 of the Rayburn House Office Building,
beginning at 12:00 noon.

Oral testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only.
Witnesses will include representatives from the Administration,
individuals who administer programs for low-income fathers, child
support administrators, and advocacy groups. Any individual or
organization not scheduled for an oral appearance is encouraged to
submit written comments on the proposed legislation for consideration
by the Subcommittee and for inclusion in the printed record of the
hearing.

BACKGROUND:

Numerous studies suggest that unmarried poor fathers tend to have
elevated rates of unemployment and incarceration compared to other
fathers. These problems make it difficult for them to marry and form
two-parent families and to play a positive role in the rearing of their
children. As the consequence of the failure of the father to play a
prominent family role, children, especially boys, repeat the cycle of
school failure, delinquency and crime, unemployment, and nonmarital
births.

The Fathers Count Act of 1999 is designed to prevent the
unfortunate cycle of children being reared in fatherless families by
supporting projects that help fathers meet their responsibilities as
husbands, parents, and providers. The bill is aimed at promoting
marriage among parents, helping poor and low-income fathers establish
positive relationships with their children and the children's mothers,
promoting responsible parenting, and increasing family income by
strengthening the father's earning power. The legislation aims to
accomplish these goals by awarding grants to governmental and
nongovernmental organizations that apply to the Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services; grants will be awarded on a
competitive basis. Some contend that government agencies can best
conduct fatherhood programs. However, because the authors believe that
helping poor and low-income fathers is best achieved by organizations
that are indigenous to their own neighborhoods, the legislation
reserves 75 percent of its grant funds for nongovernmental, especially
community-based organizations.

Projects must coordinate their activities with the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, the Workforce Investment
Act (P.L. 105-220), and the local child support enforcement agency.
Some argue that the requirement that projects be coordinated with the
child support enforcement agency, the TANF agency, and the agency
conducting Workforce Investment Act programs will reduce the number of
grant proposals because of the difficulty of receiving cooperation from
so many agencies. On the other hand, given the vital role of child
support and employment preparation in programs for poor and low-income
fathers, coordination with these agencies seems necessary.

Preference is given to projects that have an assurance from the
child support enforcement agency that all payments on arrearages owed
to the State will be given to mothers if the mother has left welfare.
Because recent research shows that around half the mothers and fathers
or children born outside marriage are cohabiting, and over 80 percent
say they are in an exclusive relationship that one or both partners
hopes will lead to marriage, the legislation requires half its grant
funds to be spent on projects that emphasize the enrollment of fathers
at the time of the child's birth.

Chairman Johnson and Rep. Ben Cardin (D-MD) are expected to
formally introduce the Fathers Count Act shortly.

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Johnson stated: ``The 1996
welfare reform law has been very successful in helping poor mothers get
jobs and improve their economic circumstances. The next logical step in
reforming welfare is to help poor fathers improve their economic
circumstances and participate directly in the rearing of their
children. To accomplish this goal, we must support programs that focus
on improving relationships between poor young men and women to increase
the prospects that they can marry and form two-parent families or at a
minimum, work together to rear their children. Promoting marriage and
two-parent families, and aggressively helping these men become
responsible parents, is the next step in welfare reform.''

FOCUS OF THE HEARING:

The purpose of the hearing is to receive comments on the Fathers
Count Act. Although the Subcommittee is interested in comments on any
issue raised by the legislation, it is especially interested in
comments on the following issues: whether fatherhood services should be
provided primarily by nongovernmental or governmental entities; what
the level of coordination should be with child support enforcement
agencies, the TANF agency, and the agency conducting Workforce
Investment Act programs; whether child support arrearages should be
given to mothers if the mother has left welfare, whether this would
require amendments in State law, and whether the assurance would be too
difficult for projects to obtain; whether the approach of earmarking
funds for projects that emphasize the enrollment of fathers at the time
of the child's birth is a good one, and whether the requirement that
half of grant funds be expended on these projects is too high or too
low. The Subcommittee will also receive testimony during this hearing
on expanding access to government child support enforcement procedures.

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:

Any person or organization wishing to submit a written statement
for the printed record of the hearing should submit six (6) single-
spaced copies of their statement, along with an IBM compatible 3.5-inch
diskette in WordPerfect 5.1 format, with their name, address, and
hearing date noted on a label, by the close of business, Tuesday,
October 5, 1999, to A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways
and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 1102 Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. If those filing written statements
wish to have their statements distributed to the press and interested
public at the hearing, they may deliver 200 additional copies for this
purpose to the Subcommittee on Human Resources office, room B-317
Rayburn House Office Building, by close of business the day before the
hearing.

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:

Each statement presented for printing to the Committee by a
witness, any written statement or exhibit submitted for the printed
record or any written comments in response to a request for written
comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any statement or
exhibit not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed,
but will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the
Committee.

1. All statements and any accompanying exhibits for printing must
be submitted on an IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette WordPerfect 5.1
format, typed in single space and may not exceed a total of 10 pages
including attachments. Witnesses are advised that the Committee will
rely on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing
record.

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not
be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be
referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting
these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for
review and use by the Committee.

3. A witness appearing at a public hearing, or submitting a
statement for the record of a public hearing, or submitting written
comments in response to a published request for comments by the
Committee, must include on his statement or submission a list of all
clients, persons, or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears.

4. A supplemental sheet must accompany each statement listing the
name, company, address, telephone and fax numbers where the witness or
the designated representative may be reached. This supplemental sheet
will not be included in the printed record.

The above restrictions and limitations apply only to material being
submitted for printing. Statements and exhibits or supplementary
material submitted solely for distribution to the Members, the press,
and the public during the course of a public hearing may be submitted
in other forms.

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on
the World Wide Web at ``HTTP://WWW.HOUSE.GOV/WAYS__MEANS/''.

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons
with disabilities. If you are in need of special accommodations, please
call 202-225-1721 or 202-226-3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four
business days notice is requested). Questions with regard to special
accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee
materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as
noted above.

Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. I am very pleased to be
calling today's hearing to order.
Welfare reform has succeeded beyond our expectations. For
several consecutive years, welfare rolls are down; employment
by mothers, especially never-married mothers, is up; and child
poverty is down. But I am concerned that some children and
families leaving welfare appear not to be receiving the
Medicaid and food stamps to which they are entitled and that we
need to do more to help families with multiple barriers to
entering the work force of our country.
Even with welfare reform a striking success, we must not
fail to move forward. To take the next step in welfare reform,
we must find a way--or I should say one important next step in
welfare reform is to find a way to help children by providing
them with more than a working mother and sporadic child
support.
In recent years, both through research and testimony in our
Subcommittee, we have learned a lot about fathers, the fathers
of children in families that become dependent on welfare. More
specifically, I would say that we have learned three big things
about these fathers.
First, poor fathers have problems very similar to those of
the mothers who become dependent on welfare. They have poor
education, poor work histories and significant barriers to
work, such as addictions and prison records. Some have coined a
new term for these fathers. Rather than deadbeat, they are
``dead broke'' and under current law we have very few programs
designed to help these fathers meet their obligations and
fulfill their potential.
On this first point, I am increasingly uncomfortable with
how harsh our rhetoric has become about fathers who do not pay
child support. Yes, fathers must pay child support, but when
young men have trouble finding and holding employment, we
should blame less and help more. Our harsh rhetoric should be
reserved for those who could pay and don't or those who refuse
to work and so can't pay. For them, no rhetoric is too harsh.
Second, I think almost everyone has been amazed to find how
many of these young, unmarried parents are living together at
the time of the child's birth. Princeton Professor Sara
McLanahan testified before our Subcommittee that half of these
couples cohabitate, and an additional 30 percent tell
interviewers they are involved in an exclusive relationship
that they hope will lead to a permanent relationship, perhaps
even to marriage. That is up to 80 percent now. I think that
these parents have a close relationship that they want to keep
is a good foundation to build on.
I know that talk about marriage in this context may seem
uncomfortable, but all the data affirm that the incidence of
poverty, underachievement and abuse are simply far greater in
one-parent households. Marriage is good for both adults and
children, and public policy must begin to reflect that fact.
We should not compel young couples to marry, but we should
certainly hold it out as the expected standard and provide
training to develop the skills that are necessary for a
successful relationship. In fact, part of the problem seems to
be that our society ceased to expect poor people to marry and
that there was nothing wrong with millions of poor children
being reared by single mothers, often on welfare.
This view is completely out of touch with what we know
about what it takes to make adults happy and healthy and, even
more to the point, what it takes to rear strong and
accomplished children. Marriage is good for both poor and
nonpoor, for adults and children. If we can restore marriage to
its rightful place at all levels of our society, we will have
accomplished more than could be achieved by any government
program we might design.
Third, based on the Parent's Fair Share research and on
testimony before this Subcommittee, I think we have learned a
very important thing about young fathers. Even those with
criminal records, and those who have never held a steady job,
want to help their children and do what is best for them. Many
of these young men say they don't want their children to grow
up without a father the way they did. This finding that poor
young fathers have a great desire to do what is best for their
children, like everyone else, provides us with an anchor around
which we can build good programs and provide the help so
desperately needed. And build these programs we must. Hence
today's hearing.
Ben Cardin and I have written legislation that will provide
money to create scores of fatherhood programs to help these
young fathers in three ways: by understanding marriage, by
promoting better parenting, including more contact with
children and payment for child support, and by helping poor
fathers find jobs and improve their skills across the board.
Senator Bayh and others have written similar legislation in the
Senate, and we look forward to working with them.
Our legislation would create a national competition to
select promising projects, most of which must be community
based, including faith based. They must be coordinated with
local child support offices and with both the agency conducting
the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families programs,
particularly the paternity identification, subprogram of TANF,
and the work force investment board. Projects are strongly
encouraged to pass through all child support payments to
mothers once they have left welfare. This is a very big issue
we are interested in.
We would spend about $140 million funding these projects
for 4 years. In addition, we are going to spend several million
on an evaluation of the best projects to see if the projects
are actually having effects on the father's employment, on
relations with children and mothers, marriage and payment of
child support.
We have provided advance copies of the draft bill to our
witnesses today and to all interested parties. The Subcommittee
has already received very useful comments from the public, and
we look forward to receiving more after today's hearing, after
we hear from our distinguished witnesses.
We have a real opportunity to help these fathers and, by
doing so, to help the most disadvantaged children and mothers
in our Nation. Ben Cardin and I intend to pass this legislation
through the House in the very near future; and then, with
Senator Bayh's able assistance, we hope to move it through the
Senate to be signed by the President.
I would like to yield to my colleague, Mr. Cardin.
Mr. Cardin. Thank you, Madam Chairman. We are going to need
help to, just the two of us, to pass it through the House, but
I am optimistic when I look around the room and see the
interest in this hearing on fatherhood initiatives. This is a
very impressive group of people who are here, and I want to
compliment you for not only holding this hearing but working in
a very energetic, bipartisan way to bring all of us together so
that we could get a fatherhood initiative introduced and
hopefully enacted in this Congress.
I want to acknowledge the presence of Senator Bayh, who has
been one of the leading individuals in our Nation on this issue
in the U.S. Senate, and Congressman Shaw, who is the former
Chair of this Subcommittee who has been speaking for years
about trying to do a fatherhood initiative in the House of
Representatives.
And it is a pleasure to have my friend Julia Carson here,
who is one of the most articulate individuals on dealing with
the problems of low-income individuals, including noncustodial
fathers to be closer to the family unit.
So we have in our first panel three members of the Congress
who have really been national leaders on this issue.
The Chair and I have circulated a draft legislation that we
hope will be helpful in today's hearing. It, we believe, is an
important step but certainly not the last step in helping
fathers carry out their responsibility and be part of the
family unit. It is a very important step.
Now, I might tell you, we are working in a bipartisan way.
There have been many suggestions that have been made, including
those of the administration, to reauthorize the welfare-to-work
program and expand it and provide moneys for the fatherhood
program, which I support. What we are trying to do today is get
a bill that can be signed into law. We don't have a budget yet.
So we are working with a bill that has to be paid for, and it
is difficult to find offsets. We would have liked to do more,
but this is what we can come up with in a bipartisan way that
we hope can receive support and be enacted.
Let me just stress how important I think it is for us to
move forward on a fatherhood initiative. Noncustodial fathers
want to help their families, but many lack regular employment
and have significant problems that need to be addressed. As the
Chair pointed out, they are not deadbeat, they are dead broke,
and we need to do something about that.
It is also unfair to expect a low-income mother to bear all
the responsibilities of financially raising a child. They need
the assistance of the father, and a child is going to be better
off financially and emotionally if both the mother and father
participate in the rearing of that child. So these initiatives,
I believe, are very, very important.
I am proud to say that the legislation that we have
circulated encourages innovative child support policies such as
suspending State-owed arrears for participating parents, of
passing through more of that child support to the family
itself. So we think that can help in bringing together the
father and the mother more into the family unit.
We also expand eligibility and allowable activities under
the current welfare-to-work program, and I think this is very
important. We have a program out there, welfare to work, and it
can help, including in fatherhood initiatives. The problem is
that the current restrictions prevent us from getting that
money out to where it is needed. So, in the legislation that we
have circulated, we have adopted the recommendations of the
United States Conference of mayors, the National Governors'
Association and the National Association of Counties in an
effort to allow the welfare-to-work program to really work and
to help also in this area.
I might tell you that this is a work in progress. There are
issues that are still unresolved in the legislation that we
have circulated, and that is why this hearing becomes so
important.
I am interested in your views on the draft legislation. I
am interested in your views as to whether the initiative should
be extended to noncustodial mothers in addition to noncustodial
fathers. These are issues that we have not yet closed between
the Chair and myself and the reason why we encourage you to be
open and frank in your discussions today.
Madam Chair, I look forward to hearing from all of our
witnesses, and I want to welcome again our three distinguished
colleagues.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you.
I would like to welcome the Senator, but, before I do that,
I want to thank my friend and colleague, Hon. Clay Shaw, former
Chairman of the Subcommittee, for yielding to the Senator.
It should be noted that Clay, as Chairman of this
Subcommittee, actually introduced legislation and began the
process of developing the thinking along these lines in the
House about how we better support fatherhood, and I am
delighted to have him here today.
And I thank you, Senator, for coming across and talking
with us about this important subject today.

STATEMENT OF HON. EVAN BAYH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
INDIANA

Senator Bayh. Thank you, Chairman Johnson. I want to thank
both you and Congressman Cardin for your hospitality today and
your gracious words, but more than that I want to thank you for
your leadership in taking on what I think is one of the most
important challenges facing our country today.
As you pointed out, our gathering today is bipartisan. It
is also bicameral, and I am happy to be in the people's House
today on this side of the Capitol. It struck me in my 9 months
here how infrequently we do get together, but the fact that we
are together here today on this issue I think is testimony to
how important it really is.
Congressman Shaw, I also want to thank you not only for
your courtesy here this morning but also your leadership. The
legislation you introduced last year sparked an important
debate on how best to deal with this important challenge facing
our country, and so I am grateful to you for that, as well as
your kindness today.
And finally, Madam Chairman, I want to say a word or two
about not only my colleague, but my congresswoman, Julia
Carson, who I have had the pleasure of working with for many,
many years; and Julia has been in the frontlines of this battle
before her coming to the U.S. Congress as trustee of Center
Township in Indianapolis. She is known as someone who cares
about children, who cares about families.
Julia, it is good to be here with you again today fighting
the good fight, and I thank you for your leadership and
friendship.
The irony in America's unprecedented economic prosperity
today is the fact that many Americans still feel that the
country is somehow or another off on the wrong track. There
seems to be a fraying of the social fabric, and many indicators
point to the increase in absentee fathers as a primary cause.
America's mothers, including single moms, are heroic in
their efforts to make ends meet financially while raising good,
responsible children. Many dads are, too. But an increasing
number of men simply aren't doing their part or are absent
altogether. When both parents are involved, children are more
likely to learn about personal responsibility, respect, honor,
duty and the other values that make our communities strong. The
troubling decline in the involvement of fathers in the lives of
their children over the last 40 years is a trend that should
worry us all.
The number of children living in-households without fathers
has tripled, tripled over the last 40 years, from just over 5
million in 1960 to more than 17 million today. The United
States, unfortunately, leads the world in fatherless families,
and too many children spend their lives without any contact
with their fathers whatsoever.
The consequences of this dramatic decrease in the
involvement of fathers in the lives of their children are
severe. For example, a recent Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency study found that the best predictor of violent
crime and burglary in a community is not poverty but the
proportion of fatherless homes in that community.
When fathers are absent from their lives, children are five
times more likely to live in poverty; twice as likely to commit
crimes; more likely to bring weapons and drugs into the
classroom; twice as likely to drop out of school; twice as
likely to be abused; more likely to commit suicide; over twice
as likely to abuse drugs and alcohol; and more likely to become
pregnant as teenagers.
Fortunately, community efforts have sprung up around the
country to stem the rising tide of fatherless families and the
consequences that result. This Subcommittee will soon hear from
some of the leading experts in the field, several of whom I am
happy to say were instrumental in helping Indiana start the
Nation's first statewide comprehensive effort to tackle the
problem of fatherlessness, helping over 5,000 Hoosier fathers
to reconnect with their children.
I have had the opportunity to work with and visit local
fatherhood programs in my State. I have talked to fathers as
they work to reengage with their children, learn how to become
better parents and gradually build the trust that allows them
to become emotionally as well as financially involved with
their families.
Just this past Friday, I was at the Father Resource Program
run by Dr. Wallace McLaughlin in Indianapolis. This program is
a wonderful example of a local, private/public partnership that
delivers results. It has served more than 500 fathers,
primarily young men between the ages of 15 and 25, by providing
father peer support meetings, premarital counseling, family
development forums and family support services, as well as
coparenting, employment, job training, education and other life
skills classes.
The fathers there were eager to tell me when I asked about
the difference these programs have made not only in their lives
but in the lives of their children. One said to me, and I
quote, ``After the 6-week fatherhood training program, the
support doesn't stop. I was wild before, but this program
taught me self-respect, parenting skills, responsibility.''
Another one of the fathers said, quote, ``As fathers, we
would like to interact with our kids. When they grow up into
something, we want to feel proud and say that we are a part of
that.''
And yet another added, ``The program showed me how to have
a better relationship with my child's mother, a better
relationship with my child. Before, those relationships were
just financial.''
While the program's emotional benefits to families are
difficult to measure we do know it has been successful in
helping fathers enter the work force. Over 80 percent of the
men who have graduated from the program are currently employed;
and your bill, Congressman, would make a significant investment
to help programs like these flourish and encourage new ones to
develop.
The investment called for by your legislation is fiscally
responsible. It helps deal with the root causes, not just the
symptoms, of many of the social problems that cost our society
a great deal of money. Just a few examples:
The cost to society of drug and alcohol abuse is more than
$110 billion per year. The Federal Government currently spends
$8 billion a year on dropout prevention programs, $105 billion
on poverty relief programs for family and children. The social
and economic consequences of teen pregnancy and associated
problems are estimated to be $21 billion per year.
All this adds up to a staggering price that we pay for the
consequences of our fraying social fabric, broken families, and
too many men who are not involved with their kids. Your bill
will begin--one life at a time, one community at a time--to
help make a real difference and will prove that the old adage
that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is
absolutely true.
Now, I want to emphasize, in concluding, that I know, as I
am sure the rest of us here recognize, that government alone
cannot solve this problem. We can't legislate parental
responsibility. But government can encourage fathers to behave
responsibly, government can inform the public about the
consequences of irresponsible behavior, and government can
remove the barriers that currently exist in present law to
responsible fatherhood.
Again, I want to thank the Chairman, Congressman Cardin,
Congressman Shaw and Julia and others who have been working on
this issue. The Johnson-Cardin bill is similar in many respects
to the Bayh-Domenici Responsible Fatherhood Act we introduced
in the U.S. Senate. You make important reforms to the welfare-
to-work program, deal with the challenges in our child support
system, create a grant program to expand access to programs
like the Father Resource Program in Indianapolis and create a
national clearinghouse to coordinate a media campaign and
evaluate the success of our overall effort. I would like to
continue working with you to see to it that this hearing leads
to meaningful action to help deal with what is one of the
foremost challenges of our time.
Again, I thank you for your courtesy, and I look forward to
working with you in a bipartisan way to make progress on this
important issue. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you very much for
your testimony, Senator, and for the good data that you brought
to us through that means.
[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Hon. Evan Bayh, a U.S. Senator from the State of Indiana

Thank you Chairman Johnson for holding this hearing today.
You and Congressman Cardin have shown both bipartisanship and
true leadership in putting this bill together. It deals with
one of the greatest social challenges of our time--the
increasing prevalence of fatherlessness. I also want to
acknowledge the work of Chairman Shaw in this area. His bill
last year helped spark a healthy debate about how to best deal
with this problem.
The irony in America's unprecedented economic prosperity is
that many Americans still feel the country is on the wrong
track. There seems to be a fraying of the social fabric and
many indicators point to the increase in absentee fathers as
the cause.
America's mothers, including single moms, are heroic in
their efforts to make ends meet financially while raising good,
responsible children. Many dads are too. But an increasing
number of men are not doing their part--or are absent entirely.
When both parents are involved, children are more likely to
learn about respect, honor, duty and the values that make our
communities strong. The troubling decline in the involvement of
fathers in the lives of their children over the last 40 years
is a trend that should worry us all.
The number of children living in households without fathers
has tripled over the last forty years, from just over 5 million
in 1960 to more than 17 million today. The United States leads
the world in fatherless families and too many children spend
their lives without any contact with their fathers. The
consequences of this dramatic decrease in the involvement of
fathers in the lives of their children are severe. For example,
The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency study found
that the best predictor of violent crime and burglary in a
community is not poverty, but the proportion of fatherless
homes in that community.
When fathers are absent from their lives, children are:
5 times more likely to live in poverty;
twice as likely to commit crimes;
more likely to bring weapons and drugs into the
classroom;
twice as likely to drop out of school;
twice as likely to be abused;
more likely to commit suicide;
over twice as likely to abuse alcohol or drugs;
and
more likely to become pregnant as teenagers.
Community efforts have sprung up around the country to stem
the rising tide of fatherless families and the consequences
that result. This Committee will hear from some of the leading
experts in the field. Several were instrumental in helping
Indiana start the nation's first statewide comprehensive effort
to tackle the problem of fatherlessness, helping over 5,000
Hoosier fathers to reconnect to their children.
I have had the opportunity to work with and visit local
fatherhood programs in Indiana. I have talked to fathers as
they work to re-engage with their children, learn how to be
better parents, and gradually build the trust that allows them
to be involved emotionally, as well as financially, with their
children.
Just this past Friday, I was at the Father Resource
Program, run by Dr. Wallace McLaughlin in Indianapolis. This
program is a wonderful example of a local, private/public
partnership that delivers results. It has served more than 500
fathers, primarily young men between the ages of 15 and 25, by
providing father peer support meetings, pre-marital counseling,
family development forums and family support services, as well
as co-parenting, employment, job training, education, and life
skills classes.
The fathers there were eager to tell me when I asked about
the difference these programs have made in their lives and the
lives of their children.
One said to me, ``After the six week fatherhood training
program, the support doesn't stop...I was wild before. The
program taught me self-discipline, parenting skills,
responsibility.''
Another said, ``As fathers, we would like to interact with
our kids. When they grow into something, we want to feel proud
and say that we were a part of that.''
And yet another, ``The program showed me how to have a
better relationship with my child's mother, and a better
relationship with my child. Before those relationships were
just financial.''
While the program's emotional benefits to families are
difficult to measure we do know it is helping fathers enter the
workforce. Over 80% of the men who have graduated from the
program are currently employed. Your bill would make a
significant investment to help programs like these flourish and
encourage new ones to develop.
The investment called for in this legislation is fiscally
responsible--it helps deal with the root causes, not just the
symptoms, of many of the social problems that cost our society
a great deal of money.
The cost to society of drug and alcohol abuse is
more than $110 billion per year.
The federal government spends $8 billion a year on
dropout prevention programs.
Last year we spent more than $105 billion on
poverty relief programs for families and children.
The social and economic costs of teenage
pregnancy, abortion and sexually transmitted diseases has been
estimated at over $21 billion per year.
All this adds up to a staggering price we pay for the
consequences of our fraying social fabric, broken families and
too many men not being involved with their kids. Your bill will
begin--one life at a time, one community at a time--to help and
is a perfect example of the truth in the old adage: an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure.
I know that government cannot be the answer to this
problem. We cannot legislate parental responsibility. But
government can encourage fathers to behave responsibly, inform
the public about the consequences of irresponsibility, and
remove barriers to responsible fatherhood.
I want to thank Chairman Johnson and Congressman Cardin for
your continuing work on this issue. The Johnson/Cardin bill is
similar in many respects to the Bayh/Domenici Responsible
Fatherhood Act of 1999. You make important reforms to the
Welfare to Work program, deal with challenges in our child
support system, create a grant program to expand access to
programs like the Father Resource Program in Indianapolis, and
create a National Clearinghouse to coordinate a media campaign
and evaluate the success of the overall effort. I would like to
continue working with you to ensure that your approach
encourages Governors to take up this fight and provides them
with the resources and relief from federal strings to make a
real impact.
Again, thank you Chairman Johnson and Congressman Cardin
for holding this bipartisan hearing. I believe you have built
on the momentum of our bipartisan effort in the Senate and look
forward to working to help secure passage of important
legislation in this area.

Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Congressman Shaw, it is a
pleasure to have you.

STATEMENT OF HON. E. CLAY SHAW, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. Shaw. It is nice to be back. This is my first trip back
to this old Subcommittee, and I must say, Madam Chairman, you
look very good sitting there, and I am pleased to have you
there. And I want to compliment you and Mr. Cardin in working
together in a bipartisan way on such a big, big piece of
legislation that is so necessary.
I have no written statement, but I would like to speak just
for a few moments from my heart to let you know how I feel
about where we have come from and where we must go.
Mr. Camp can testify to a number of years ago on this
Subcommittee where there was no such thing as bipartisanship.
We went through some very, very tough times of name calling. We
were called mean spirited.
I recall when we brought welfare reform to the floor, there
was one member on the Minority side that all but referred to us
as Nazis, making a comparison as to the Holocaust as to what we
were doing to children.
In the end, we did pull together; and we did come up with a
bill after it was vetoed a few times that the President did
sign on August 22, 1996, which probably has made more
difference in the lives of single moms and children of anything
that has ever been done. It simply taught self-esteem. For
people that nothing was expected of, suddenly we changed that,
and we did expect something of them, and we found that when you
expect something of somebody, they will make something of
themselves.
That is where we are today, and we have seen that welfare
reform has been, I think, perhaps the greatest social
experiment of this century, and I think that the rest of the
world will be looking at what we have been able to accomplish
and probably follow our example. I would certainly hope so.
But we are leaving one segment of the population behind,
and that is the man that has fathered these children who are
born of these single moms, and those are the ones that we have
got to get to. We will be putting together an artificial type
of population if we continue along these lines without going
after the father to give him self-esteem, to see that he bonds
with his kids.
It is important for us to realize, just as these single
moms and people that were on welfare for a generation had no
role models, they had no one in the home that had ever held a
job, these fathers have never lived in a home where there was a
father. We all need role models, and why shouldn't it be our
mother and our father, whether they be married or not? And that
is what this fatherhood initiative does.
I recall when we first introduced this, Ron Haskins and I
were working on it, and I know some of the conservative talk
shows thought we had lost our mind in bringing forth some
legislation such as this, but we are going after the roots of
poverty, the reason for poverty. It is not a question of just
keeping people in a certain level, economic level, and just
making them as comfortable as possible and not expecting
anything of them. It is to take particularly these guys off of
the street corner, have them bond with their kids, and they can
then be the role model for their kids, and that is the way it
should be. I think that is exactly what is absolutely needed.
We hear the expression so much that it takes a village to
raise a child. Well, that is fine to say, but primarily and
first of all, it takes a mom and a father to raise a child, and
that is where that responsibility lies.
We hear so much about different educational programs, but
you can talk to anyone you want to and if things are not right
at home, I don't care how much money you spend in the
classroom, you are going to have failing children, and this is
what is important. We need to get to the roots of what is out
there and solve some of these problems and bring these people
together.
So, again, I want to compliment this Subcommittee in
bringing this forward in such a bipartisan manner and the
Senator for carrying this companion legislation in the Senate.
This is terribly important, and it is very important that we
bring balance to welfare reform, and this is what it is going
to take, and I congratulate you on the progress that you have
made. I wish we had this bipartisanship on Social Security, and
we would get that solved, too.
Mr. Cardin. Maybe it is the Chairman.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Your comments are really
right on target, Mr. Shaw, and it was that kind of foundation
that you laid in the last session, as difficult as that session
was, that has enabled us to go forward.
I also can't help but reflect that in a way this is the
ultimate in women's liberation, that we should begin seeing
women and men actually the same way as human beings, with
certain requirements and needs and capabilities.
It is a pleasure now to welcome our colleague from the
House and also from Indiana, Hon. Julia Carson; and like I have
said before, you have come to this issue with a lot of
experience. Pleasure to have you.

STATEMENT OF HON. JULIA CARSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

Ms. Carson. Thank you very much. I feel honored. I am a
fan of Congresswoman Nancy Johnson even though we come from
different parts of the country and certainly come from
different political philosophies and affiliations. She does a
great job in the Congress, and I am happy that you are chairing
this Subcommittee.
And, Congressman Cardin, I could spend the rest of my
limited time giving you the praise. It is good to be here and
certainly with Hon. U.S. Senator Evan Bayh from the State of
Indiana where we both hail, so all of you who have had feelings
about Indiana know that we are here to change that image,
whatever that might have been, and certainly to Congressman
Shaw for all that he has done, his foresight and his wisdom.
I come, I guess, as an expert witness. I was raised by a
single mother, born out of wedlock, and I know firsthand what a
lonesome feeling it is out in a big country when you don't even
have your father's name.
As a matter of fact, when I was a member of the Indiana
General Assembly I authorized legislation that said that if a
father was present and near when a child was born, that
paternity was established at birth rather than through a court
system, and the father's name would be on the child's birth
certificate before the child left the hospital, before coming
to the planet Earth. That has worked well. It does good for
children to have both a mother and father's name affixed to a
birth certificate, a child be born in a father's name. And so I
thank you for the opportunity to testify here today on the
Fathers Count Act of 1999.
Nearly 25 million children, I guess more than one out of
three, live absent of their biological father, and 17 million
kids live without a father of any kind. About 40 percent of
children living in fatherless households have not even seen
their father in at least a year, and 50 percent of children who
do not live with their fathers have never stepped foot into
their father's home, and many have never stepped inside of
their father's arms or their father's heart.
The situation is even worse, unfortunately, for African-
American children, 70 percent of whom are born to single
mothers and at least 80 percent can expect to spend a
significant part of their childhood years living apart from
their fathers. I believe we can agree that father absenteeism
is a national problem that must be addressed to ensure the
wellness and well-being of American children in the century
ahead. For too long legislators and policymakers have ignored
the father-child relationship; and I agree, Chairman Johnson,
it is not always about deadbeat but about dead broke. It is
about time that this issue gets full consideration by the
Congress, and if it pleases the Subcommittee, I request that my
testimony be entered into the record for the sake of time.
I, too, am excited about this bipartisan relationship that
has taken center stage in this Subcommittee, and I want to
thank again Chairman Johnson for her leadership on fatherhood
legislation and all of the wonderful people who are involved in
this effort.
I consider myself to be rather fortunate. I recently had
the benefit of well-known scholars, along with Senator Bayh and
practitioners, participate in a forum that I hosted last month
entitled Responsible Fatherhood: Ensuring African-American
Fathers Count, in conjunction with the Congressional Black
Caucus 29th Annual Legislative Weekend. Dr. Jeffrey Johnson,
who is president and chief executive officer of the National
Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community
Leadership, cohosted the forum with me, and Mr. Charles
Ballard, founder and chief executive officer of the National
Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Development,
was one of the outstanding panelists.
What I admire most of all in this bill is that it
acknowledges that a father should be a part of the equation for
a child's success. By and large, the social programs developed
to aid poor children have concentrated on helping mothers, not
fathers, care for their children. It is not just the economic
benefit of a two-parent family but it is the social and
spiritual benefit of having a two-parent family involved in a
child's life. Creating resources for fatherhood programs,
providing greater flexibility for welfare to work eligibility,
this bill seeks to bridge the divide between poor fathers and
their children.
I am happy to see that the bill allows for a variety of
approaches to attack fatherlessness. When the welfare of
children is foremost in our minds and hearts, we must be open
to individual preferences, whether they are aligned with our
personal ideologies or not. I wish all children could grow up
in a two-parent household, but reality dictates that this will
not be the case for every child. All fathers, whether living
with the child or enjoying an amicable relationship with the
mother, ought to be encouraged and supported in having a
positive, productive relationship with their children.
Fortunately, there are organizations such as Senator Bayh
referred to. In my District, the Father Resource Program, a
part of Wishard Health Services in Indianapolis, has been
serving young fathers for over 5 years now, and their primary
objective, as you know now, is to enhance the capacity of young
fathers to become responsible and involved parents. A secondary
objective aims to assist both fathers and mothers in developing
skills and behavior necessary to cooperate in the care of their
children.
I would again for the sake of time ask, Madam Chair, that
my remarks be put in the record for further reference and
suggest that your bill would provide the opportunity for more
success stories that would be incorporated in my remarks. The
successes of the Father Resource Center, and with other
programs around the country, prove that young men need only be
given the guidance and the opportunity to better themselves,
and improve the lives of their children.
My first concern is one that I know Dr. Jeffrey Johnson
shares, and that is about the eligibility requirements. We need
to look at those. We cannot lose sight of the goal of getting
resources and opportunities to fathers devoted to playing a
role in the lives of their children.
I would be remiss in terms of the perseverance of my mother
if I did not mention that my mother worked full time, and we
never drew a welfare check. So I don't want you to think that
because I was born to a single mother that I was on the welfare
rolls. That is far from the truth. That did not happen. I have
to do that in reference to my mother who did a tremendous job,
working mother, father and sister and brother and all those
good things. But women do indeed need the support of fathers
for their children and not in a negative sense, but fathers
need to be eligible to help children.
In Indiana, I notice that when fathers don't pay child
support they lose their driver's license, and that is rather
punitive, I think, for somebody who is trying to go out and get
gainful employment, who has missed child support payments, to
lose their driving license as a result of nonpayment. And so
there are a lot of ways I guess that we can look at what is out
there in terms of how it inhibits fathers from being
responsible and see how we can address that as this legislation
moves forward. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your
care and in sharing in this effort.
[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of the Hon. Julia Carson, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Indiana

Madam Chairwoman, as a child raised by a single mother and
mother of 2 children, I thank you for the opportunity to
testify here today on the Fathers Count Act of 1999. Nearly 25
million children, more than 1 out of 3, live absent their
biological father, and 17 million kids live without a father of
any kind. About 40 percent of children living in fatherless
households have not seen their fathers in at least a year, and
50 percent of children who do not live with their fathers have
never stepped foot in their father's home.
The situation is even worse for African American children.
70 percent of black children are born to single mothers, and at
least 80 percent of all black children can expect to spend a
significant part of their childhood years living apart from
their fathers.
I believe we can all agree that father absenteeism is a
national problem that must be addressed to ensure the well-
being and prosperity of American children in the century ahead.
For too long, legislators and policymakers have ignored the
father/child relationship. It is about time that this issue
gets full consideration by Congress. If it pleases the
Committee, I request that my testimony be entered in the
record. Thank you.
I am excited to see this very important, bipartisan measure
take center stage in this Subcommittee. I want to thank the
Chairwoman for her leadership on fatherhood legislation and our
colleague, from across the Capitol, Senator Evan Bayh for his
bill, S. 1364, the Responsible Fatherhood Act of 1999. I am
very hopeful we will accomplish passing a meaningful fatherhood
bill before the end of this session.
I consider myself to be rather fortunate. I recently had
the benefit of well-known scholars and practitioners
participate in a forum I hosted last month entitled Responsible
Fatherhood: Ensuring African American Fathers Count, in
conjunction with the Congressional Black Caucus' 29th Annual
Legislative Conference. Dr. Jeffrey Johnson, President and CEO,
of the National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and
Community Leadership, co-hosted the forum with me and Mr.
Charles Ballard, Founder and CEO, of the National Institute for
Responsible Fatherhood and Family Development, was one of the
outstanding panelists. I am delighted that both gentlemen are
here today to testify on the second panel.
What I admire most of all in this bill is its
acknowledgment that a father should be a part of the equation
for a child's success. By-in-large, the social programs
developed to aid poor children have concentrated on helping
mothers, not fathers, care for their children. From creating
resources for fatherhood programs to providing for greater
flexibility for welfare-to-work program eligibility, this bill
seeks to bridge the divide between poor fathers and their
children. I am also happy to see that the bill allows for a
variety of approaches to attack fatherlessness. When the
welfare of children is foremost in our minds and hearts, we
must be open to individual preferences whether they align with
our personal ideologies or not. I wish all children could grow
up in a two-parent household but reality dictates that this
will not be the case for every child. All fathers, whether
living with the child or enjoying an amicable relationship with
the mother, ought to be encouraged and supported in having
positive, productive relationship with their children.
Fortunately, there are organizations already engaged in
addressing the fatherlessness epidemic with innovative programs
that are reconnecting fathers with their children, and
solidifying relationships between men and their children. I ask
the Subcommittee to indulge me as I tell you about one such
program in my District. As it is often the case--a picture is
worth a thousand words.
The Father Resource Program, a part of Wishard Health
Services, in Indianapolis, Indiana has been serving young
fathers for over five years now. The primary objective of the
program is to enhance the capacity of young fathers to become
responsible and involved parents, wage-earners and providers of
child support. A secondary objective aims to assist both
fathers and mothers in developing the skills and behaviors
necessary to cooperate in the care of their children,
regardless of the character of their relationship.
In its recent five year report, the Father Resource Program
describes its success with one of its participants as follows:
Thomas Crowell heard about the Father Resource Program on
the radio, came in and signed up for the six-week Job Readiness
and Fatherhood Development class. At that time he was lacking
regular employment, did not have a high school or GED diploma
and had substantial health problems. He was the father of one
child with another on way, both by the same woman. While
enrolled in the program, Thomas worked on his GED, tested and
earned his diploma. Thomas better prepared himself for
employment, fatherhood and college/vocational training. He
established paternity. Thomas had an older brother in the Navy
who recommended military service. He joined the Army and became
a Private First Class and served in Kosovo. As soon as his
assignment allows, he plans to begin enrolling in college
classes through the Armed Services.
Madam Chairwoman, your bill would provide the opportunity
for more success stories such as Thomas'. The successes at the
Father Resource Center, and with other programs around the
country, are proving that young men need only be given the
guidance and the opportunity to better themselves, and to
improve the lives of their children.
While I believe this bill is an excellent step in the right
direction, I do have a few concerns I hope you will be mindful
of as further development of the legislation takes place.
My first concern is one I know I share with Dr. Jeffrey
Johnson about the eligibility requirements. Consideration ought
to be given to simplifying the eligibility requirements for
receipt of services. We cannot lose sight of the goal of
getting resources and opportunities to fathers devoted to
playing a role in the lives of their children. I am afraid that
the eligibility requirements of the drafted bill will defeat
the overall objective here--reconnecting fathers with their
children. I ask the Subcommittee to seek the advise of those
individuals operating successful fatherhood programs on how
best to balance the limited financial resources with the
compelling need of our Nation's children for father
participation in their lives.
Another issue that has been raised with me is fathers'
access to visitation with their children. Madam Chairwoman,
responsible fatherhood, in my mind, is not just writing a check
for child support. Fathers cannot fully participate in the
upbringing of their children if they do not have access to
their children. Young fathers in my District have expressed
concern and dismay over visitation problems they have with
their children's mothers. They tell me they have no rights in
an expensive and time consuming legal system. They are often
prohibited from seeing their children as a result of trespass
statutes or protective orders.
In my judgment, a key to increased successful father
involvement is access to visitation. Where visitation is
increased, child support payments are increased. Conversely, in
cases involving visitation disputes, child support arrears
increase. I want to make it clear that I am not advocating that
we should buy into the notion that child support payments are
made for visitation privileges. I just don't think we can
ignore the trend that fathers, who have access to their
children, are more inclined to keep their child support
payments current. I, therefore, recommend that the Subcommittee
be mindful of the difficulty some fathers have in getting
visitation. I will defer to the experts on how best to do this
but I would suggest that fatherhood programs should, at a
minimum, be encouraged to support fathers seeking visitation.
In Marion County in my District, there is a visitation
coordinator assisting non-custodial parents with getting
visitation through a process of mediation with the custodial
parents. Getting parents to work out a visitation arrangement
will only benefit the child in the long run by opening the
lines of communication between the parents. I know, somehow,
this will have to be a part of the effort to reconnect fathers
with their children.
Lastly, I am concerned as to whether we will invest enough
in the future of children with this bill. Too many children in
this country desperately need their fathers' financial and
emotional support. I encourage the Subcommittee to be as
financially supportive as possible to this measure. We must use
every available resource to inspire men to be committed,
loving, and responsible fathers.
With that, Madam Chairwoman, I conclude my testimony. I
trust I have made the case for this very important legislation.
I thank you and the Subcommittee for your time.

Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you.
Actually, your comment about the suspension law is a useful
one. Because one of the things we have to do, and we have
talked about this extensively with arrearages, how do you
create a certain amount of protection from that kind of
possibility for fathers who indeed are in arrearages or haven't
being paying their child support but who clearly haven't been
doing it because they don't have a decent job and they can't
meet their responsibilities and they are filled with fear,
frustration and paralysis? So we are going to in the arrearages
area, and it might be worth it in every other area, to protect
them from some of these other penalties that we have put in
place as long as they are participating in a program and taking
their responsibility and beginning to make payments and so on.
So we thought about that in some areas but not in all.
Let me just say, because we are going to have these votes,
that the thing that I find most difficult in writing this
legislation, so I hope you will kind of look at the wording of
the legislation and share it with anybody in your territory
that you want to, but we know we have a lot of resources out
there. The Work force Investment Act made, for instance, our
job training moneys far more flexible and thereby making a much
greater difference in the lives of the unemployed and in the
lives of women trying to move from welfare to work. It is easy
to say you have to coordinate with that program.
I am concerned about how do we get this program to latch
into the fact that basically 80 percent of the fathers of the
babies born out of marriage are actually there and part of the
relationship for a year or two, at least, I mean, statistically
about a year or two, and this is particularly important in
terms of black young people. They are there. They lose
interest, they become disheartened, they become discouraged. I
mean, there are lots of reasons why it begins to fade away. So
how do we coordinate with paternity identity? How do we get
that going right at that very first minute?
And one of the things--it is easy to see certain things,
but as you talked, Clay, you mentioned, and you have all
referred to the fact that they haven't grown up with the model
of someone working: and you certainly did, Julia. But many of
them aren't growing up not only with the model of someone
fathering but also with the model of someone working.
But there is something else that has come to our attention,
and I think it is very important, and we are going to really
have to grapple with. They aren't growing up with any example
of what a male-female relationship is. They don't know what
fighting is OK between people and what isn't. They don't know
how to disagree. They don't know how to come back together. And
so how can they do that with their children?
And I think it was in your testimony, Senator, where the
young man said, this has been so helpful to me in my
relationship with the mother. And that is what we have in this
bill, put some emphasis on--we have got to talk about marriage.
We have got to talk about it not as a moral imperative and you
are good if you do it and you are bad if you don't, but what
are the skills you need in a marriage, just like what are the
skills you need in a workplace. If you don't know that
intuitively you can't do it.
So how do we develop, how do we make sure that these
programs talk about some of those things? Because they are
difficult. And what are the programs that you had exposure to
that think they are doing this? Because they are out there. And
so what can we learn from them to make sure we write the
legislation properly? For instance, I am very interested in a
child support enforcement agency sending the fathers a
statement at least every quarter about their payments, so they
get some tangible sense of, look, I did this, just like with a
bank account.
So let me yield to my friend Ben for his comments, and then
we will resume the next panel as soon as the votes are
concluded.
Mr. Cardin. Well, Madam Chair, let me agree with your
observations and again thank our three witnesses.
I think to a large extent the pass-through of child support
to the family will help very much the noncustodial father to
feel and be part of the family, and that is one of the reasons
why in the draft legislation we emphasize that point, as we
think that can help.
Julia, in regards to the driver's license issue, there has
been a lot of good initiatives at the State level. The State of
Maryland, we have that right to withhold the driver's license
from the father who was not paying child support, and we use
that tool very, very effectively. We rarely suspend a license,
but the ability to be able to suspend a license if the person
who is in arrearage of child support doesn't come forward with
a workable plan has been a very valuable tool, and we had a
hearing on that recently.
Clay, I agree with you. We need to proceed in a bipartisan
way. And welfare reform, that you were very instrumental in, it
may have been extremely controversial and it was extremely
controversial, but there was a sense, a bipartisan sense that
we had to move forward with changing our welfare system, and I
think the same thing is true on the fatherhood initiative. We
do have a bipartisan agreement that we haven't finished our
work yet.
I just wanted to underscore the fact that there are many
States that are doing some really great things on fatherhood
initiatives, including my own State of Maryland. They are able
to do that under some of our existing programs, whether it is
TANF or welfare to work.
But what we want to do is underscore this need--I think,
Senator Bayh, you said it best in your testimony--we want to
make sure that we don't lose sight of encouraging States to
come forward with new creative initiatives in this area, and we
think this grant program can do that. We need to proceed on a
very direct, bipartisan way to see that we stay within the
parameters, so that the bill not only can pass the United
States House of Representatives but that we also get it through
the U.S. Senate.
So, Senator, we are going to be looking upon you to give us
good advice on how we can steer this bill through in a way that
we can get it passed and signed into law.
Mr. Shaw. Mr. Cardin, if I might comment briefly, this is
new ground. There are some programs that are out there. I see
some of them represented here by the witnesses seated in back
of us here at the table.
We are going to have to try a lot of things. We are going
to have to monitor a lot of things to see exactly what works.
But the basis of any program has to be one of trying to get
self-esteem in the person that you are dealing with. If someone
has no respect for themselves, as many of these people don't,
they are not going to be able to succeed. So you have got to,
first of all, believe in yourself, and this is something that I
think has to be the basis of all--do you feel good about
yourself, do you feel good about the fact you have a child, and
there is a bonding there that takes place.
The only difference in these people that we need to reach
out to and you and me is that we got a head start. We were
exposed to family and to love and we had some self-esteem and
we were not put down all the time. But these people are just as
good as we are, but they just come from different backgrounds
and different levels of learning, and this is where the
breakthroughs have to be made, but we have got to make them. We
are training these young mothers to, go into the workplace, and
we are creating an imbalance by doing that if we don't reach
out to the fathers, too. So we need to work very, very hard on
this, and we will see some programs that aren't going to work,
but that doesn't keep us from trying to do a better job.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. I think we have about 1
minute left, and so we are going to adjourn. We have two 5-
minute votes after that, and then we will resume our hearing.
[Recess.]
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. The Subcommittee will
start. I understand Ben will be with us momentarily.
I welcome this panel to the hearing and appreciate your
input. I know you have all seen the bill and will have some
comments for us, and I appreciate your participation here
today.
We will start with Mr. Ballard.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. BALLARD, PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE FOR
RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD AND FAMILY REVITALIZATION

Mr. Ballard. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, for this
opportunity to be here today and for your leadership in moving
this part of the agenda forward.
Before I get into my comments, I would like to introduce my
staff. We have our members here from the district.
Why don't you just stand, all the institute staff, and my
wife is here, Mrs. Ballard, who is my partner, the one in the
brown suit there.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Welcome, all of you.
Mr. Ballard. You place a lot of emphasis on marriage and we
certainly concur with that, and not just concur with that, but
we actually take married couples and we place them back into
the community that are in disrepair. And you indicated earlier
that they don't see marriage, they don't see men, and so we are
answering that by taking men and women back to the community to
be the kind of model that were missing over the past few years.
When I grew up down south, you saw mostly two--homes that
had two parents back in the fifties and today less than 40
percent of our homes have two parents in them. So marriage,
good, loving marriage, not just marriage itself, but good,
loving, compassionate marriages are the key to any type of
programming. And so we applaud your efforts to really put this
whole idea of marriage back into the family.
I want to just respond to some of the parts of the bill
that I believe that if we can work with and correct, we can
create better communities. You mentioned in your comments that
as a consequence of the failure of fathers to play a major part
in a family, children, especially boys, repeat the cycle,
school failure, delinquency and so on; we call that the sins of
the fathers.
So we believe that in order to work with young fathers, we
must also work with adult fathers. It is not just enough to
help him get the job, but the older father who could work in
the first place needs to have a sense of healing in his life.
You also indicated at least in the bill that we should work
with the IV-Ds and the TANF and the like, and last year we got
a grant from Labor of $4.3 million, and we immediately went to
the cities and States to work with TANF, to work with IV-D and
so on.
I will give you three experiences that we had in trying to
work with them. In one city the director refused to give us any
names, I mean just outright refused. They changed since we
wrote a letter to them, and some people got involved in them.
In another city, the local agencies that were contracting with
the State say we will give you names if you pay for the names.
So they were put there for the purpose of helping families out,
we have to pay them to get the names from them.
From the last one, we finally got some names, 257 names. We
went out into the community knocking on doors and we only found
152 real names, the rest of them were duplications, people were
dead and addresses were wrong. So even though they give us
these names, many on the caseload didn't exist. Now we sent the
names into the State explaining to them what we had done. That
was over a year ago and they have not responded.
So it says how many of these cases are really real cases
that we are paying people to manage. So we believe that if we
are going to work with the IV-Ds and the like, we need to make
sure it is not a coercive experience because some smaller
agencies will have a hard time trying to get through the
paperwork.
Now we made it because of our tenacity, and what we did, we
went to the streets, gone to the community. We went outside of
that area, so we knock on doors. And I would like to give you
some stats in terms of what happened since October 1st of last
year through June 30th.
We knocked on 7,000 homes around the country in our sites.
We had 2,931 face-to-face contacts with individuals with these
services, 1,695 individuals agreed to participate in our
welfare-to-work program. 1,067 qualified based upon the
welfare-to-work status. We enrolled because of our limited
staff 755 in our company's assessment. Since October 1 we have
placed in full-time employment, 402 individuals, we call
proteges, and these are the hard to place, ex-convicts, ex-
alcoholics, ex-drug addicts.
But the reason we were to do it is because we live in the
community, and they see us. You made a comment earlier about
the idea of the young men seeing the sermon in action. That is
what I call it, the sermon. And I think what we have been able
to do through our program is not just have success, but the
success is based upon individuals, men and women, who are
married to each other and they are living next door to those
that they serve.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Mr. Ballard, if I may, I
forgot to mention at the beginning that especially with a large
panel, the lights are unfortunately important, so if you could
just----
Mr. Ballard. Am I finished now?
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. You are technically
finished, but since I didn't tell you at the beginning, if you
want to just use a couple of sentences to finish. I notice in
your testimony, you have 5 recommendations for us to strengthen
our legislation. And I think pretty much they are self-
explanatory, although you might want to mention the Federal
match, and we will get to that more in questioning anyway.
Mr. Ballard. Yes. My concern when I first started 17 years
ago, it was very difficult for us to qualify for Federal grants
because we had to get the match, and even the match that was in
kind was very difficult. I think if we are going to go into the
inner city community and the grass roots organization,
requiring a match that in many cases is cash and in kind may be
foreboding. I would suggest a minimum of 15 percent, which will
be mostly in-kind services.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Charles A. Ballard, President, Institute for Responsible
Fatherhood and Family Revitalization

Chairman Johnson, thank you for the bipartisan leadership
you and Congressman Cardin, from my home state of Maryland, are
providing to empower the fathers of America to build more
loving and compassionate homes in which to raise their
children. You have correctly noted that this agenda is the next
and most challenging phase of welfare reform.
I commend you for the approach and objectives you have set
forth with regard to uplifting marriage and parenting as a
central goal in Fathers Count. This is a most welcomed
development after more than three decades of federal policies
that punished marriage and asset accumulation. These federal
policies helped to create a `miasma of fatherlessness' in
America for our children. Fatherlessness a condition of
violence, neglect and abandonment created when there is no
loving, compassionate and nurturing father who is willing to
care for and protect his children and their mother.
I also commend you for the attention given to the
attendance of fathers at the birth of their first child, (I
want to see the language expanded to birth of their children),
and presume this to mean involvement by the father during
pregnancy from the first trimester forward. If the man is
loving and compassionate toward his child's mother during this
critical stage of development, our research indicates it will
have a tremendous effect on the outcome of the pregnancy,
including reduced infant mortality.
I come before you today with more than 22 years of hands-on
experience working with fathers of all ages, creeds, races and
social status. Our organizational experience includes
management, over the past 4 years, of the only national multi-
site demonstration placing married couples in high risk
communities, and providing intensive in-home services on a
``24-7'' availability basis, while living a risk-free life
style. Request for our services have come from more than 70
communities. Your bill will help to catapult this movement to
its full potential along with sound evaluation.
The following are five (5) recommendations that we believe
would strengthen the proposed legislation:

1. Marriage:

Promoting good loving, nurturing marriages is a very good
idea. Perhaps, no message coming out of Congress is so
important as ``promoting marriage and two parent families; and
aggressively helping men become responsible parents.'' This, if
appropriately funded, will do much to build sturdy communities,
while reducing violence, poverty, educational failure, crime,
child abuse and neglect, and a host of other problems.
Some will argue ``just give the man a job and he will get
married and care for his family.'' If a young, poor, uneducated
father gets his education and gets a job, he will pay child
support. In 1959, I walked out of a Georgia prison, a high
school dropout, with a chronic stuttering problem, an
undesirable discharge from the Armed Forces, and going back to
segregated Alabama. Although, all of these strikes were against
me, I voluntarily went to the court with my former girlfriend
and my mother to take legal responsibility for my abandoned
five-year-old son.
My mother and others tried to talk me out of it. They told
me that because of my prison record, dropping out of school and
my undesirable discharge, I would not be able to get a job and
care for my son, alone. However, I felt that since I had
abandoned my son for nearly 5 years, no matter what, I should
take full responsibility for his care. So, my son and I left
Besseman, Alabama and moved to the Huntsville area. For the
next year, I could not find a good paying job. However, we were
never homeless or hungry, and most of all we had each other.
Finally, in 1961, I went to work as a dishwasher at a local
restaurant making $21.00 a week! Two years later, I worked at a
laundry making $40.00 a week!
In 1964, I received my GED; and, in 1970 a BA degree in
Sociology and Psychology. In 1971, I sent my son to a private
Christian School; and in 1972 I received a Master's Degree from
Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. Today, my
son is 44 years old, is married, and has four children and two
grandchildren. He has a Master's Degree and works at a Human
Service Agency.
Today, I am happily married to the former Frances Hall, and
we have three children, Jonathan (14), Lydia (12), and
Christopher (5). My wife and I manage the Institute for
Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization together. Why
do I tell you this story? Well, my heart was changed in prison.
From that point on I said to myself, ``I want to father my son,
differently. I want to do more than pay child support--I wanted
to make a difference.''
There are many young and old men who have good paying jobs.
However, they avoid getting married and paying child support.
There are many men who are well educated, have good paying jobs
and are married. Many of these men divorce their wives and
children and refuse to pay child support, sending their
children into poverty. So just having a job doesn't mean that a
man will get married or if he is married, will care for his
family. What is missing in these men's lives is a change of
heart, a change of attitude. Then marriage, fidelity, love,
affection, nurturing and compassion will have real meaning.
We must promote marriages that are made up of this kind of
good stuff. Then men will get married and care for their
families until death. This is a relatively new area for the
American welfare reform system, and there needs to be clear
curriculum regarding marriage and dealing with the economic
situation of fathers. If we do not invest in the most promising
practices with demonstrated track records and clear-cut
performance measures, I am concerned that an unintended
consequence could be to replicate the failed experience of
major federal expenditures in the area of teen pregnancy and
similar programs.

2. Projects of National Significance:

I believe that in order to give the national fatherhood
programs real significance, we must provide real resources so
that they can reach a larger number of fathers. Therefore we
recommend that the $5 million level presently set aside for
``Projects of National Significance'' be extended for each of
the four years of the demonstration. This would allow national
projects to reach critical mass of greater depth and further
impact across five cities instead of only three. Multi-site
data on marriage, employment, paternity, and other indicators
could help generate best practices for the newer programs. By
following this recommendation the lives of thousands of fathers
and many more thousands of children will be positively
affected, not only would the approach reduce welfare rolls, but
would create healthier economical outcomes for children.

3. The Fathers Presence At Birth Of All Children:

The enrollment of 50 percent of participants at the time of
the child's birth should not be conditioned to just ``the first
child.'' Whether it is the first or third child, father
presence is equally needed. ``Responsible fatherhood'' to many
men is a new concept, when you expand it beyond paying for the
rent, food, clothing and similar house related expenses. Some
fathers may already have one or two children for whom they were
not present at the birth. This will be a new and rewarding
experience for them to be a part of, even if this is their
third or fourth child.

4. Non-Federal Funding Match:

Regarding the non-federal funding match, we are concerned
that smaller grassroots organizations may have difficulty
achieving this requirement. Reducing this to a 15% match would
ameliorate this concern, since the match appropriately includes
both cash and in kind contributions.
5. Need For Improvement Regarding Welfare To Work Amendments:

The greatest area of needed improvement in this fine
legislation is not in the Fathers Count title but in the second
title regarding Welfare to Work Amendments. We strongly oppose
the proposed requirement to mandate personal responsibility
contracts that government has used throughout its conventional
poverty programs. Mandating enforcement and rigid governmental
oversight through the state 4-D child support agencies would be
an anathema to grassroots operations, such as ours, and like
entities. I believe that the requirement that projects be
coordinated with the child support enforcement agency, the TANF
agency, and the agency conducting Workforce Investment Act
Programs will reduce the success of this project. Case in
point, in 1998 the Institute received a 4.3 million-dollar
grant from the Department of Labor. We went to the above
agencies across the country and the results were less than
encouraging. If we had to wait on these agencies, our success
would have been greatly diminished. Instead, we took to the
streets, knocking on doors to find fathers to work with. Note
the results below. Since October 1, 1998 the Institute for
Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization has had the
following results with the very difficult to place fathers:
1. Out of 7,000 homes reached through door to door efforts
we had 2,931 face to face interview with proteges (recipients
of service).
2. 1,695 proteges agreed to participate in the program.
3. 1,067 proteges qualified for the Welfare to Work
program.
4. 755 were enrolled through our comprehensive assessment.
5. 402 proteges were placed in full-time, unsubsidized
employment.
6. The average hourly rate is $7.17
7. The average hourly wage in Washington, DC is $8.14
8. Our national retention rate is 70%

The most important parts of this legislation are:

1. That men and women see good, healthy marriages as good
for the children mothers and fathers.
2. That men show their children how much they love them by
respecting and honoring the children's mother;
3. That men find and retain gainful employment and provide
financial support to their children through the courts;
4. That men eliminate violence and child abuse in their
homes;
5. That all fathers whether married, single, or divorced,
addressed by this legislation spend nurturing, loving and
quality time with their children, while providing them with a
sense of security.
All organizations applying for these funds, who agree to
reach these objectives will meet the goal of this legislation.
We do support the bill's encouragement of voluntary paternity
acknowledgment. In our program, fathers volunteer to pay
through the courts, so that the child's mother gets credit.
Case Western Reserve University and the University of
Tennessee, in two independent evaluations, documented this
markedly increased child support by fathers enrolled in our
program.
We applaud the very positive changes regarding pass-through
of child support arrears, that would create an incentive for
responsibility, rather than another stifling hand of the state
that would drive more fathers underground.
Across America, we have engendered a new movement of
responsible fatherhood. And, we are ready for the challenge of
assisting this Congress in ushering in a new era. We strongly
promote the premise that a loving and compassionate marriage is
the most successful home environment to break this vicious
cycle of fatherlessness.
Thank you for your leadership in empowering grassroots
community-based organizations to meet this challenge.

Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you, and we will get
back to some things in discussion hopefully.
Ms. Turetsky.

STATEMENT OF VICKI TURETSKY, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY, CENTER FOR
LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY

Ms. Turetsky. Chairwoman Johnson, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify
today about the proposed Fathers Count Act of 1999.I am a
senior staff attorney at the Center for Law and Social Policy,
or CLASP, and before working at CLASP, I was employed by MDRC,
where I helped implement the Parents' Fair Share pilot project
for unemployed noncustodial parents of AFDC children.
In particular, I helped design and implement the child
support features of that project. I saw firsthand how
challenging and yet how worthwhile it is to develop strong
collaborative relationships among community-based
organizations, child support offices, TANF agencies and job
training agencies; all mobilized to help fathers. Sometimes
those collaborations were more successful than others, and
sometimes the States were able to bring funding into the
project in a way that enhanced services for noncustodial
parents.
And I also heard directly from many noncustodial parents,
mostly dads, about their affection for their children, their
hope for getting good work and their suspicion of the child
support system.
My testimony today won't focus much on the vision of the
Fathers Count Act. We compliment the Subcommittee on its
bipartisan approach to fatherhood and we especially appreciate
the focus on low-income fathers, the emphasis on child support
distribution policies, and the demonstration and evaluation
aspect of the legislation. We also appreciate the increased
flexibility of welfare-to-work provisions.
Instead of focusing on vision today, my focus will be more
prosaic, identifying ways to strengthen the policy and
technical aspects of the proposed legislation.
My primary recommendation is to increase the flexibility of
the program to encourage innovative, well-designed projects and
to encourage States to participate in those projects. As
Wendell Primus described in his written testimony, the name of
the game here is collaboration. Projects which are designed to
require collaboration among community-based organizations,
State agencies and local agencies will produce better, more
responsive State policies and practices.
In this light, it is important to include the State child
support program as a demonstration partner. Under the proposed
legislation, the State TANF agency and work force investment
board must be formal project partners. The State child support
agency should also be made a formal partner.
There are two reasons why. First, implementation of the
child support component of the project will require a
substantial commitment by the child support program. Second,
the Parents' Fair Share demonstration findings indicate that
the most successful programs were those where the child support
agency was actively involved.
My second recommendation is that the legislative language
limiting participation to fathers be expanded to allow for
participation by mothers and custodial parents. A number of
innovative fatherhood programs, including, I believe, Mr.
Ballard's program, include the joint participation of the
mothers of the fathers' children, in other words, the custodial
mothers, to help those fragile families strengthen those
relationships, share parenting responsibilities, reduce
conflict and consider marriage.
Yet the statutory language would appear to preclude joint
participation by both parents in a coparenting or marriage
component. In addition, noncustodial mothers may be in exactly
the same boat as noncustodial fathers, depending upon the
particular circumstances and services offered by the project.
Projects should be allowed to provide services for this range
of individuals depending upon the project's design and purpose.
Third, project eligibility rules should be clarified and
harmonized with welfare-to-work requirements. There are two
points here. First, the legislation ties the father's
eligibility to his child's current public assistance status and
there is a 24-month lag allowed. But if the child loses
eligibility--no longer qualifies under the terms of the law--
the project has to stop serving the father midstream as it
were. The language should be clarified to allow for the
father's continuing project participation even once initial
eligibility has been established.
Second, a community-based organization running a fatherhood
program might operate with a variety of funding streams, and it
is easier for those programs to have more flexible funding
streams that allow for similar eligibility requirements.
My fourth recommendation is to expand the flexibility of
projects and States to test child support innovations and to
clarify the legal support to pass through child support to
families in the project.The legislation should include more
flexibility as well, particularly passing through support while
the family is still receiving assistance.
Current family first distribution rules generally allow for
post-TANF distribution, so the language in the proposal needs
to be tweaked.
Fifth, the legislation should be clarified and include more
project flexibility concerning cancelation or suspension of
arrearages. There are a number of good approaches here in
addition to outright cancelation and a number of policy
considerations.
In sum, we think the legislation is headed in the right
direction, and we recommend for the longer term, across the
board changes in the distribution laws to allow for full
distribution of child support to families.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Vicki Turetsky, Senior Staff Attorney, Center for Law and
Social Policy

The proposed legislation creates demonstration grant
projects that focus on low-income fathers and their children,
increases the flexibility of the Welfare-to-Work program, and
provides needed penalty relief to states that failed to meet
the deadline for implementing the State Disbursement Unit (SDU)
for child support payment processing.
The goals of encouraging marriage, promoting good
parenting, and improving the economic status of low-income
parents are shared by CLASP. CLASP supports a demonstration
project approach to new fatherhood funding. In addition, CLASP
supports the focus of the Subcommittee on distributing more
support to families. However, we have a number of
recommendations regarding the proposed legislation:
It is important to include the state child support
program as a demonstration partner.
Project participation should not be restricted to
fathers.
The language should expressly allow states to
spend TANF MOE funds as the 25 percent non-Federal match.
Project eligibility should be clarified and
harmonized with Welfare-to-Work requirements.
The legislation should increase the flexibility of
projects and states to test child support innovations designed
to help low-income parents and their children.
State authority to pass through support to
families should be clarified.
Distribution of arrears paid by project
participants may be difficult to implement on a small scale.
The language should clarify whether projects
should cancel or suspend payment of arrearages.
Chairwoman Johnson and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for this opportunity to testify today about the
proposed ``Fathers Count Act of 1999.'' I am a Senior Staff
Attorney at the Center for Law and Social Policy. CLASP is a
nonpartisan, nonprofit organization engaged in analysis,
technical assistance and advocacy on issues affecting low-
income families. We do not receive any federal funding. My
focus at CLASP is child support. Before working at CLASP, I was
employed by Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC),
and helped implement the Parents' Fair Share (PFS) pilot
project for unemployed noncustodial parents of AFDC children.
The Subcommittee's proposed legislation creates
demonstration grant projects that focus on low-income fathers
and their children and increases the flexibility of the
Welfare-to-Work program. The goals of encouraging marriage,
promoting good parenting, and improving the economic status of
low-income parents are shared by CLASP. CLASP supports a
demonstration project approach to new fatherhood funding.
Research results from the Parents' Fair Share and other
demonstration projects suggest that there is much to learn
about helping the poorest fathers improve their economic and
parenting prospects. The child support provisions of the
proposed legislation recognize the negative impact of current
child support assignment and distribution policies on low-
income parents and their children, and aims to increase the
amount of support distributed to families.
The proposed legislation creates a federal competitive
matching grants program available to public and private
entities for projects designed to promote marriage, to promote
successful parenting, and to help fathers improve their
economic status. To participate in a project, an individual
must be (1) a father of a child receiving (or previously
receiving) TANF, Medicaid, or Food Stamps, or a father
(including an expectant father) with income below 175 percent
of poverty. The proposed legislation includes a $36.356 million
appropriation for the grants program (including project grants,
evaluation, and federal administration) and an additional $15
million appropriation for three grants to national non-profit
fatherhood promotion organizations.
The legislation also amends the Welfare-to-Work program and
provides penalty relief for states failing to meet the State
Disbursement Unit (SDU) deadline under the child support
program. We generally support these changes.
My testimony today will focus on a number of
recommendations to strengthen the policy and technical aspects
of the proposed legislation creating a fatherhood grants
program under title I of the bill. My primary recommendation is
to increase the flexibility of the grant program to encourage
innovative, well-designed projects and to encourage states to
participate in those projects.
It is important to include the state child support program
as a demonstration partner (Sec. 442(a)(2).) Grant applications
are required to include a written commitment by the state TANF
agency and the local Workforce Investment Board to assist in
providing employment and related services. Grant applications
also should include a formal commitment by the state child
support agency.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sec. 442(c)(4) provides that not less than 75 percent of the
aggregate amounts paid as grants shall be awarded to entities whose
applications include written commitments by the entity and the state
child support program to coordinate the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two main reasons why the state child support
program should be included as a formal demonstration partner.
First, demonstration projects must include a child support
component requiring the substantial commitment and cooperation
of the child support program. Second, Parent's Fair Share
demonstration findings indicate that the most successful
programs included an active child support program. The sites
with strong child support agency partners were among the most
successful in obtaining high participation rates, implementing
on-the-job training, and increasing child support payments. Once a family leaves TANF, current monthly support
and arrears accruing after the assistance period (post-
assistance arrears) are paid to the family.
However, arrearages that accrued while a family
received AFDC or TANF (during-assistance arrears) belong to the
state.
Arrears that accrued before the family went on
TANF (pre-assistance arrears) may belong either to the state or
the family, depending on time period and subsequent receipt of
assistance.
Arrearage payments collected through federal tax
offset program are applied to the state's debt before the
family's debt, while arrearage payments collected through other
means are applied to the family's debt first.
State child support administrators and advocates are
generally supportive of simplifying post-TANF distribution
rules by distributing all arrears paid by noncustodial parents
to their children. However, piecemeal and small scale changes
to the distribution rules will further complicate an already
difficult-to-manage scheme. It may not be affordable or
feasible to make changes to the state's automated child support
computer in order to accommodate project policies that can not
be implemented on a statewide basis. This means that
participating states would probably assign staff to manually
distribute child support for project families. This may be
something a state is willing to do in a project context, but
the need to assign dedicated staff does argue for greater state
flexibility, particularly in light of the high caseloads and
constrained staffing resources normally experienced by child
support program.
It is unclear whether projects should cancel or suspend
payment of arrearages. (Sec. 442(a)(2)(B) and (3)). There are a
number of approaches a state could take to relieve noncustodial
parents of high arrearage debts. For example, a state could
review participants' support order, reducing both the monthly
support obligation and accumulated arrears. It could suspend
the support obligation, preventing further accumulation of
arrears during project participation. It could suspend
collection activities during participation. It could cancel all
state debt charged to the noncustodial parent that is unrelated
to his ability to pay (such as Medicaid birthing costs). It
could offer an amnesty deal, canceling outright all state-owed
arrears.
However, the statutory language is not completely clear
about the treatment of arrears during participation. One
section requires the Secretary to give preference to projects
in which the state child support agency has committed to
canceling outright all state-owed arrears. Another section
requires that 75 percent of grant funds be spent on projects
where the state child support agency has committed to a policy
of suspending state-owed arrears owed by a project participant
so long as he is making timely payments or is married to the
custodial parent. In addition, the outright cancellation of all
state-owed arrears may not always be appropriate for all
fathers whose children received assistance. For example, a
state may be unwilling to cancel all arrears when the
noncustodial parent had the ability to pay some or all of the
support order, but failed to pay.
In sum, while we think Subcommittee is headed in the right
direction by creating a fatherhood demonstration grants program
that includes a focus on distributing child support to the
children of noncustodial parents, we encourage the Subcommittee
to include child support programs as demonstration partners, to
broaden the flexibility of projects to test a range of child
support innovations, and to better harmonize participant
eligibility requirements among the grants program, Welfare to
Work, and TANF programs.

Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you very much for
your instructive suggestions. We will get back to some of them.
Mr. Henry.

STATEMENT OF RONALD K. HENRY, PARTNER, KAYE, SCHOLER, FIERMAN,
HAYS & HANDLER, ON BEHALF OF MEN'S HEALTH NETWORK

Mr. Henry. Thank you. I would like to begin by thanking the
Chair and the Subcommittee Members for the opportunity to
testify on behalf of this important legislation. I am Ron
Henry, with the Men's Health Network.
For too long Congress ignored fatherhood or punished it
with burdens like the ``old man in the house rule'' where we
told low-income fathers that they weren't just useless, they
were worse than useless, because only by leaving would we then
render their children eligible for any assistance.
Well, beginning with the 1996 welfare reform legislation
which passed with the strong support of both parties, Congress
has returned to a recognition that fathers are important to
children and, instead of driving fathers away, the States are
now permitted to use their block grants for any purpose which
encourages two-parent family formation or preservation.
But the States need some guidance because they haven't
really understood how to use that new authority and that is why
the Fathers Count Act of 1999 is so important, not only for the
projects that it will fund, but also because those programs can
become models for the second round of welfare reform that the
States are only now beginning to understand.
We know that the Federal Government currently spends
billions of dollars each year in its effort to enforce child
support collection and, although the Fathers Count Act of 1999
is only a few drops compared to that flood of funding, I
believe that these drops will be disproportionately effective
in creating benefits for children and will result in an
important increase in the well-being of children for one simple
reason. This is the first piece of legislation, the first
Federal program that views fathers as parents with needs and
limitations and concerns, rather than merely as debtors or
deadbeats.
We know that many fathers are overwhelmed by the legal
system. We know that many child support orders are entered in
default judgment proceedings and result in unsustainably high
child support awards because the court simply assumes a level
of income that really doesn't exist. We know that almost none
of the low-income obligors are represented by counsel but
nobody has been talking to these men as fathers who want to do
the best they can for their children. Doing the best they can
means more than simply increasing the flow of child support
dollars.
Regardless of the social pathology that is under
consideration, whether it is teenage pregnancy, suicide, drug
abuse, low self-esteem, school dropout, or any of our other
social problems, we know from research that every one of them
is causally linked to father absence. Children need their
fathers and the Fathers Count Act of 1999 gives us the
opportunity to fill that need.
To maximize the effectiveness of the act, please let me
respectfully offer a few suggestions. First, the act needs to
be specifically geared toward promoting and rediscovering the
social importance of fatherhood. As Professor Mead of New York
University so eloquently expressed it, ``it doesn't matter so
much what your father does, but whether you have a father.'' We
know from the research that Professor Mead is right. Every
problem we have looked at is so closely linked to father
absence as you heard earlier from the other Members of Congress
who testified.
The Fathers Count Act of 1999 can help, but it needs to be
directed to the social dimension of reconnecting fathers and
children. We know that the planned grants don't have enough
money in them to create another broad-based jobs program or
training program. We do, however, have enough money available
to us to raise the flag of fatherhood in communities all over
this country and give these men a reason--the love of a child--
to improve their education and their economic status through
the training and employment programs that Congress has created
and funded over the years such as the Work Force Investment Act
that was earlier mentioned.
What the programs under the Fathers Count Act of 1999 need
to do first is to connect the fathers to the children and then
use that connection to further connect the fathers to economic
improvement programs. To do this we need peer counseling. We
need mentoring, parenting training, case management support,
child development training, custody and visitation counseling,
and assistance in obtaining access to other social services.
I want to emphasize that last point for a moment because it
is probably the area where there is the greatest need right
now. We have a great many social programs in place for which
fathers are lawfully eligible but for which fathers are not
welcomed to participate.
Take, for example, the Head Start program. Until about 2
years ago, Head Start simply didn't acknowledge the existence
of fathers. In the last 2 years, some of the Head Start
programs have started to say, ``hey, you know, these kids have
got fathers'' and the programs are starting to bring these
fathers in with remarkable results. The fathers are
volunteering, the fathers are at the centers, the fathers are
helping the children with their developmental tasks. It is good
for the children, it is good for the fathers, it is good for
the country. We know that we need to use the Fathers Count Act
of 1999 to develop and demonstrate specific strategies for
success with fathers that will accelerate the trend toward the
inclusion of fathers in social services programs.
Second, in keeping with the desire to encourage two-parent
family formation and preservation, there is a small change that
is needed regarding the child support arrearage language.
We need to address arrearages not only where child support
is being paid by a nonresidential parent, but also in
situations where that parent has come to reside with the child.
You had written testimony presented in writing to you just 2
weeks ago about a gentleman in Texas who is living with his
child, and is taking care of all of the needs of the child, but
who is still being pursued by the Texas child support
enforcement people for an arrearage that arose years earlier.
When there is not enough money to go around, we need to make
sure that, first, we are putting food into the mouth of the
child and not taking food away by worrying about accounting or
statistics for arrearages.
Third, please don't be overly proscriptive about grant
eligibility. There are a number of things in the statute, and
we have prepared specific proposed markups for your
consideration, where the prescriptive provisions in the
legislation will deter participation and make it difficult for
some of the most innovative programs to be utilized.
Fourth, with respect to the welfare-to-work program, we
again need to avoid being unduly restrictive or prescriptive. I
believe, and we have prepared markup legislation to help with
this, that a small adjustment to current legislative language
will remove barriers and will result in more father
participation simply by allowing mothers and fathers to
participate on a nondiscriminatory basis.
In closing, let me again thank the Chair and the
Subcommittee for initiating this most important and long
overdue legislation. The fathers of America will thank you, the
mothers of America who regret the loss of fatherhood will thank
you, and most of all the children of America will thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[Attachments are being retained in the Committee files.]

Statement of Ronald K. Henry, Partner, Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays &
Handler, on behalf of Men's Health Network

Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you.
Dr. Primus.

STATEMENT OF WENDELL PRIMUS, PH.D., DIRECTOR OF INCOME
SECURITY, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES

Mr. Primus. Chairman Johnson and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on this
fatherhood legislation. The center supports the basic goals of
this proposed legislation. We believe that further steps can
and should be taken by the Federal Government to promote the
development of effective strategies for encouraging marriage,
strengthening fragile families and increasing the likelihood
that children will benefit from the financial support as well
as the personal involvement of two parents.
Research shows that children reared in single-parent
families are at greater risk of adverse outcomes than those
raised in two-parent families. At the same time, we recognize
that many children will continue to be raised in single-parent
households. Efforts to promote financial support and personal
involvement of noncustodial parents in the lives of these
children are likely to be successful only if they reflect a
comprehensive approach that includes a broad array of
employment services for such parents, including publicly funded
jobs when necessary to help them make the transition into
unsubsidized employment.
I commend you for this bill in sending the message that
government policy should acknowledge the importance of
noncustodial parents, primarily fathers, assuming financial
child rearing and emotional responsibility for their children.
Given the unavailability of financing for broader efforts
to promote fatherhood or assist noncustodial parents in meeting
their parental responsibilities, this bill represents a good
first step, although much more remains to be done. There is
much we need to learn about how government policy should be
structured and coordinated in a way that succeeds in assisting
noncustodial parents.
Let me just briefly mention the other provisions in the
bill. We support the provision reducing the State child support
penalty for not having a State disbursement unit fully
operational. We also believe that your amendments to the
welfare-to-work program are necessary. We are somewhat
concerned that the section on employment appears in looking at
the provision regarding personal responsibility contracts for
noncustodial parents, we are concerned that this only
emphasizes unpaid work activities, perhaps to the exclusion of
subsidized employment strategies.
I would also urge you to put within this title an amendment
to IV-D, a conforming amendment, to ensure that information on
noncustodial parents is shared from the IV-D program to the
welfare-to-work program. And I would also believe that you
should allow spending under this act to continue through 2002,
even if you don't have any--additional financing is available.
My primary concern with the bill as currently drafted is
that it defines the problems with the current employment
welfare and child support systems for low-income families too
narrowly. The bill needs to recognize that the problem of
financial and emotional lack of support by noncustodial parents
of their children extends beyond child support arrearages. As a
result, the pilot project should be encouraged to test a
broader and bolder range of solutions. The model described in
the legislation emphasizes one of many options although many
other options are available. In general I think this title is
too prescriptive.
Based upon my work over the last 2 years, I am convinced
that if fragile families are to be strengthened and if
noncustodial parents are to be more involved in the lives of
their children, employment, child support and welfare policies
together need to be considered comprehensively. The provision
of fatherhood services, an underlying premise of this bill, is
a critical component of any effort to strengthen fragile
families. But fatherhood services alone cannot do the job.
What is needed and what these pilot projects should build
on is the recognition that child support policies for low-
income, noncustodial parents needed modification as well, and
these policies need to be coordinated with the provision of
employment services, and various economic incentives to
encourage the payment of child support should also be tested.
The language in the draft bill does not sufficiently
recognize, in my opinion, the degree to which the child support
system does not work for low-income noncustodial parents. The
issue extends beyond arrearages. The orders are large. We need
to test approaches that orders are lowered. We also need to
make sure that there is flexible modification. The orders go up
and down as earnings change, and we also need to make sure that
when dads paid, their children are actually better off, and
just as we believe that low-wage work should be subsidized
through the EITC, earned income tax credit, for custodial
parents, we need to at least test the provision of subsidizing
the payment of child support by low-income, noncustodial
parents.
I go on in the bill and suggest five changes that I think
you ought to make. I think the Secretary in the panel that is
going to be making recommendations should be provided more
guidance. Awards should be based upon an assessment about which
grants would best achieve the purposes of the act, which are
the most creative, bold and innovative proposals in terms of
the policy changes and integration across program boundaries.
I would also argue that the 75-percent requirement that
goes to community-based organizations is too proscriptive. I
fully applaud the notion that we need to encourage the
provision of fatherhood services, but I am concerned that
community-based entities will not have the clout to give
government policy changes or receive the necessary cooperation
of government agencies if all the grants or most of the grants
are awarded to community-based organizations.
In conclusion, I think this bill is a right first step in
assisting NCPs and meeting their parental responsibilities, and
I think the effort could be strengthened if you made certain
modifications. And thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Wendell Primus, Ph.D., Director of Income Security, Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on fatherhood
legislation, specifically the proposed ``Fathers Count Act of
1999.'' My name is Wendell Primus and I am Director of Income
Security at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The
Center is a nonpartisan, nonprofit policy organization that
conducts research and analysis on a wide range of issues
affecting low-and moderate-income families. We are primarily
funded by foundations and receive no federal funding.

Overview

The Center supports the basic goals of this proposed
legislation. We believe that further steps can and should be
taken by the federal government to promote the development of
effective strategies for encouraging marriage, strengthening
fragile families, and increasing the likelihood that children
will benefit from the financial support as well as the personal
involvement of two parents. Research shows that children reared
in single-parent families are at greater risk of adverse
outcomes than those raised in two-parent families.\1\ At the
same time, we recognize that, despite these efforts, many
children will continue to be raised in single-parent
households. Efforts to promote financial support and personal
involvement of non-custodial parents in the lives of these
children are likely to be successful only if they reflect a
comprehensive approach that includes a broad array of
employment services for such parents, including publicly-funded
jobs when necessary to help them make the transition into
unsubsidized employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single
Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. Harvard University Press, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I commend you for this bill and compliment you for
addressing these issues--and sending the message that
government policy should acknowledge the importance of non-
custodial parents (primarily fathers) assuming financial,
child-rearing and emotional responsibility for their children.
Given the unavailability of financing for broader efforts to
promote fatherhood or assist non-custodial parents in meeting
their parental responsibilities, this bill represents a good
first step, although much more remains to be done. There is
much we need to learn about how government policies should be
structured and coordinated in a way that succeeds in assisting
non-custodial parents. That is why Title I, which funds a
series of fatherhood grants to launch and evaluate pilot
programs in order to improve non-custodial parents' ability to
pay child support, to make child support policies for those
parents more responsive and more appropriate for low-income
families, to improve the parenting skills of non-custodial
parents and to increase contact and interaction with their
children, is the right place to begin.

SDU Penalty Provision

Let me briefly comment on the other aspects of the bill,
and then make several additional comments about Title I. The
provision reducing the state child support penalty for failure
to have a state disbursement unit fully operational is
reasonable. For whatever reason, some states are unable to meet
the requirement on a timely basis. Completely withdrawing all
federal funding for the child support enforcement program for
failing to meet this requirement is too large of a penalty and
would be extremely disruptive to the critically important task
of enforcing child support orders. As a result, states do not
really believe this penalty will be levied and they act
accordingly.
A more prudent and effective approach to improving state
compliance with child support program requirements is a series
of gradually increasing penalties for failure to comply, as
outlined in Title III of the draft bill. These penalties are
reasonable and provide a strong incentive for a state to comply
as soon as possible. This is the same structure that the
Subcommittee adopted two years ago for enforcing the child
support system requirements of the 1988 Family Support Act.
Those requirements are having their intended effects.

Welfare-to-Work Amendments

The Center also believes the Welfare to Work amendments
incorporated in this bill are necessary. The eligibility
requirements defining which adults in low-income families can
receive services need to be modified. Providers of services
have found that many low-income adults with high school degrees
lack basic reading, writing and math skills and are very much
in need of employment services. Services for these individuals
could be financed by the welfare-to-work program except for the
fact that their high school diplomas now render them ineligible
under the targeting requirements that apply to 70 percent of
the welfare-to-work funding.
Many states have recognized that Welfare-to-Work funds can
be an important source of funding for non-custodial parents.
The Department of Labor estimates that approximately $375
million of the Welfare-to-Work dollars awarded to date will
serve low-income NCPs and their families. However, very few of
these programs address child support issues, and even fewer
address child support issues in a way that integrates them with
fatherhood and employment services.
Paid employment opportunities for non-custodial parents are
an important element of efforts to develop this integrated
approach to child support, fatherhood, and employment issues.
As a recruitment tool and as a practical step that bolsters the
ability of non-custodial parents to meet their child support
obligations, a number of cities already have crafted programs
that include subsidized employment options as ``stepping
stones'' into unsubsidized jobs. Unpaid community service or
work experience is less likely to be successful with this
population, in part because non-custodial parents are not
receiving cash assistance under TANF or other programs that
would enable them to meet their basic needs while enrolled in
such activities.
In reviewing the bill's language regarding personal
responsibility contracts for non-custodial parents, I am
concerned that the section on employment appears to emphasize
unpaid work activities, perhaps even to the exclusion of
subsidized employment strategies (Section
403(a)(5)(C)(iii)(III)(cc)). I assume the subcommittee's intent
is not to narrow the range of allowable activities available in
programs serving non-custodial parents, and I encourage you to
revise this language so that temporary subsidized employment is
recognized as an option as personal responsibility contracts
are developed for participants.
I would recommend one other addition to this title of the
bill to increase the effectiveness of the welfare-to-work
program. Within title IV-D, (section 454A(f)) there needs to be
a conforming amendment that ensures that information on non-
custodial parents can be shared with the welfare-to-work
programs funded under Part A and with the fatherhood grantees
funded under Part C. Because of the need to protect the
confidentiality of the state data systems, the IV-D statute is
very restrictive in identifying ``with whom'' and ``for what
purposes'' data can be shared. This conservative approach is
generally appropriate, and we must continue to ensure that IV-D
data is not misused, with particular attention to our
responsibility to protect the interests and the safety of
custodial parents. Within these constraints, however, I believe
it is possible to allow the child support program to share
limited information about non-custodial parents with WtW
agencies for the purposes of WtW recruitment and
implementation. Based on the language in this draft bill, it
also appears that the subcommittee envisions a similar sharing
of limited information between IV-D and Part C grantees. In
order for that sharing to occur, Title IV-D will have to be
amended.
I also believe this program should be reauthorized through
fiscal year 2002, and spending under the Act should be allowed
through fiscal year 2002, even if no additional financing is
provided.

Fatherhood Grants Should Be More Flexible

Specific Suggestions for Title I

There are five changes to the bill that should be made:

(1) The Secretary and panel charged with making
recommendations about which proposals should be awarded grants
should be given more direction and guidance. Awards should be
based upon an assessment of: which grants might best achieve
the purposes of the Act; which are the most creative, bold and
innovative proposals in terms of policy changes and integration
across program boundaries; and which projects are designed in a
way that yields the best chance of learning something from that
grant. In addition, the panel should select a variety of
different approaches and entities. I would fold the projects of
national significance into Title I and say that at least one
award should be a grantee that involves several cities/
counties. The grant applications should contain a clear
description of what policies would be changed, and should
include a clear description of who is going to deliver the
services and what services will be delivered. Because
integration of the different components is critical to success,
the level of coordination among relevant governmental and
neighborhood-based organizations should be a primary factor in
choosing which proposals to fund.
(2) The requirement that 75 percent of the money go to
community-based entities is too high. Every grant should
involve community-based (which can include faith-based)
organizations in the delivery of the services--but the 75
percent requirement is too prescriptive. The intentions of the
subcommittee with respect to stimulating the provision of
fatherhood services can be achieved through guidance and
direction in the grant selection process. The bill should focus
on integration of services rather than mandating that a
particular portion should be paid to a specific type of
organization. I am concerned that community-based entities will
not have the clout to get government policies changed or
receive the necessary cooperation of government agencies if
most grants are awarded to community-based organizations.
Furthermore, community-based fatherhood organizations
should be funded primarily by state and local governments.
Awarding fatherhood grants primarily to community based
organizations through the federal government sets a bad
precedent. I recognize that this subcommittee wants to
stimulate the provision of these services, a goal which I
applaud. But that can be accomplished by requiring each grant
to incorporate fatherhood services in a significant manner
through a community based organization. More importantly, this
subcommittee should be concerned with how these services are
integrated with economic incentives for the payment of child
support, with how child support policies affect low-income
NCPs, with the provision of employment services and how all of
these services are integrated.
(3) Recruitment is another factor that requires some
consideration. Applications should also contain a clear
description of how fathers will be recruited for the project.
Incentives for participation are critical to a successful
project. Changes in child support policies and the presence of
economic incentives to pay child support should act as an
incentive for non-custodial parents to participate. In
addition, some localities may want to provide NCPs with a small
stipend during any time they are not receiving wages or
possibly provide the NCP with health insurance coverage.
(4) One of the primary reasons for these pilots is to learn
what policies work. Thus, evaluation funding may need to be
increased somewhat. These projects would build upon what we
learned from the Parents Fair Share Demonstration, a nine-site
national demonstration. If the above suggestions are taken,
these pilot demonstrations would go further by adding economic
incentives for the payment of child support, by integrating
child support and employment services, and by providing
publicly funded jobs for the most difficult to employ, in
addition to recognizing that child support policies must change
for these fathers. Additional monies for evaluation are needed
to determine the combined impact of the various changes in
policy upon child support collections, the level of interaction
between the NCPs and their children, and the overall income of
the custodial parent. Ideally, one should allow the new
policies to be in place or fully implemented for a period of
time before expecting changes in behavior as a result of the
policy change. In addition, it would be extremely useful if for
one policy change--for example the addition of economic
incentives, the change in arrearage policy, or a specific
employment service--there would be an evaluation using more
rigorous statistical methods.
(5) Some guidance should also be given to the panel and the
Secretary about the number and size of the pilot
demonstrations. I would rather have several well-funded and
carefully designed pilots conducted in a manner that enhances
policy innovation, on a scale that the projects can be
replicated, in a way that one can learn from these pilots. The
alternative approach is to scatter the money so broadly that
one does not learn much from the projects. The draft language
suggests that $100 million be dedicated to these grants. Those
monies can be supplemented substantially by state and local
dollars, TANF dollars and welfare to work dollars. What these
monies primarily provide is the incentive or catalyst to
overcome bureaucratic boundaries and for governmental and non-
governmental resources to be pooled in such a manner that
learning can take place.

Additional Rationale for Child Support Policy Changes

Conclusion

In conclusion, the proposed fatherhood bill is the right
first step in assisting NCPs in meeting their parental
responsibilities. This bill, by encouraging state and local
communities and community-based organizations to undertake
integrated efforts to improve services to non-custodial parents
through competitive grants, should act as an important catalyst
for policy innovation. This effort could be strengthened if
certain modifications in the bill were made. Again, thank you
for the opportunity to testify this afternoon.

Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Dr.
Primus.
Dr. Horn.

STATEMENT OF WADE F. HORN, PH.D., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE

Statement of Wade F. Horn, Ph.D., President, National Fatherhood
Initiative

My name is Wade F. Horn, Ph.D. I am a clinical child
psychologist and President of the National Fatherhood
Initiative, an organization whose mission is to improve the
well-being of children by increasing the number of children
growing up with an involved, responsible and loving father.
Formerly, I served as Commissioner for Children, Youth and
Families within the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, and served as a member on the National Commission on
Children, the National Commission on Childhood Disability, and
the U.S Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators. Currently, I
serve as a member of the U.S. Advisory Board on Head Start
Evaluation and Research. I greatly appreciate this invitation
to testify today on the ``Fathers Count Act of 1999.''

The Scope and Consequences of Fatherlessness

Fatherlessness in America today is an unprecedented reality
with profound consequences for children and civil society. In
1960, the total number of children in the United States living
in father absent families was less than 10 million. Today, that
number stands at 24 million.\1\ Nearly four out of ten children
in America do not live in the same home as their father. By
some estimates, this figure is likely to rise to 60% of
children born in the 1990s.\2\
For nearly one million children each year, the pathway to a
fatherless family is divorce.\3\ The divorce rate nearly
tripled from 1960 to 1980, before leveling off and declining
slightly in the 1980s.\4\ Today, 40 out of every 100 first
marriages now end in divorce, compared to 16 out of every 100
first marriages in 1960. No other industrialized nation has a
higher divorce rate.\5\
The second pathway to a fatherless home is out-of-wedlock
fathering. In 1960, about 5 percent of all births were out-of-
wedlock. That number increased to 10.7 percent in 1970, 18.4
percent in 1980, 28 percent in 1990, and nearly 33 percent
today.\6\ In the United States, the number of children fathered
out-of-wedlock each year (approximately 1.2 million annually)
now surpasses the number of children whose parents divorce
(approximately 1 million annually).
No region of the country has been immune to the growing
problem of fatherlessness. Between 1980 and 1990, non-marital
birth rates increased in every state of the Union.\7\ During
this time period, ten states saw the rate of nonmarital births
increase by over 60 percent. Furthermore, births to unmarried
teenagers increased by 44 percent between 1985 and 1992.\8\ In
fact, 76 percent of all births to teenagers nationwide are now
out-of-wedlock. In 15 of our nation's largest cities, the
teenage out-of-wedlock birth rate exceeds 90 percent. Overall,
the percent of families with children headed by a single parent
currently stands at nearly 28 percent, the vast majority of
which are father absent households.\9\
Although African-Americans are disproportionately affected
by the problem of father absence (sixty-two percent of African-
American children live in father absent homes), fatherlessness
is by no means a problem affecting minorities only. Indeed, the
absolute number of father absent families is larger--and the
rate of father absence is growing the fastest--in the white
community. Currently, over 13 million white children reside in
father absent homes, compared to 6.5 million African-American
children.\10\
The absence of an involved, committed and responsible
father has profound consequences for children. Almost 75
percent of children in the United States living in single-
parent families will experience poverty before they turn
eleven-years-old, compared to only 20 percent of children in
two-parent families.\11\ Children who grow up absent their
fathers are also more likely to fail at school or to drop
out,\12\ experience behavioral or emotional problems requiring
psychiatric treatment,\13\ engage in early sexual activity,\14\
and develop drug and alcohol problems.\15\
Children growing up with absent fathers are especially
likely to experience violence. Violent criminals are
overwhelmingly males who grew up without fathers, including up
to 60 percent of rapists,\16\ 75 percent of adolescents charged
with murder,\17\ and 70 percent of juveniles in state reform
institutions.\18\ Children who grow up without fathers are also
three times more likely to commit suicide as adolescents \19\
and to be victims of child abuse or neglect.\20\
If ever there was a problem in need of a solution, it is
this one, for the evidence suggests that improvements in the
well-being of children will necessarily be limited without a
restoration of responsible, committed, and involved fatherhood.

Five Principles for Crafting Fatherhood Legislation

The Fathers Count Act of 1999

When judged against the aforementioned five principles, the
``Fathers Count Act of 1999'' fares very well indeed. Titles I
and II make it clear that grants are to be made available to
promote marriage and successful fathering, as well to improve
the economic condition of fathers so that they are in an
enhanced position to pay child support. Title II of the Act
also provides funds for a broad-based public awareness campaign
promoting the importance of responsible fatherhood and marriage
to the well-being of children and communities. The Act is also
commendable in its explicit support for faith-based fatherhood
and marriage promotion activities.
Nevertheless, I do have several suggestions for the
Committee's consideration. First, I recommend adding to the
``Preferences'' section of Title I, an explict preference when
awarding grants under this section to those fatherhood programs
which set married fatherhood as the ideal and which strive to
move as many unwed fathers toward marriage as possible or, at
the very least, help these fathers understand the necessity of
becoming married before fathering any additional children out-
of-wedlock.
Second, while recognizing that one way to strengthen
marriage, especially within low-income communities, is to
expand participation in welfare-to-work employment programs to
include the broader population of low-income males, we must be
careful not to condition receipt of such services upon having
fathered a child out-of-wedlock. To do so may only serve to
introduce perverse incentives for men to father children out-
of-wedlock, in much the same way that AFDC provided perverse
incentives for women to bear children out-of-wedlock. Careful
attention should be paid in both Titles I and III to ensure
that such perverse incentives for unmarried fatherhood do not
exist.
Third, the Act would be enhanced by making it clear that
grants could be used to support broad-based, community-wide
efforts to support responsible fatherhood and marriage, and not
just individual, single site programs. This should be clarified
in both Titles I and II of the Act.
Fourth, it should be made clear in the section of Title I
entitled ``Minimum Percentage of Grants for Projects
Coordinated with Paternity Establishment'' that programs which
serve married fathers at the time of the child's birth are
eligible under this section. Otherwise, one could interpret
this section to mean that 50 percent of the funds under Title I
can only be used to support fathers who have establish legal
paternity, but who are not married to the mothers of their
children. Such a reading of the Act could potentially provide
perverse incentives for unwed fatherhood.
Finally, it is admirable that the Act sets aside $6,000,000
for evaluation of the fatherhood programs funded by this
legislation. It appears, however, that the first year any
evaluation funds become available is in FY 2006, four years
after the first fatherhood program funds are made available.
The best evaluations are those which are fully integrated into
programs when first implemented, rather than tagged on after
the fact. I recommend that the Committee clarify that the
evaluation efforts must begin at the point of program
implementation, rather than four years after the programs have
already begun.

Conclusion

There exists today no greater single threat to the long-
term well-being of children, our communities or our nation,
than the increasing number of children being raised without a
committed, responsible and loving father. This tide will not be
turned easily, and certainly not by changes in public policy
alone. But public policy can have a significant effect upon how
potential parents view marriage and parental responsibilities.
The good news is that we are starting to see, for the first
time in over thirty years, a leveling off of the number of
children growing up in father absent homes. I believe that with
concerted effort we can actually reverse the trend toward
fatherlessness within the next five years. Not simply stop the
rise in fatherlessness, but reverse it. Doing so will require
that we stand firm on the issue of marriage, for marriage is
the most likely--not perfect, but certainly the most likely--
pathway to a lifetime father.
Simply put: children need their fathers, and men need
marriage to be good fathers. Effective public policy means
encouraging more skilled fathering, more work, and more
marriages. The ``Fathers Count Act of 1999'' is a very
significant, positive and much welcomed step forward in this
regard.
I thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this
testimony, and would be pleased to answer any questions you
might have concerning my testimony.

Endnotes

Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Dr.
Horn.
Mr. Rector, nice to have you.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT RECTOR, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, HERITAGE
FOUNDATION

Mr. Rector. Thank you, Chairwoman. I appreciate the
opportunity of being back here today to testify about this most
important issue. The central problem in our society today is
that marriage is dying. A third of all children are born out of
wedlock. There is a child born out of wedlock roughly every 25
seconds across the United States. Among minority children, 70
percent are born out of wedlock.
The death of marriage is the root cause of crime, of child
poverty, of welfare dependence, of school failure, of drug
addiction, and most of the other social problems that we are
concerned with.
Yet in the United States today, the government spends about
$1,000 subsidizing single parenthood for every single dollar it
spends trying to reduce illegitimacy and promote marriage.
This bill I feel straddles the fence between those two
issues. When we use the term fatherhood, it is in some sense an
ambiguous term. We must ask what is the goal of fatherhood
programs. As we look at the range of fatherhood programs, we
see that there are basically two polar goals here. A lot of
programs focus on collecting child support and providing job
training. Other programs, the minority, focus on the much more
important issue of restoring marriage.
I would simply like to ask the question, what do we expect
the effect of collecting child support to be on child outcome?
Do we expect that if we collect child support today, it will
reduce juvenile crime in the future? Do we expect it will
reduce future out-of-wedlock births as girls become teenagers?
Do we expect it will reduce the rate of school failure? Do we
expect it will increase the rate of psychological health or
reduce the rate of child abuse? No.
No credible researcher could tell you that collecting child
support is expected to have any of those positive outcomes on
children. In fact, as a researcher, I would say to you that
collecting child support is such a weak variable that when I do
regressions and things, very few people would use it as a
variable because it does not affect those outcomes that we are
concerned with. But on the other hand, marriage does, marriage
affects them profoundly and positively and marriage is key to
the well-being of children.
Now, we could spend the next decade emphasizing the
collection of child support, and after that was over, we would
ask, have to ask ourselves exactly what did we do for these
children, or we could spend a decade working on programs that
focus on restoring loving marriages, and we would find that we
would have then defeated the culture of the underclass.
One of the problems that I find with the Fathers Count bill
as it is currently configured is that it waits until an out-of-
wedlock pregnancy has occurred to begin an intervention. I
think, in fact, the bulk of effort should be put at a much
earlier stage, in particular, going into high school with
marriage education programs that explain to at-risk, young
people that what marriage can do for them and what it will do
for their children to create the expectation and the idea of
marriage. In other words, what I want to do is to prevent
Humpty Dumpty from falling off the wall rather than trying to
glue him back together again after he has fallen.
Let us go back, let us go to the very beginning of the
problem and try to prevent young men and women from falling
into these problems, falling into the problem of illegitimacy,
rather than waiting until one or two children have been born,
the mother and father have fallen into a broken relationship
and now we are trying to patch it together again for an
emphasis on child support. That is not the place to put our
emphasis. The place to put our emphasis is on disaster
prevention rather than disaster relief, and the prevention of
disaster is a focus on the restoration of marriage in these
communities.
I am also concerned under this act of the very large role
that it gives to the professional Washington bureaucracy in the
selection of grantees. I have worked in this field for 20
years, and I must say to you that there is, although this issue
is changing slightly, I experienced 20 years of indifference or
hostility to the question of marriage within the professional
bureaucracy here in Washington and many of the State capitals,
and, therefore, expecting this bureaucracy to allocate funds to
grantees that have a strong pro-marriage goal and posture is
very, very unlikely.
I do think that the issue is changing slightly, but I have
been in this field so long that I can remember over and over
again being told by the very people that will be making the
decisions about this funding that marriage is essentially
obsolete, it is not important.
And this bill I believe wants to break from the status quo,
a break from the status quo. I believe the most important thing
that you could do would be to go into Title II of the act,
which is a very well-designed title and is in fact I think the
beginning of a pro-marriage initiative in the Federal
Government, find those organizations that have a historic track
record in support of marriage and directly put the funds on
those organizations and see what they can do.
I believe that across the Nation in the communities that we
are concerned with, there is an appetite for hope. There is an
appetite for the message of marriage. They are waiting for us
to tell them what to do and how to lead their lives properly.
We need to put an emphasis on giving that message out at the
appropriate time before the girl has become pregnant, before
the out-of-wedlock child birth has occurred or at least at that
very point rather than waiting 6 or 7 years until a boy has had
2 or 3 children out of wedlock, the relationship between the
man and the woman have collapsed and now we are trying to paste
the whole thing back together again.
Let us start and prevent the problem from emerging in the
first place. I believe we can do that if we have a will and a
goal of that in mind.
[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow, Heritage Foundation

Introduction

I wish to thank the sub-committee for the opportunity to
testify on the Fathers Count bill. The views I will express are
my own and do not necessarily reflect those of The Heritage
Foundation.
Marriage in our society is dying. Today, a third of all
births occur outside of wedlock. Among blacks the rate is
nearly 70 percent. The collapse of marriage lies at the core of
underclass culture and is the root cause of a vast array of
overlapping social problems including crime, welfare
dependence, child poverty, drug use, eroded work effort and
school failure.
Yet rather than seeking to combat marital collapse the
government subsidizes it. At present, the federal and state
governments spend around $150 billion a year on means-tested
subsidies to single parents. These subsidies promote single
parenthood and undermine marriage. By contrast, the government
spends some $150 million a year on programs designed to reduce
illegitimacy and increase marriage. Thus the government spends
$1,000 subsidizing single parenthood for every $1.00 it spends
to restore marriage and reduce illegitimacy. Moreover,
obtaining even the $150 million in pro-marriage funding was
severe up-hill struggle.
This $1,000 to $1.00 ratio is no accident, but reflects the
value system which pervades the welfare and social service
establishment in this nation. Since the fervent assault on the
Moynihan Report in 1963, the professional welfare industry has
regarded the institution of marriage with indifference or
contempt. William Ryan in his influential book Blaming the
Victim expressed this view most clearly, saying that ``only a
few old diehards cling to old myths [concerning the value of
marriage].''
When pressed, the welfare and social service industry may
now pay weak lip service to marriage but the underlying
attitude of indifference or hostility remains. This attitude
explains why, despite the fact that the welfare reform
legislation of 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), identified reducing
illegitimacy as a paramount goal, few if any states use TANF
surplus funds in active programs aimed at reducing illegitimacy
and increasing marriage.
The ``Fathers Count'' bill, like PRWORA, identifies
restoring marriage as a paramount goal, but once again this
lacks operational teeth. The structure of the programs and the
role of formal bureaucracies in selecting grantees ensure that
only a tiny fraction of these funds will go to organizations
with a strong commitment to marriage. Instead nearly all on the
funding will be devoted to providing job training to absent
fathers and collecting child support.

Title One of the Act

Title One of the bill contains the bulk of funding with
$150 million over four years. It is true that one of the stated
goals of title one is to promote marriage. However, none of the
six active preference criteria to be used in selecting grants
relate even remotely to marriage. Instead the emphasis is on
job training, cooperation with child support enforcement, and
paternity establishment.
Moreover, the eligibility criteria of title one are
incompatible with a focus on reducing illegitimacy and
increasing marriage. Young men may receive services under the
bill only after they have fathered a child out-of-wedlock or
made a married girl pregnant, generally out-of-wedlock. By
contrast, a pro-marriage strategy would focus on preventing
out-of-wedlock pregnancies from occurring and would encourage
marriage before the pregnancy and non-marital birth happen.
If the overall goal is to reduce illegitimacy and to
increase and strengthen marriage then we need to realize that
interventions may planned at many different stages in the
individual's life cycle. These stages include:
Stage One: Before the initiation of sexual activity in teen
or early adult years.
Stage Two: During the early stages of non-marital sexual
activity.
Stage Three: While a young woman is cohabiting with
boyfriend.
Stage Four: When a young woman cohabiting with boyfriend
becomes pregnant and intends to bear the child.
Stage Five: When a young unmarried mother with new-born
infant is cohabiting or in a relationship with child's father.
Stage Six: When the mother and father's relationship has
broken down, and the father leaves household.
Stage Seven: When the absent father fails to pay child
support.
Stage Eight: When the absent father fails to pay child
support, and the mother is involved with other men.
A comprehensive strategy to increase marriage and reduce
illegitimacy would provide an overlapping series of
interventions with an emphasis on stages one through five.
These interventions could involve marriage education, skills
building, mentoring, ad campaigns, and programs to reward
marriage and the avoidance of illegitimacy. Education programs
concerning the value of marriage targeted to at-risk youth in
high school and middle school are particularly important.
By contrast, nearly all so called fatherhood programs focus
on stages seven and eight. But these are precisely the points
which have the least likelihood of producing a stable married
home environment for the child. This is no accident. These
programs were explicitly designed with the goals of providing
job training to absent fathers and collecting child support.
Most of the organizations involved share the mindset of most of
the social service industry ranging from indifference to overt
hostility towards marriage. Many of these organizations have
been reluctant even to mention the word marriage.
While the interventions most likely to increase marriage
and reduce illegitimacy will occur in stages one through five,
title one of Fathers Counts prohibits funding to any
interventions in stages one through three. Title one does
depart from conventional practice by requiring some programs to
recruit participants in stage four (during pregnancy of the
mother). However, the fact remains that nearly all the activity
funded under title one will occur after an illegitimate birth
has occurred; the bulk will focus on providing largely
ineffectual job training to absent fathers long after the
relationship with the mother has collapsed. By focusing its
efforts after an out-of wedlock pregnancy or birth has
occurred, Fathers Count bill provides disaster relief when what
is needed is disaster prevention.

Misstating the Objective

Thus nearly all of the activities funded under Title one
will focus on preparing and assisting absent fathers to pay
more in child support. Why this inordinate focus on child
support? What better outcomes for the child born out-of-wedlock
can we expect if more child support is collected? Will the
child's rate of future criminal activity and incarceration drop
significantly? Will child's mental health and psychological
stability improve? Will the school drop-out rates and rates of
drug and alcohol abuse decline? Will the child's prospects of
giving birth out-wedlock herself as an adult drop?
Of course, improved child support collection will have a
nugatory effect on all of these crucial life outcomes. In other
words, child support has, at best, and a marginal effect on the
well-being of the child. By contrast, restoration of marriage
will have the most profound beneficial effects on the child's
life outcomes and on the culture of the underclass. Why then,
the pre-occupation with child support and the neglect in
fostering marriage? The answer lies in the institutional
hostility to marriage I alluded to earlier.

Bureaucratic Selection of Grantees

Another substantial problem with Title one is the dominant
role it gives the federal bureaucracy in selecting grantees.
There is no group of people with greater hostility to the
institution of marriage of than the professional bureaucracy to
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Yet the
Washington bureaucratic class will have a huge role in
selecting grantees. Funding conservative pro-marriage groups
would represent an enormous break the social service status
quo. This departure from the status quo will not occur if the
allocation of funding and selection of grantees is controlled
by either federal or state welfare bureaucracies. Instead funds
must be directly targeted to pro-marriage groups.

Title Two and Targeted Funding

However, Title Two of the bill is substantially different
than title one. Title two actually targets funds to two groups
with a historic commitment and track record in support of
marriage. Assuming that the HHS bureaucracy actually allows
these funds to flow to the targeted groups, title two will fund
critically needed pro-marriage activities. Thus the title two
funding could provide the first significant step in a national
campaign to restore marriage and save the underclass.
Unfortunately, the funds allocated to pro-marriage groups
under Title two will constitute only $5 to $10 million over
four years. By contrast, total funding under the Fathers Counts
bill, including title three will be around $230 million. Thus
the funds which will actually flow to pro-marriage activities
and pro-marriage groups will be only two to four percent of the
total.
This is simply insufficient. If the bill is to have a
substantial pro-marriage component, this can only be
accomplished by increasing the funds allocated to the committed
pro-marriage groups targeted in title two. Pro-marriage groups
and activities should receive at least a quarter of the funding
under this bill, or roughly $50 million over four years, rather
than the current $5 to $10 million.

Title Three

Title three of the act provides $65 million to provide more
job training. At a time when state governments are sitting on
nearly $6 billion in surplus TANF funds this expenditure is
simply a waste of the taxpayers money.

Conclusion

The most pressing goal facing our nation is strengthening
marriage and reducing illegitimacy. The collapse of marriage is
at the center of the problem of the underclass. Any policy,
which seriously seeks to redeem the underclass, must begin by
restoring marriage.
Unfortunately, the Fathers Count bill will not strengthen
marriage. Although some 2 to 4 percent of its funds will
probably flow to groups with a historic track record of
fostering marriage, the remaining bulk of the funds will be
used to provide job training of marginal effectiveness and to
increase child support payments. Nearly all of the
organizations which will receive funds will share the ethos
which has characterized the U.S. social service industry since
the denunciation of the Moynihan report in 1963. That ethos
ranges from complete indifference to outright hostility toward
marriage as an institution.
Even worse, the Fathers' Count bill will undermine efforts
to restore marriage for two reasons. First, the bill will
decisively draw attention and scarce funds away from the real
issue of marriage. Second, because of its emphasis on child
support pass through, the bill is likely to result in an
indirect increase in welfare benefits flowing to single
mothers. This will increase rather than reduce illegitimacy.
Regrettably, those policy makers truly interested in a
restoration of marriage should seek a substantial alteration to
the Fathers Count Act.

Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Mr.
Rector.
Dr. Johnson.

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY M. JOHNSON, PH.D., PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL CENTER FOR STRATEGIC NONPROFIT
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP

Mr. Jeffrey Johnson. Good afternoon. I want to thank you,
Chairman Johnson, Mr. Cardin and Members of the Human Resources
Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on the proposed
Fathers Count Act of 1999. As you know, Madam Chair, for 20
years, I have been involved with the programs concerned with
the plight of poor families from a lot of different positions,
from a corporate executive, from a nonprofit executive, a
college professor and a practitioner.
I try to bring that knowledge to my work at the
organization I represent, and that is the National Center for
Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership. Simply
put, NPCL works with communities and families to help
themselves.
With the passage of the Fathers Count Act of 1999, it will
be a first step in providing the general public support needed
to move closer to the day when fatherlessness is no longer a
major American social issue. Since before the passage of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation
Act of 1996, NPCL through the Strengthening Fragile Families
Initiative sponsored by the Ford Foundation has been working
toward the objectives set by welfare reform.
The major provision of that legislation the temporary
assistance for needy families, or TANF, had four goals. Along
with my colleagues, Dr. Elaine Sorensen of the Urban Institute
and Dr. Ronald Mincy of the Ford Foundation, who joined me in
this statement, strengthening family grantees has been focused
especially on the fourth goal, which is to encourage the
formation and maintenance of two-parent households.
In our opinion, this legislation is intended to begin its
work where welfare reform ended. That means, not only extending
the employment gains made by mothers of children on welfare to
fathers, but also helping young, low-income fathers and mothers
to develop the personal employment and relationship skills they
need to jointly support their children.
In our view, this will go a long way toward meeting the
fourth goal, especially in communities where most children are
born to unwed parents. Strengthening fragile families
initiative research shows that many young fathers are highly
involved with their children and their children's mothers at
the birth of the child and during the early childhood years;
therefore, the image of mothers raising their children born out
of--outside of marriage by themselves is not totally accurate.
I would like to draw your attention to the charts on my
right. And, Madam Chairperson, they are attachments 1 and 2 in
my prepared written testimony. These findings bolster the
evidence provided by Professor Sara McLanahan during the
Subcommittee's previous hearing on fatherhood of high father
involvement at the time of the child's birth. We believe that
this legislation must more clearly make provisions for
interventions that support and strengthen the bond between
younger and low-skilled and low-income fathers, mothers and
their children, a group we referred to as fragile families.
So, first, we ask you to broaden the purpose of the
legislation to look at fragile families as an appropriate point
of intervention.
A fourth goal might be added as follows: To promote the
long-term collaboration of unwed parents in their child's
development through interventions that serve both parents
during the early years of a child's life. The Fathers Count Act
should also seek to coordinate the service requirements of moms
and dads and make eligibility requirements more gender or
custody neutral so that dad can receive assistance as needed to
bolster his self-sufficiency and capacity to care for his
family.
There are some additional points I would like to bring to
your attention. First is that MPCL has developed an expertise
to coordinate amongst a variety of agencies serving low-income,
low-skilled parents. Much of the work that we are doing is done
in collaboration with the Department of Labor, programs at the
local level, the worker force investment boards, with Head
Start, with Healthy Start, with Runaway Services, with the TANF
program. We have a national demonstration project operating in
10 cities, and we have been able to pull it off, and so some of
the suggestions about a community-wide initiative does make
sense to us, and I can point very specifically to these types
of projects in those communities we are working in.
Also, the Partner for Fragile Families demonstration
project, a 10-city demonstration, is the first comprehensive
initiative that is designed to focus on both moms and fathers
as they try to pull themselves out of poverty and build
stronger links with their children and to develop the bonds
necessary to provide worthwhile role models to their children.
The Fathers Count Act provides a broad programmatic
framework for reengaging fathers with families. The Partners
for Fragile Families project is already in the process of
conducting the work recognized necessary by the bill. The PFF
project also emphasizes team parenting, meaning that parents
work together for the benefit of their children regardless of
their marital status.
Let me address the question of marriage here by stating
that we support it. However, the crucial question for us is not
whether but when. A young father without a job or prospects is
a poor candidate for marriage. He is not, as we phrase it,
marriageable, but that does not mean that he abdicates his role
as daddy. The Fathers Count Act of 1999 needs the support and
to cultivate marriageability with a fervor equal to that
expressed commitment to support and cultivate marriage.
Finally, it is imperative that any new or revised policy
initiatives toward supporting fragile families be enacted. That
is where the Fathers Count Act of 1999 can make a real
difference. We need to shape guidelines that focus efforts
where we can and to maximize results now that welfare reform
has become operational. We need to intervene now and cutoff the
supply of children who require public assistance because their
families are unable to provide their basic needs. Research
strongly suggests that the best way to ensure that children do
not need public assistance is to ensure that their parents have
the wherewithal to support their family.
For many young fathers, the heart is indeed willing but the
ability is lacking. Multiple, flexible strategies will be
necessary to address the challenges these men and their
families face. Part of that response we believe is the Fathers
Count Act of 1999, as well as our Partners for Fragile Families
project.
Although I have several other recommendations that I would
like to discuss, time will not permit, and so Madam
Chairperson, I would just like to offer those as part of my
written testimony, and I would be happy to answer any questions
that you and the Subcommittee might have at this time.
[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Jeffrey M. Johnson, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive
Officer, National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community
Leadership

Good Afternoon, first my thanks to Chairman Johnson and
members of the Human Resources Subcommittee of the House Ways
and Means Committee for this opportunity to testify on the
proposed Fathers Count Act of 1999. I applaud your wisdom,
foresight, tenacity and commitment to fathers, families and
children as indicated by this proposed legislation and these
hearings aimed at addressing father involvement in the lives of
their children. I know first hand the importance of fathers in
families and I try to bring that knowledge to my work as
President and CEO of the National Center for Strategic
Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership. The mission of
NPCL is to enhance the capacity of community-based
organizations to address identified local needs, primarily
through family and neighborhood empowerment. Simply put NPCL
works to help communities and families help themselves. I am
Dr. Jeffery M. Johnson, and on behalf of the board and staff of
NPCL, the ten Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration
Sites, over 3,000 fatherhood professionals that we have trained
over the past few years, representatives from the faith based
community and an array of non-governmental organizations, I
thank you for squarely addressing this long-neglected aspect of
family social policy. If you are successful at passing the
Fathers Count Act of 1999, it will be a first step in providing
the general public support needed to move us closer to the day
when fatherlessness is no longer a major American social issue.
This bill also has implications for the greater success of
child support collections and welfare-to-work initiatives and
calls for coordination between service providers at all levels
which everyone agrees will enhance services to families. We
applaud your attempt to ensure the integration of the services
authorized under welfare reform.
Since before the passage of the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, NPCL as part of
the Ford Foundation's Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative
(SFFI) has been working towards the objectives set forth by
welfare reform. The major provision of that legislation,
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families or TANF, had four goals.
States were required to use funding to:
decrease welfare dependency by providing enhanced job
opportunities;
provide cash assistance and other services to needy
families;
reduce the rate of out-of-wedlock pregnancies;
encourage the formation and maintenance of two parent
households.
Along with my colleagues Dr. Elaine Sorensen of the Urban
Institute and Dr. Ronald Mincy of the Ford Foundation, who join
me in this statement, SFFI grantees have been focussed
especially on the fourth goal. In our opinion this legislation
is intended to begin its work where welfare reform ended. This
means, not only extending the employment gains made by the
mothers of children on welfare to fathers, but also helping
young, low-income unwed fathers and mothers to develop the
personal, employment, and relationship skills they need to
jointly support their children. In our view, this will go a
long way toward meeting the fourth goal, especially in
communities where most children are born to unwed parents.
SFFI research shows that most young fathers are highly
involved with their children and their children's mothers at
the birth of the child and during their early childhood years.
Therefore, the image of mothers raising their children born
outside marriage by themselves is not totally accurate.
According to chart 1, attachment 1,* a large nationally
representative survey conducted by the Urban Institute in 1997,
for example, 30 percent of children under the age of two who
are born outside of marriage live with both of their biological
parents. Another 32 percent lived with their mother and saw
their father at least once a week. Thus, according to this
survey, the majority of young poor children born outside of
marriage have highly involved fathers. Chart 2, attachment 2,
shows that just over a quarter of poor children spend their
first two years in a fragile family, but as children get older,
this family type declines. As you can see, for poor children
under the age of two, 38 percent of them live with their two
natural, married parents; 27 percent live in a fragile family;
29 percent live with their mother and their father is not
highly involved; and 5 percent live in other arrangements. By
the time poor children are in their teens, however, only 5
percent of them live in a fragile family; 59 percent live with
their mother and their dad is not highly involved. Thus, most
poor children end up in a single mother family with an
uninvolved father, but when poor children are young, both
parents are more likely than not to be involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The National Survey of America's Families is a large nationally
representative survey of the non elderly population (under 65 years of
age) conducted in 1997 for the urban Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These findings bolster the evidence provided by Professor
Sarah McLanahan, during the committee's previous hearings on
fatherhood, of high father involvement at the time of the
child's birth. Professor McLanahan's preliminary findings are
from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Survey, which was
initiated through a Ford Foundation, SFFI grant. This survey is
in the process of interviewing unwed mothers and fathers in 21
cities across the country. While the current findings are
preliminary, the final survey results will doubtlessly show
levels of father involvement of a similar order of magnitude,
which is much higher than most experts would have anticipated
based upon previous research.
These findings suggest that a new family type has emerged--
it consists of poor children and their young, disadvantaged,
unwed parents who want to work together on behalf of their
offspring. This is where the Fathers Count Act can and should
focus its work. Thus, we believe that this legislation must
more clearly make provisions for interventions that support and
strengthen the bond between young low-skilled, low-income
fathers, mothers and their children, a group we refer to as
``fragile families.''
So we first we ask you to broaden the purpose of this
legislation to look at ``fragile families,'' as an appropriate
point of intervention. A fourth goal might be added as follows:
(4) to promote the long-term collaboration of unwed parents
in their child's development through interventions that serve
both parents during the early years of a child's life.
The Fathers Count Act should also seek to coordinate the
service requirements of moms and dads and make eligibility
requirements more gender-or-custody neutral so that dad can
receive assistance, as needed, to bolster his self-sufficiency
and capacity to care for his family. We are not suggesting that
fathers be provided the same level of services as mothers, nor
are we challenging the presumptive custody that the mother has
under current law. Instead, we would modify the eligibility
criteria in the Fathers Count Act to make it easier for fathers
to receive employment, counseling, and related services under
the Act. I would suggest that the mere inclusion of so many
different factors for eligibility will make the implementation
of the various program elements difficult ``on the ground''
when states and localities attempt to operationalize these
programs. In that regard, for the sake of consistency, the bill
should also raise the personal eligibility criteria to 200
percent of the poverty guideline for fathers. Similarly, we
should streamline eligibility requirements and do away with any
criteria that are not absolutely necessary to maintain the
integrity of programs.
NPCL has developed the expertise to coordinate among the
various agencies serving low-income, low-skilled parents and
their children, because we have discovered that fathers and
mothers in fragile families have very similar need profiles.
Our primary project, Partners for Fragile Families (PFF),
includes a ten-city demonstration project that is the first
comprehensive national initiative designed to help poor, single
fathers join the mothers of their children in pulling
themselves out of poverty and building stronger links to their
children and their children's mothers. Thus, we believe that we
are focused on a specific segment of families that the Fathers
Count Act should target in order to maximize its effectiveness.
PFF fathers are not ``deadbeat dads'' but men we call
``dead-broke dads.'' These are men likely to qualify themselves
for food stamps, men who look statistically much like mothers
who are long-term welfare recipients. The difference between
``deadbeat dads'' and those we refer to as ``dead-broke dads''
is that the former can pay child support but will not. ``Dead-
broke dads'' cannot pay child support but would if they were
able.
As it streamlines eligibility requirements, the Fathers
Count Act should also require that organizations eligible to
receive funds have two additional kinds of experience:
offering national technical assistance and training to
programs that target fragile families; and
working in partnership with programs under the aegis of the
Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human
Services, (including Head Start and Child Support Enforcement)
Department of Education,, and other child well-being
initiatives.
Such coordination is not always necessary to serve mothers
and fathers separately, but it is essential to help mothers and
fathers jointly support their children, which is consistent
with the fourth goal.
The Partners for Fragile Families Site Demonstration is a
collaborative effort funded by grants from NPCL and operated in
the ten test cities by public and private groups, grass roots
community-based organizations, federal and state child support
enforcement agencies, private employers and others to help men
take financial, emotional and legal responsibility for their
children. The operative idea here is a partnership that
leverages resources in a broad working coalition toward the
goal of strong, independent families where children are well-
cared for by both mother and father.
The Fathers Counts Act provides a broad programmatic
framework for re-engaging fathers with families. Thus, PFF is
already in the process of conducting the work recognized as
necessary by the bill. PFF addresses a range of interlocking
issues, including the type of systemic policy change suggested
by the Fathers Counts Act.
All PFF grantees are required to use the Fatherhood
Development Curriculum co-authored by myself and Pamela Wilson
to teach values, manhood, parental accountability, anger
management, self-sufficiency, health, sexuality and pregnancy
prevention and conflict resolution. These lessons are
emphasized by a peer support component of the program which
means that young fathers who have successfully become
responsible help teach those who are trying to become good
parents. We also emphasize what we call team, T-E-A-M
parenting, meaning that parents work together for the benefit
of their children regardless of their marital status. And let
me address the question of marriage here by stating that we
support it. However, the crucial question for us is not whether
but when. A young father without a job or prospects is a poor
candidate for marriage--he is not as we phrase it,
marriageable, but that does not mean he abdicates his role as
``daddy.'' Whether or not they are married, the child needs
food, clothes, care, love and two supportive, nurturing
parents. As he becomes self-supporting and an integral part of
his child(ren)s lives, hopefully, marriage is a result if that
is something the couple seeks for themselves.
The Fathers Counts Act of 1999 needs to support and
cultivate marriageability with a fervor equal to its expressed
commitment to support and cultivate marriage.
Toward that goal, our program helps these men to establish
legal paternity, learn their legal rights and responsibilities,
and negotiate the formal child support system. Child support
enforcement agencies, in turn, may modify child support orders
to give fathers time to secure training and a job, then
gradually increase the order to match the father's ability to
pay. The Fathers Count Act speaks explicitly to this kind of
proportional relief. The bill's expansion of the provision that
would allow for true forgiveness of child support arrearages,
where it is apparent that fathers are making a good faith
effort to pay what they can afford, is another major move in
the right direction. We welcome the legislation's recognition
of the necessity of having a simple, straightforward
methodology for addressing this issue, which presents a
monumental roadblock for many good dead-broke dads. The low-
skilled labor market is unstable. Fathers (and mothers) are,
therefore, at risk of losing their jobs, which would cause an
interruption in the father's child support payments. We would
suggest that the legislation include a provision to allow
fathers, who rapidly seek a modification of their child support
orders, when they become involuntarily unemployed, to qualify
for some level of relief from arrearages. It should also
require that applicant organizations have experience working in
partnership with Child Support Enforcement at the national,
state and local level. NPCL and its PFF grantees developed
these relationships during the planning phase of the
demonstration. Therefore, we believe that we are prepared to
take advantage of the current language providing for relief
from child support arrearages or of the expanded language,
which suggested here.
The Parent's Fair Share (PFS) Demonstration recently
conducted by the Manpower Demonstration and Research
Corporation, was able to achieve higher child support
compliance rates for fathers in the treatment group, but the
child support payments of fathers in the treatment group did
not exceed those of fathers in the control group. This occurred
because workforce development efforts in the PFS demonstration
did not focus on wage growth. In line with the goal of
promoting marriageability and increased child support, all PFF
grantees are required to institute or provide access to
intensive career and personal development-skills training in
preparation for placement in family-sustaining, wage-growth
jobs. We are talking about boot-camp-job-readiness programs.
PFF grantees are also urged to perform long-term follow-up for
clients to maximize the chances for job retention.
The program has an excellent prognosis and we are preparing
to expand to more cities and accept greater numbers of fathers.
Evaluative reports suggest that young fathers are indeed
becoming responsible workers, adept at mediating the
relationship between themselves and the mothers of their
children as well as good parents.
Early research data show that PFF grantees are succeeding
in training and job placement with a difficult population. Of
567 participants enrolled in the Boston and New York Access
Support and Advancement Partnership (ASAP) intensive job
training programs for example, a total of 308 were placed in
jobs after two years. The average salary of ASAP graduates in
Boston was $22,308 and $20,301 in New York. In 1990, 61 percent
of dead-broke dads had incomes below poverty level (about
$6800) and 86 percent had personal incomes below the poverty
level for a family of four (about $13,000).
Unlike past publicly funded programs, PFF is concentrating
on young, low-income, low-skilled men early enough to ensure
that we can make a difference in the family outcome, before he
drifts away from his responsibilities, or accrues large child
support arrearages, or goes to jail multiple times, or
disappears. This represents a new approach to anti-poverty,
pro-family programs, one that we believe is most effective in
promising the outcomes we seek. Any evaluation efforts mandated
by the Fathers Count Act should focus on development of
accurate documentation. This documentation can then provide a
firm foundation for future evaluation efforts. This field is in
an early stage of development and evaluation requirements need
to recognize that by targeting specific programs as opposed to
random assignment for evaluation of all programs on the ground.
Finally, the Act should include a provision to provide
support to organizations that have proven to be both effective
in their outreach to fathers in fragile families (or fragile
families) and effective in their attempts to educate the
public, service provider community, policymakers and the target
population itself about our objectives.
It is imperative that any new or revised policy initiatives
work towards supporting the above-mentioned efforts to assist
fragile families in addition to educating young parents on the
benefits of marriage. That's where the Fathers Counts Act of
1999 can make a real difference. We need to shape guidelines
that focus efforts where we can maximize results now that
welfare reform has become operational. We need to intervene now
and cut off the supply of children who require public
assistance because their families are unable provide the basic
needs. Research strongly suggests that the best way to ensure
that children do not need public assistance is to ensure that
their parents have the where withal to support their family.
For many young, fathers, the heart is indeed willing but the
ability is lacking. Multiple, flexible strategies will be
necessary to address the challenges these men and their
families face. Part of that response, we believe, is the
Fathers Count Act of 1999 and Partners for Fragile Families.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3641.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3641.002

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN KERR, J.D., VICE PRESIDENT,
SUPPORTKIDS.COM, AUSTIN, TEXAS

Ms. Kerr. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, Representative
Cardin and other distinguished Subcommittee Members. I am
Kathleen Kerr, vice president of Supportkids.com, a private
child support enforcement organization.
I feel uniquely qualified to offer testimony on how to
enhance the Nation's child support program. Until just 6 weeks
ago, I was the IV-D director for the State of New Hampshire, a
position I held for 2\1/2\ years. Twelve years ago, my first
day on the job as a staff attorney, I was shown a wall full of
file cabinets that contained my cases and then was told the
entire state was my jurisdiction. It did not take me long to
figure out that this was a system that needed change.
Today, New Hampshire is recognized as a top program, and
yet we still collect in only one out of three cases.
Consequently, there were thousands of complaints, and sadly,
when I read those files, it was readily apparent to me that
with enough personnel we could have helped many of these
families. The reality is we didn't have the personnel, and we
never would.
Today, we are offering a solution to this problem that is
possible when you consider the significant and powerful tools
authorized by you, the Congress, through the PRWORA, Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. With
the success of this legislation, it is important not to forget
that one-third of all child support cases in the country are
not even part of the Title IV-D program and, therefore, did not
benefit from significant and important provisions of PRWORA. I
urge you to take the next step and let all families benefit
from your efforts in passing PRWORA by expanding access to some
of those PRWORA provisions.
Forty agencies have done an admirable job in meeting a
diverse set of expectations with significant limitations.
Reality sets in, however, when you hear that more than 15
million children receive not one penny of child support and no
collection was received in four out of five cases.
State IV-D agencies would clearly benefit from local
government programs in the private sector working together on
behalf of these children. The benefits will be significant if
everyone who wants to work on behalf of children have all of
the tools that exist available. By doing this, we will support
an effective collaboration of the Title IV-D program with
public and private enforcement entities and a concerted attack
upon the problem of nonsupport.
My vision is the creation of an enforcement partnership. I
want to be very clear, I am not talking about the privatization
of the IV-D program. Instead, what we would create is a true
partnership of the IV-D program with public and private child
support enforcement entities sharing the work and sharing the
tools. This would be a partnership to complement the program,
not supplant it.
The limited proposal that I urge you to adopt today has
just three major provisions which are set out in the written
testimony of Judy Fink, who you will hear from shortly. Number
one, the use of IRS and passport revocation procedures for
public non-IV-D agencies. Second, authorizing the attachment of
unemployment compensation benefits in both non-IV-D and IV-D
cases, just like we do all wage withholding for all employers.
And finally, requiring that IV-D programs honor any request for
an address change received from someone like a child support
mother, Susan Williams.
Please note that this limited proposal avoids significant
privacy concerns as there is no request in this limited
proposal for information. In the future, as we look toward a
full partnership, it would be important to build sufficient
protections in to avoid the misuse of information. I urge you
to consider adding this limited proposal to your Fathers Count
bill. We cannot rest on the successes to date. There are too
many Susan Williams still waiting for their child support.
Thank you, and for the remainder of my time, I would like
to turn to Susan Williams, who is a child support mother.
[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Kathleen Kerr, J.D., Vice President, Supportkids.com,
Austin, Texas

Unemployment Insurance Benefits

Although Congress made wage withholding available for child
support enforcement in both IV-D and non-IV-D cases, it failed
to extend withholding from unemployment compensation except in
cases enforced by IV-D program. There was no logical reason for
omitting this remedy for use by non-IV-D enforcement agencies
and may even have been an error in drafting. The consequence,
however, is significant and leaves some custodial parents with
no option other than a IV-D agency that may not get to their
case for months or even years.
To illustrate this point, suppose a custodial parent
decides to use Supportkids.com for assistance in collecting
past-due child support. Our company locates the non-paying
parent, finds out that he is employed and serves the non-paying
parent's employer with a court order for income withholding.
Child support payments from the wage withholding now start
coming in for our client. Now, suppose the non-paying parent
quits his job and goes on unemployment compensation. Although
federal law permits withholding on unemployment compensation,
it does so only when it is a IV-D case. That means
Supportkids.com can no longer help our client in this
situation.
This loophole--and others like it in federal law--needs to
be corrected. In this illustration, federal law should provide
that the state employment security agency honor the withholding
order on unemployment compensation (just as every employer must
honor a withholding order for wages), regardless of whether it
is a IV-D or non-IV-D case. This relatively simple change in
federal law would comport with the change Congress made under
the 1996 Welfare Reform Act in redefining ``wage withholding''
as ``income withholding'' to include any form of periodic
payment made to non-custodial parent, regardless of source.

Passport Revocation

Similarly, Congress in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act required
all states to have laws to provide for denial or suspension of
various kinds of licenses--including professional and driver's
licenses--for individuals who ignore their child support
obligations. The federal statute was written in a manner making
this legal enforcement remedy available in all cases, not just
those being enforced by a state IV-D agency. As a result, non-
IV-D public child support agencies and private attorneys can
pursue this remedy by seeking a court order.
The 1996 Act also required state Title IV-D agencies to
implement procedures for reporting to the Secretary of Health
and Human Services the names of non-custodial parents who owed
past-due support amounting to $5,000 or more for the purpose of
denying or revoking a passport. As written, however, the law
[42 U.S.C. 652(k); 654(31)] appears to restrict access to this
highly valuable tool to the state Title IV-D agency alone, with
no opportunity for its use in a non-Title IV-D case. Federal
law should be amended so that, with appropriate due process and
other safeguards, this remedy may be used to compel any
delinquent non-custodial parent to pay support arrears
amounting to $5,000 or more, regardless of whether the case is
being enforced by the state IV-D agency.

Legislative Proposals

Last year, following congressional testimony similar to
what is being presented here today, Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison introduced legislation that would open up access to
federal child support enforcement tools. This legislation would
offer custodial parents some effective options for obtaining
enforcement assistance. She is preparing similar legislation
for introduction again in the current Congress.
There is also another legislative draft that has been
provided to the Human Resources Subcommittee staff, which
focuses on just a few of the issues contained in Senator
Hutchison's more sweeping proposal. I respectfully urge this
subcommittee to include this legislative proposal as an
amendment to any child support related legislation being
considered this year by the subcommittee. The more limited
version of the Hutchison proposal has four major points. It
would provide public non-IV-D agencies with the ability, as IV-
D agencies have, to request that the U.S. Department of the
Treasury intercept personal income tax refunds for payment of
child support arrears. It would enable these public non-IV-D
agencies to request that the U.S. Secretary of State impose
passport sanctions for unpaid child support amounting to $5,000
or more. It would make unemployment compensation benefits
attachable in both non IV-D and IV-D cases. Finally, it would
require state child support disbursement units and IV-D
programs to honor a custodial parent's request for change of
address in the process of support collections.
If Senator Hutchison's legislation is enacted, or if this
subcommittee will incorporate the proposed amendment into child
support legislation being considered now by this subcommittee,
custodial parents in Broward County, Florida and the millions
of Susan Williams' throughout the United States will be the
beneficiaries of the enhanced enforcement services that non-IV-
D public and private child support enforcement entities would
be able to provide them.
Each day, the amount of unpaid child support in this
country increases. Currently, more than 40 billion dollars in
past due child support remain uncollected in the national IV-D
program.\1\ With the passage of this legislation, local
governmental and private enforcement agencies would be able to
provide custodial parents with all the remedies Congress has
provided for the enforcement of child support. To the extent
that enforcement tools available to the Title IV-D program are
not also available to other public and private enforcement
entities, they are being underutilized, and non-IV-D entities
are limited in their ability to contribute fully to the
national child support enforcement effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All IV-D program data cited in this testimony are taken from
the Preliminary Child Support Enforcement FY 1998 Report, Office of
Child Support Enforcement, Washington D.C., August 29, 1997 and the
22nd Annual OCSE Report to Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we move into the new century, we need new strategies and
a new vision of possibilities--which fully embrace the
realities of limited resources--in order to ensure that the
millions of families in this country owed child support receive
that support fully and in a timely manner. Therefore, I
respectfully urge Congress to enact the legislative proposal to
which I have referred. Without additional cost to the taxpayer,
the implementation of this legislation can, I believe, make a
significant difference in our efforts to provide all families
with options and to secure the well being of millions of our
children.
Thank you.

Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Ms. Williams, welcome.

STATEMENT OF SUSAN B. WILLIAMS, CHILD SUPPORT MOTHER, CYPRESS,
TEXAS

Ms. Williams. Madam Chair, distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on
the importance of enforcement options for custodial parents who
need help in collecting past due child support. I was and am
one of those custodial parents. I worked with an attorney, I
tried to help myself and I pursued my case with my State agency
before finally getting help from a private child support
enforcement company.
My name is Susan Williams. I am a first grade teacher from
Cypress, Texas, which is a suburb of Houston. My former husband
left home when our daughter Jennifer, who is now a sophomore in
high school, was seven. A month after we divorced in 1992 my
former husband quit his job and left the State of Texas. After
the divorce, Jennifer's father moved from State to State and
job to job. He would accept a signing bonus, begin a new job in
computer programming and stay until there was pressure on him
from me or someone else, then he would quit and move on.
I could have hired an attorney again, but it is expensive
and since they work on retainer, you have to pay them before
the work is done. So I opened a case with my State child
support enforcement office. They made it clear that they could
make no promises of being able to help. Because my case was an
interstate case, it was especially difficult to pursue. The
State agency was able to help me in a single instance when they
intercepted my former husband's income tax return and turned it
over to me. After I got the IRS check I never heard another
word from the government.
I was constantly anxious, working and worrying about money
and the effects of all this on my daughter, when I heard about
a private child support enforcement company that was based in
Texas, Supportkids.com. A friend mentioned the company to me at
a baby shower we were both attending. I contacted
Supportkids.com in 1997 and decided to fill out an application
and authorize them to pursue my case. It was a hard decision to
make, but when I finally decided that one parent shouldn't have
to do the work of two, I put the application in the mail.
Supportkids.com found my former husband and got payments
started. Eventually, Supportkids.com negotiated a lump sum
payment of the past due amount. My former husband borrowed the
money from his parents and paid almost $16,000 to me and my
daughter. This concluded my contract with the company. However,
when the payments later stopped coming again, the company
reopened my case, tracked him down and got the monthly checks
coming in again. They had the focus and the tenacity to stay
with it.
I would advise other custodial parents not to hesitate to
work with a good private company. They have the resources and
the time to really pursue cases. They do take a percentage of
what they collect on your behalf, but they earn it. I would
urge Congress to change Federal law so that private attorneys,
including those working with firms like Supportkids.com, will
have access to all enforcement tools that have already been
made available to the State's child support enforcement
agencies.
[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Susan B. Williams, Child Support Mother, Cypress, Texas

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Subcommittee:
thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the
importance of enforcement options for custodial parents who
need help in collecting past-due child support. I was, and am,
one of those custodial parents. I worked with an attorney,
tried to help myself, and pursued my case with my state agency
before finally getting help from a private child support
enforcement company.
My name is Susan Williams. I am a kindergarten teacher from
Cypress, Texas, which is a suburb of Houston. My former
husband, who I met in college, and married after we'd both
graduated, left when our daughter, Jennifer, was seven. She is
now a sophomore in high school.
My former husband's decision to leave the marriage caused
me a lot of pain and grief, as you might expect in a situation
like that. It never occurred to me that he would also be
leaving Jennifer, however. He had always been a good father to
her, and while I came to accept that our relationship could
end, I never expected him to walk away from her, too.
And yet, a month after we divorced in 1992, he quit his job
and left the state of Texas. Although I began teaching in 1980,
it was in a private setting, and after my divorce, I made plans
to work full-time in the public school system. Switching to the
public sector meant that I was essentially starting over in
terms of building my seniority. The news of my former husband's
disappearance filled me with anxiety and concern.
The terms of my divorce seemed Ok at the time, but as my
attorney pointed out, it's one thing to look good on paper, and
another to enforce the court order. You've probably heard the
stories of other parents whose experiences are similar to mine.
After the divorce, Jennifer's father moved from state to
state, and job to job. He's a conservative and professional
looking person, a quiet man who sells himself well. He would
accept a signing bonus, begin a new job in computer programming
and stay until there was pressure put on him, from me or from
anyone else. Then he'd quit and move on.
You can hire an attorney, but it's expensive and since they
work on retainer, you have to pay them before they will work on
your case. So I made an appointment to open a case with my
state's child support enforcement office, and arrived that day
to take a seat in a very small waiting room. I waited for some
time, until I was shepherded into a conference room with
several other women for a backgrounding session, and became a
number, right before my own eyes. They were very clear that
they could make no promises of being able to help. Because my
case was an interstate case, with Jennifer and I living in a
different state from her father, it would be more difficult to
pursue. I was not optimistic that I would get help.
I felt totally alone. I learned then, and it's still true
today, that child support is a hard topic to discuss with other
people. The state agency was able to help me in a single
instance, when they intercepted my former husband's income tax
return and turned it over to me. After I got the IRS check I
never heard another word from the government. It was as though
they had filed away my information forever. I could only keep
leaving messages.
During this time, I actually got fairly good at personally
delivering the wage withholding information to my former
husband's employers. When I knew where he was working, once
he'd returned to Texas, I would drive down to the courthouse,
and for $15 I would file the paperwork requesting that the new
employer set up wage withholding. I did this four or five
times. And no employer failed to cooperate. But I could expect
an angry phone call from him, and once it came, he would
eventually quit the job. There was also a two year period when
I had no idea where he was.
I was in constant anxiety mode, working and worrying about
money and the effects of all this on my daughter, when I heard
about a private child support enforcement company that was
based in Texas--Supportkids.com. A friend mentioned the company
to me at a baby shower we were both attending. I contacted
Supportkids.com in 1997 and decided to fill out an application
and authorize them to pursue my case. It was a hard decision to
make, and I really agonized over it. I knew that I met the
criteria that Supportkids.com looks for in a new client: I
wasn't on welfare, I had a court order for support, and I was
owed over $5000. But I still went back and forth over
confronting the situation so directly. When I finally decided
that one parent shouldn't have to do the work of two, I put the
application in the mailbox.
The minute I signed up with Supportkids.com I felt a huge
sense of relief. It was almost instantaneous. I felt like I had
some control again, after years of feeling alone and like I was
only able to react.
And they found my former husband, and got payments started.
So even though I was still getting angry phone calls, I knew I
could rely on them to keep things on an even keel--that they
had the resources to pursue my daughter's child support.
Eventually Supportkids.com negotiated a lump sum payment of the
past-due amount. My former husband borrowed the money from his
parents and paid almost $16,000 to me and my daughter.
This concluded my contract with the company. However, when
the payments later stopped coming again, the company reopened
my case even before I had accrued $5000, tracked him down, and
got the monthly checks coming in again. They had the focus and
the tenacity to stay with it.
I can't even describe to you how this felt. I know that at
some level, I will never feel totally safe about this. I will
always be wondering how far I can trust that these resources
will continue coming for my daughter. Will that fear ever go
away? Probably not.
But I have regained a certain amount of my self-esteem. I
asserted myself and I persevered throughout this roller coaster
ride. I couldn't give up, even though there were times before I
got to Supportkids where I didn't think I could do it anymore.
I've gained a lot of courage, and I've sent a good message to
my child.
I am thankful that I have a job. Even though I lost the
house as a result of his not paying, I am proud that I have
been able to provide stability for Jennifer. We've only moved
once in seven years, and she was able to stay in the same
schools. As a teacher, I see the impact of uprooting on kids
all the time. It affects them long-term. I have tried to help
my daughter build relationships where she can talk about her
dad, apart from me, and the struggle we've been through. My
fear is that she might seek out a father figure in a mate.
I would advise other custodial parents not to hesitate to
work with a private company or a private attorney, once they've
done their homework and know it's a reputable firm. A good
private company like Supportkids.com has the resources and the
time to really pursue cases. They do take a percentage of what
they collect on your behalf, but they earn it. Parents have
always had the choice of working with a private attorney, but
we need to be able to choose to work with a private company
that uses attorneys if that is a better solution financially
for our families. Everyday people just don't have the tools to
pursue missing parents on their own.
In closing, I'm also happy to say that several months ago,
Jennifer's dad wrote her a letter apologizing for his behavior.
The three of us were able to meet for lunch eventually, and my
daughter saw her parents getting along.
This wasn't easy for me to do, but it was in my daughter's
best interest. It gave her a sense of family again. Her dad now
calls her every week, and she is pursuing her own relationship
with him.
He continues to pay his child support.

Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Ms.
Williams.
Ms. Fink.

STATEMENT OF JUDITH FINK, DIRECTOR, BROWARD COUNTY SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA

Ms. Fink. Chairwoman Johnson and distinguished Members of
the Subcommittee, good afternoon and thank you for the
invitation to testify on the issue of child support enforcement
in the non-IV-D arena. My name is Judith Fink, and I am the
Director of Broward County Support Enforcement Division in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida. We are funded completely through the
county's property tax dollars. Through the local funding of a
separate child support program in Broward County we are able to
assist our IV-D counterparts, thus reducing the need for
additional Federal dollars. Our services are completely free to
the residents of Broward County.
Although we are a non-IV-D, local government-funded agency
with an active caseload of more than 5,500 residential parents
and over 20 years of enforcement experience, we work very
closely with the local IV-D agency. All of our child support
clients qualify for IV-D services. However, they choose to
place their cases in our hands because we are effective,
responsive and more easily accessible. Last year alone we had a
collection rate of 77 percent.
Due to the diligence of Congress and in particular the work
of this Subcommittee, some very effective child support tools
have been created and are in use throughout the United States.
One very notable example is wage withholding. This process is
one of the primary methods by which child support is now
collected. What is very significant is that wage withholding
was first enacted by Congress as an enforcement tool available
only to IV-D agencies. States were then given the option of
whether to extend the use of this tool to non-IV-D cases.
Eventually, Congress required immediate wage withholding for
child support in all cases.
Another very effective enforcement tool to which we have
received access in recent years is the ability to revoke
driver's licenses. Through this program we have been able to
convince people to meet their child support obligations who
previously ignored all other enforcement attempts.
Unfortunately, non-IV-D enforcement agencies are not able to
utilize passport revocation procedures. Unlike driver license
revocation, for some reason passport revocation has been
limited for use only by IV-D agencies. Congress should enact
legislation making it clear that passport revocation as an
enforcement tool should also be available in non-IV-D cases.
The national directory of new hire programs has proven to
be a very successful tool for the IV-D program. The fatherhood
legislation proposes providing access to this directory to
assist in collection of defaulted student loans. Today I am
requesting that our non-IV-D child support program also be
given access to new hire directories so that we can help our
clients in the collection of child support.
While the IV-D child support agencies have rightfully been
given access to a well-balanced variety of enforcement tools,
the non-IV-D agencies continue to operate in their shadow. This
has meant that our clients give up opportunities for access to
some effective enforcement tools because they would rather work
with a local agency that reports to county government and is
more responsive to community needs. This choice should not be
necessary.
Residential parents who choose to work with the non-IV-D
agencies should have access to the same variety of enforcement
tools as IV-D clients. Together, we have made great strides in
improving child support enforcement services. Today,
residential parents have more tools available to them for
enforcement of court-ordered support than ever before.
Collections are on the rise, however, we can do more. All
single parents deserve the same range of enforcement options
regardless of who they choose to go to for help. They should
not have to sacrifice their right to a variety of enforcement
methods simply because they believe their needs will better be
served outside of the IV-D program.
As a government agency, the Broward County Support
Enforcement Division should be able to share in the same
information and enforcement tools as the state IV-D agency. We
are both organizations employing staff dedicated to public
service. Just as the IV-D agency is dedicated to serving the
residents of the State, we are also dedicated to serving the
residents of our county.
In the eyes of our clients, we are both the government and
as such should provide the same services. Every year when it is
IRS intercept season, our clients feel left out. They truly do
not understand why we are not allowed access to this program.
It is easier to say they should apply for IV-D services, but
the truth of the matter is the IV-D program is already
overburdened. If we had the same tools, we could relieve the
burden even further.
As you are no doubt aware, last year Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison introduced Senate bill S. 2411 that addresses many of
the concerns mentioned here today. We support this bill and
expect that the Senator will refile it in the future.
There are more immediate steps that can be taken to provide
non-IV-D agencies with the powerful enforcement tools that will
be beneficial to our neediest clients. An amendment has been
drafted that many of you have already seen. Today I am asking
for your help to make this amendment a reality by including it
in any legislation that you consider and pass this year. The
amendment would be a modest step with potential for great
rewards in the war on child support. If it were to become the
law of the land, every child support case would have access to
wage withholding from unemployment insurance benefits. Non-IV-D
government agencies, like the Broward County Support
Enforcement Division, would be allowed to submit qualifying
cases for IRS intercept and passport revocations.
The changes that I am asking of you today all boil down to
a matter of choice for parents who are owed child support. They
should never ever have to give up access to even one
enforcement tool merely because they choose to exercise their
right to ask for help from a non-IV-D enforcement agency rather
than unwillingly enter the overburdened IV-D program.
Chairwoman Johnson, thank you for the invitation and
opportunity to testify before this distinguished Subcommittee.
The leadership exhibited by you and the Members of this
Subcommittee has truly made a difference in the lives of the
children of this Nation who rely on child support.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[An attachment is being retained in the Committee files.]

Statement of Judith Fink, Director, Broward County Support Enforcement
Division, Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Chairwoman Johnson and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee: Good afternoon and thank you for the invitation
to testify on the issue of child support enforcement in the
non-IV-D arena. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss
the valuable contributions made by non-IV-D government funded
enforcement agencies in the partnership of helping our nation's
children collect the child support they so desperately need and
deserve.
My name is Judith Fink and I am the Director of the Broward
County Support Enforcement Division. The Support Enforcement
Division is an agency of County Government in Broward County,
Florida. We are funded completely through the County's property
tax dollars. Our County Commission believes that they must do
their part to keep people off the welfare roles. Through the
local funding of a separate child support program in Broward
County, we are able to assist our IV-D counterparts, thus
reducing the need for additional Federal dollars. Our services
are completely free to the residents of Broward County.
The responsibilities of the Broward County Support
Enforcement Division are simple: (1) we enforce current orders
of support for Broward County residents and (2) we serve as the
central depository for all child support and alimony payments
in Broward County, regardless of whom serves as the enforcing
agent. Although we are a non-IV-D, local government funded
agency, with an active caseload of more than 5,500 residential
parents, and over 20 years of enforcement experience, we work
very closely with the local IV-D agency. As the local
depository, we maintain the financial records for all child
support and alimony cases in our County. We collect and
disburse the payments, certify arrears and payment records and
provide the IV-D agency with a variety of reports and services
that are helpful to them in their enforcement efforts. All of
our child support clients qualify for IV-D services; however,
they choose to place their cases in our hands because we are
effective, responsive and more easily accessible. Last year
alone, we had a collection of rate of 77%.
Due to the diligence of Congress, and in particular the
work of this subcommittee, some very effective child support
enforcement tools have been created and are in use throughout
the United States. One very notable example is wage
withholding, sometimes also known as income deduction. This
process is one of the primary methods by which child support is
now collected. Through this process, residential parents can
count on receiving child support on a regular basis. Much of
the financial stress is relieved because they know ``the check
is in the mail.'' They can plan for back to school expenditures
and holidays. Nonresidential parents are freed from the regular
worry of financial support and can spend their energies on the
emotional support of their children. In other words, parenting
becomes the priority because the financial obligations are
automatically deducted from earnings and forwarded, through the
depositories (soon to be the State Disbursement Unit), to the
residential parents and the children. What is very significant,
is that wage withholding was first enacted by Congress as an
enforcement tool available only to IV-D agencies. States were
then given the option of whether to extend use of this tool to
non-IV-D cases. Eventually, Congress required immediate wage
withholding for child support in all cases.
Another very effective enforcement tool to which we have
received access in recent years is the ability to revoke
drivers' licenses. We have found the threat of drivers' license
revocation to be even more effective than the threat of
incarceration. It is common for a delinquent parent to rush to
the depository to pay thousands of dollars to avoid the
suspension of a driver's license. Apparently this privilege is
even more dear to some people than personal freedom. Through
this program, we have been able to convince people to meet
their child support obligations who had previously ignored all
other enforcement attempts.
Unfortunately, however, non-IV-D enforcement agencies are
not able to utilize passport revocation procedures. Unlike
drivers' license revocation, for some reason passport
revocation has been limited for use only by IV-D agencies.
Congress should enact legislation making it clear that passport
revocation as an enforcement tool should also be available in
non-IV-D cases.
These two examples illustrate the importance of
Congressional action to create a level playing field by which
non-IV-D child support enforcement agencies are able to access
important enforcement tools. I am here today to ask for your
help in leveling the playing field that is child support
enforcement. While the IV-D child support agencies have
rightfully been given access to a well-balanced variety of
enforcement tools, the non-IV-D agencies continue to operate in
their shadow. This has meant that our clients give up
opportunities for access to some effective enforcement tools
because they would rather work with a local agency that reports
to county government and is more responsive to community needs.
This choice should not be necessary. Residential parents who
choose to work with the non-IV-D agencies should have access to
the same variety of enforcement tools as the IV-D clients.
After all, every child support case is different. Each case
requires a different mix of enforcement techniques in order to
attain the ultimate goal of successful collection of child
support dollars.
In order to afford the non-IV-D client the same enforcement
opportunities as those made available to the IV-D residential
parents, we are requesting that non-IV-D agencies be given
access to the following enforcement tools:

Income Withholding for Unemployment Insurance Benefits:

Non-IV-D clients already benefit from the use of Income
Withholding through the use of Income Deduction Orders
submitted to employers. This is the singular most consistent
method of assuring that regular child support payments are made
to the residential parent. A logical extension of this very
effective tool would be to grant non-IV-D agencies the right to
issue Income Deduction Orders against Unemployment Insurance
Benefits. Without this right, child support payments previously
made through employer income deduction comes to a grinding halt
when the non-residential parent's job is lost. If the
residential parent wants to benefit from unemployment insurance
benefits, application must first be made to the local IV-D
agency for services. It could literally take months before the
Income Deduction Order is issued against the unemployment
insurance benefits. By this time, the non-residential parent
may already have found another job and is no longer receiving
unemployment benefits. Months of child support have gone
uncollected and the search for the new employer begins. It
could be several more months before the new employer is found
and the deduction from the payroll begins. Conceivably, six
months to a year could go by without any child support payments
being sent to the residential parent.

New Hire Directory:

As stated earlier, the singular most effective enforcement
tool is the Income Deduction Order. Many non-IV-D agencies rely
solely on information provided by the residential parent. If
the residential parent cannot supply employment information, we
are unable to move forward with an Income Deduction Order. This
is because we lack the funding to hire staff who are skilled
investigators. With access to the New Hire Directory, we would
be better positioned to help our clients collect the court
ordered child support. This is a service that our clients
frequently request. They read about this service in the
newspapers and believe that we are obligated to make use of the
Directory. They truly do not understand the difference between
a IV-D and a non-IV-D agency. They believe that we are required
by law to provide access to this service to help them find the
employer of the non-residential parent. If this service were to
become an automatic function of the non-IV-D agency, we could
help some of our neediest clients to collect their child
support. The original Income Deduction Order would more
expediently follow the non-residential parent from employer to
employer. It would be more difficult to avoid paying child
support.

Federal Case Registry:

Under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, all non-IV-D cases established or
modified on or after October 1, 1998 must be maintained on a
state and federal case registry. Federal matches will be run on
all cases included in the registry; however, the non-IV-D
enforcement agencies will not be given access to any matches
that occur. Even though non-IV-D case information will be
maintained, the non-IV-D client will receive no tangible
benefit. The information matched through the Registry would be
extremely valuable and helpful in our ongoing enforcement
efforts. Access to the matched information would be especially
useful in our attempts to collect support from the most
difficult delinquent parents. More specifically, the self-
employed who are paid under the table or maintain businesses or
assets in the new spouse's name.

Federal Parent Locator Services:

We presently rely solely on the residential parent to
provide us with the location of the non-residential parent.
Without an address, we cannot proceed with enforcement efforts.
If the residential parent cannot provide this critical piece of
information, we often have to direct that the client apply to
the local IV-D agency for services. By sending these clients to
the IV-D agency, an additional burden is placed on an already
overwhelmed program. If we had direct access to the Federal
Parent Locator Service, we could immediately help those clients
who have no idea where to find the non-residential parent.
These parents would not have to get in line to apply for IV-D
services.

Passport Revocation:

The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 allows for passport
sanctions when a child support debt of more than $5,000 is
owed. The passport application may be denied, or if the non-
residential parent already possesses a passport, it may be
revoked or it's use limited. We believe that, much like the
driver's license revocation, this would be an extraordinarily
valuable tool. We live in a global society where it's just as
easy to travel abroad as it is to cross the state line.
Additionally, many conduct their businesses in the
international arena. While this enforcement tool is currently
limited to the IV-D agencies, we believe that our clients would
also benefit from this enforcement tool. On a regular basis, we
are informed of delinquent parents who are temporarily out of
the country on business and vacation, while their children go
without due to the lack of child support received. We would
like to assure that child support obligations are placed ahead
of international travel in the delinquent parent's list of
priorities.
In addition to access to the previously mentioned
enforcement tools already made available to and used by the IV-
D agencies, we would like to propose some amendments to current
law.

Bankruptcy:

Under existing law, when a residential parent files for
bankruptcy, there is an automatic stay for child support
enforcement. While a child support obligation cannot be
discharged as a result of bankruptcy, until the bankruptcy
issue is resolve, our hands are tied with regard to
enforcement. The children suffer from lack of support and the
arrearage continues to grow. We propose that child support
enforcement be exempt from the automatic stay. This would
result in all child support agencies having the opportunity to
continue their efforts on behalf of the children.

Enforcement of Alimony Only Cases:

The non-IV-D agencies are the only agencies available to
help the alimony only clients. While a IV-D agency may enforce
alimony when there is also a child support obligation, the
alimony only client is faced with very limited options.
Additionally, not all enforcement tools are available to the
alimony only client. These clients are often the neediest of
them all. We find that many of them are illiterate or suffer
from mental health problems. It is because of these extreme
needs that they have been awarded alimony. While we are able to
help them by using such tools as the Income Deduction Order, we
believe we could do even more if all tools that are available
for child support enforcement could also be used for
enforcement of alimony obligations.

Conclusion

Together we have made great strides in improving child
support enforcement services. Today, residential parents have
more tools available to them for enforcement of court ordered
child support than ever before. Collections are on the rise;
however, we can do more. All single parents deserve the same
range of enforcement options, regardless of who they choose to
go to for help. They should not have to sacrifice their right
to a variety of enforcement methods simply because they believe
their needs could be better served outside of the IV-D program.
As a government agency, the Broward County Support
Enforcement Division should be able to share in the same
information and enforcement tools as the state IV-D agency. We
are both organizations employing staff dedicated to public
service. Just as the state IV-D agency is dedicate to serving
the residents of the state, we are also dedicated to serving
the residents of our County.
In the eyes of our clients, we are both ``the government,''
and, as such, should provide the same services. Every year when
it is IRS Intercept ``season'' our clients feel left out. They
truly do not understand why we are not allowed access to this
program. It's easy to say they should apply for IV-D services,
but, the truth of the matter is that the IV-D program is
already overburdened. If we had the same tools, we could
relieve this burden even further.
We see ourselves as the unofficial partners to the IV-D
agencies in this war on child support. There are so many
parents who need help that, without our willingness to jump in
and aid in the battle, the IV-D agencies would be even further
overburdened. We are not asking for funding. We are not even
asking for recognition for the wonderful work we do each day to
help improve the lives of the children whose parents come to us
for help. All that we ask is to help us by leveling the playing
field so that our clients may be the recipients of many of the
remarkable enforcement methods that you have made available to
those parents who choose to apply for IV-D services.
As you are, no doubt, aware, last year Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison introduced S2411 that addresses many of the concerns
mentioned here today. We support this bill and expect that the
Senator will refile it in the future.
There are more immediate steps that can be taken to provide
non-IV-D agencies with powerful enforcement tools that would be
beneficial to our neediest clients. An amendment has been
drafted that many of you may have already seen. (Attached) It
addresses some immediate concerns that we believe should become
law as a matter of policy. Today I am asking for your help to
make this amendment a reality by including it in any
legislation that you consider and pass this year. The amendment
would be a modest step with potential for great rewards in the
war on child support. If it were to become the law of the land,
every child support case would have access to wage withholding
from Unemployment Insurance Benefits. Non-IV-D government
agencies like the Broward County Support Enforcement Division
would be allowed to submit qualifying cases for IRS Intercept
and passport revocations. Custodial parents would have the
right to notify central depositories and State Disbursement
Units of their address of choice to which all of their child
support payments should be mailed. As you can see, these simple
steps would grant non-IV-D enforcers access to tools that have
the potential for reaping great benefits for some of our
toughest cases to enforce.
The changes that I am asking of you today all boil down to
a matter of choice for parents who are owed child support. They
should never have to give up access to even one enforcement
tool merely because they choose to exercise their right to ask
for help from a non-IV-D enforcement agency, rather than
unwillingly enter the overburdened IV-D system.
Chairwoman Johnson, thank you for the invitation and
opportunity to testify before this distinguished Committee. The
leadership exhibited by you and the members of this Committee
has truly made a difference in the lives of the children of
this nation who rely on child support. You have been
instrumental in assuring that the needs of these families
remain a priority of our government. The lives of the single
parents of America are improved due to the diligent efforts and
caring of this Committee. Thank you.

Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you.
Ms. Smith, welcome back.

STATEMENT OF MARILYN RAY SMITH, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND CHIEF LEGAL COUNSEL, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION

Ms. Smith. Madam Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify on proposals to extend
child support information and remedies to entities outside the
State child support agencies. My name is Marilyn Ray Smith. I
am Chief Legal Counsel at the Massachusetts Department of
Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Division.
While the child support program has come a long way, it
still has a long way to go. We need to continue to look for
creative solutions and keep an open mind about new ways of
doing business. But we must not let our search for innovation
lead us to embrace ideas that sound good but have unintended
consequences.
Before I get to the heart of this debate, I want to say at
the outset that I am a friend and colleague of the proponents
of these proposals. Nevertheless, I must also say that I am in
respectful disagreement. These proposals will have an impact
far beyond the individuals here today. I do not intend my
remarks to question their commitment to the child support
program, but in my view, these proposals in their current form
will not get us where we want to go.
My purpose here is to identity the tough political and
practical issues that should be addressed before Congress
decides to move in the direction of expanding access to child
support remedies and information.
I have three key questions for you to consider today:
First, should the child support program use tax dollars to
act as bill collectors for private collection agencies when the
work for which the fees are sought was performed by State and
Federal employees?
Second, should the child support program turn over to
unregulated public entities, collection agencies and private
attorneys who are not realistically subject to privacy and
other safeguards the vast array of confidential information and
enforcement remedies we have assembled?
Third, should we create another parallel administrative
structure, computer communication network, set of forms and
procedures outside the IV-D system that will result in
additional operational burdens, not only for the child support
program but also for its collaborating partners.
There are two proposals being advanced; one is relatively
modest, and the other quite extensive. Both proposals require
the IV-D agency to send any payments it collects to any entity
or person designated by the custodial parent. I would like to
discuss this provision first, and then come back to an analysis
of the other proposals.
Requiring the IV-D agency to forward support payments as a
directive of the custodial parent seems like a benign and
reasonable mandate. You have already heard that some custodial
parents become frustrated with their IV-D child support agency
and turn to private collection companies for assistance.
In their desperate need for child support, they sign
contracts with these companies which require them to pay 30 to
40 percent of any collection made from that day forward,
regardless of how, or by whom, the collection was made.
Collection agencies justify these high fees by saying ``66
percent of something is better than 100 percent of nothing.''
But is it better than 100 percent of something?
Suppose the week after the custodial parent signs the
contract, one or more of the following things happen after
years of little or no action on the case by the IV-D agency:
The IV-D agency's data match with the State or national
directory of new hires suddenly locates the noncustodial
parent's employer and a wage assignment issued by the IV-D
automatically kicks in.
The Federal tax refund intercept, prepared and submitted by
the IV-D agency, finally scores.
The financial institution data match negotiated by the IV-D
agency with local banks gets underway. A bank account is
located and the IV-D agency issues a levy to seize it.
The noncustodial parent wins the lottery and the IV-D
agency's lien that has been patiently sitting there catches the
winnings.
The IV-D agency sends a notice threatening driver's license
revocation and the noncustodial parent decides to enter into a
payment plan.
Or the noncustodial parent goes to one of the fatherhood
programs that you heard about earlier today, embraces their
message of responsibility, and starts to pay voluntarily.
By now the point is clear: The new systems that you
mandated and that we set up are starting to pay off. The
collection agency did nothing to earn its fee, yet it claims
the right to a substantial cut of the child support check.
We have to ask ourselves the tough question of what public
policy is served by taking money intended to keep children out
of poverty and diverting it to profit-driven private companies?
How can we bring fathers back into the fold, when so much
of their child support check would never reach their children?
I would like to turn now to the proposal for extensive
access to IV-D child support information and remedies. This
bill was filed in the Senate last year. Reportedly a modified
version will be filed this year, and sooner or later you will
likely hear more about it.
The enforcement remedies include Federal and State tax
refund intercepts, passport sanctions, access to new hiring
reporting and financial institution data matches and more. The
information sought consists of all the information in the
Federal and State parent locator services, including names,
addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, health
insurance coverage, assets and liabilities and employer
information of both custodial and noncustodial parents.
It also includes information from all other State agencies
the child support program deals with, such as vital statistics,
public assistance, corrections, tax and financial institutions.
All that is necessary to get access to this gold mine is to
register with the Secretary of Health and Human Services by
filling out a simple application. The entities and individuals
potentially eligible to apply for registration could encompass
literally hundreds of private collection agencies, thousands of
local county clerks of courts, district attorneys, sheriffs and
other State and local government entities, as well as tens of
thousands of private attorneys practicing family law.
HHS would have no authority to deny an application that
discloses all the requested information. There is no approval
process to evaluate qualifications. Nor would HHS have
authority to regulate performance and services.
Although this proposal purports to advance
``privatization'' to streamline government at no cost, in fact,
it would require significant taxpayer dollars to expand the
bureaucracy.
It is a far cry from the privatization contracts that are
in operation in most States. Unlike this scheme, those
contracts operate under State and Federal law. They are subject
to audit and they must meet clearly defined measures of
accountability.
There are also very real privacy concerns, which I will
just have to summarize in the interest of time, but we believe
that it would be virtually impossible to prevent fly by-night
operators from using this information for other purposes.
There are also problems of private law enforcement raised
by giving quasi-law enforcement powers to seize income and
assets to private collection agencies.
Finally, having said all of this, is there something that
could be done to extend some tools of the child support
programs to responsible government entities? This brings us to
this more modest proposal which both of my colleagues have
mentioned already. Typically, we would expect it would be
clerks of court who would participate, but it could include
district attorneys, attorneys general, sheriffs and others.
My written testimony analyzes the proposal in some detail
but there seem to be several ways to proceed. For the Federal
and tax refund intercept and passport sanctions, clerks could
submit cases directly to the Treasury or the State Department
or they could go through the Federal Office of Child Support
Enforcement, which could conduct the data exchanges with
Treasury and State, or they could submit cases to the local IV-
D agency for transmission to Washington.
As for unemployment compensation benefits, they could send
the income withholdings order directly to the agency for the
unemployment agency to sort out.
However, all of these routes raise questions about computer
connections, arrears certifications and due process rights of
noncustodial parents.
The final alternative is that clerks of court could simply
enter into a cooperative agreement with the IV-D agency and
make the case for which the remedy is sought an IV-D case. Ms.
Fink and the clerks could continue to provide the services that
they do so well in Broward County, and at the same time those
remedies would be available to their clients.
The millions of little details have been worked out between
the IV-D agencies and these other entities over the last 15 or
20 years. We built computer systems to conduct the data matches
and we dealt with all the permutations of calculating arrears.
Moving in this direction keeps us on our 20-year path of
consolidating the child support functions rather than
fragmenting them.
In my view, it would be far cheaper and easier for all
concerned to build on the existing structure rather than create
a whole new parallel process.
In closing, I respectfully recommend that much more work
needs to be done to assess the impact of these proposals on
computer systems and the operational constraints of the
affected agencies. We have barely scratched the surface on the
ramifications of releasing confidential data and giving broad
enforcement powers to unregulated entities.
The child support community appreciates the attention to
detail that this Subcommittee consistently shows and your
willingness to engage us in these discussions. By working
together we can craft laws that translate into workable
programs for the children who need our support. Thank you.
[The prepard statement follows:]

Statement of Marilyn Ray Smith, Associate Deputy Commissioner and Chief
Legal Counsel, Massachusetts Department of Revenue, Child Support
Enforcement Division

Madam Chairman, distinguished Members of the Human
Resources Subcommittee: Good afternoon, and thank you for the
opportunity to testify on proposals to make available certain
child support remedies and information to entities outside
state child support enforcement agencies.
My name is Marilyn Ray Smith. I am Chief Legal Counsel and
Associate Deputy Commissioner for the Child Support Enforcement
Division of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue. Before
joining DOR in 1987, I was a family law attorney, and continue
to be active in local, state, and national bar associations.
As you heard two weeks ago, the nation's child support
program has made great improvements in recent years. This
progress is a result not only of the bold and innovative
reforms that you sponsored as part of welfare reform, but also
of years of hard work by dedicated child support professionals
that are beginning to bear fruit. However, we still have a long
way to go. Too many American children still do not get the
child support that they are due, on time and in full. We need
to continue to look for innovative, creative solutions and keep
an open mind about new ways of doing business that maximize use
of limited resources for an ever expanding caseload. But we
must also make sure that further innovations are introduced in
a way that does not derail our current forward movement.
Expanding access to child support enforcement remedies and
information to entities outside the IV-D system raises many
concerns about costs and fees, operational burdens on state and
federal agencies, upsetting computer systems that are finally
beginning to work, and safeguarding confidential information,
as well as changing the direction of the nation's child support
program.
In my testimony today, there are several questions in
particular that I wish to discuss: Should federal and state tax
dollars be used to collect fees due under private contracts,
when the work for which the fees are sought has been performed
by federal and state employees at taxpayer expense? What
administrative and operational burdens will these proposals, as
drafted, present to federal and state agencies? Who is going to
pay for the computer modifications and increased personnel
costs that these proposals will require? Will these costs be
eligible for the federal match as IV-D costs, even though the
services may be for non-IV-D cases? Will we be starting down a
slippery slope that erodes our commitment to protect
confidential information?
I also want to say at the outset that I am a friend and
colleague to the proponents of these proposals. Nevertheless,
there are areas where I am in respectful substantive
disagreement. My remarks are not intended to question their
commitment to the child support program. However, any
legislation enacted in this area would have an impact far
beyond the individuals here today. There are hundreds of
private collection agencies; thousands of local county clerks
of courts, district attorneys, and governmental entities; and
tens of thousands of private attorneys practicing family law,
all of whom would be potentially eligible to participate in
these proposed programs. My intention here is to identify the
tough political and practical issues that should be addressed
if Congress decides to move in this new direction.

Two Proposals to Expand Access to Child Support Information and
Remedies

There are at least two proposals being advanced that would
extend child support information and remedies to cases that are
currently not in the IV-D system.\1\ One proposal (``the
limited proposal'') would make the federal tax refund intercept
and passport sanction programs available to certain public
agencies--usually county clerks of court--that handle cases
outside the state IV-D child support agency, the so-called
``public non-IV-D cases.'' It would also require state
unemployment compensation agencies to accept income withholding
orders to collect child support from unemployment benefits in
all cases, not just those being enforced by the state IV-D
child support agency, as is currently the case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A child support enforcement agency is operated by each state as
a condition of receiving federal financial support both for the child
support program and for the cash assistance program, Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The child support agency is often
referred to as the ``IV-D agency,'' whose services include locating
noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, and establishing,
modifying, and enforcing child support obligations in ``IV-D cases.''
IV-D cases consist of cases of families who currently receive TANF, who
formerly received TANF or Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC), or who applied for child support services from the state. State
IV-D agencies are administered pursuant to detailed federal law and
regulations, and involve cooperative agreements with courts, district
attorneys, and a variety of other state agencies including vital
records agencies, licensing agencies, and registries of motor vehicles.
Some states have contracted with private vendors to provide specific
services, including operating local child support offices. Public
agencies entering into cooperative agreements and private vendors
working under contract with state IV-D agencies are required to comply
with the same federal law and regulations that govern State IV-D
agencies and are subject to audit by state and federal officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second proposal is considerably more expansive (``the
expanded proposal''). One version was filed last year in the
Senate by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison as S.2411, and a revised
version is expected to be filed in the Senate in a few weeks.
It would permit state and local non-IV-D public child support
enforcement agencies, private attorneys, and private collection
agencies who employ attorneys to have access to virtually every
enforcement remedy and every source of information about
custodial and noncustodial parents currently available to state
IV-D child support agencies. To obtain this access, these
agencies and attorneys would be required to register with the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) by filing an
application that discloses certain specified information.
Both the limited proposal and the extended proposal would
require IV-D agencies' state disbursement units to send any
child support payment collected by the IV-D agency in any case,
including IV-D cases, to any address designated by the
custodial parent, unless the court had specified in the order
the address to which the payment should be sent.
There are many controversial provisions in both of these
proposals, but perhaps none is more so than the proposal to
require state disbursement units to redirect payments to
entities or individuals other than the custodial parent. I will
discuss this provision first, and next turn to an analysis of
the more limited proposal relating to federal tax refund
intercept, passport sanctions, and income withholding for
unemployment benefits in all cases. I will then follow with a
review of the proposal for extended access to information and
remedies, looking particularly at concerns about safeguarding
confidential information. Finally, I will close with a
recommendation that much more work needs to be done to root out
the proverbial ``devil in the details'' before we embark on
this path.

Redirection of Payments at the Request of the Custodial Parent

Access to Federal Tax Refund Intercept and Passport Sanctions

The limited proposal would make federal tax refund
intercept and passport sanctions available to cases being
enforced by a state or local government child support agency
not providing IV-D services. Before deciding whether to make
these remedies available, it makes sense to look at how this
could be done. First, who decides what is a ``state or local
government child support agency'' ? The Department of Health
and Human Services? The state legislature? The agency itself?
This description could include county clerks of court, district
attorneys, attorneys general, sheriffs, and any other state or
local government entity that decided to start providing child
support enforcement services. Presumably the intent is to
permit local county clerks of courts to continue to provide
child support services to non-IV-D cases currently in their
caseloads. In some states, long before the advent of the IV-D
program, county clerks of courts provided collection,
disbursement, and enforcement services to families needing
assistance in collecting support. The clerks of court wish to
continue to do so even as the IV-D program has grown in scope
and complexity. For some reason, they have not entered into
cooperative agreements with the state IV-D agency, as is the
case in most states where county clerks have historically been
involved in collecting child support (e.g., Michigan, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and New Jersey).
Any legislation in this direction should pay attention to
the details and include specific authority for HHS and Treasury
to issue federal regulations. There must be procedures for
certifying the amount of arrears claimed to be owed, including
notice and opportunity for a hearing for the noncustodial
parent, with specific timeframes for each step in the process
so that it moves in an orderly fashion. Otherwise, the
Departments of HHS or the Treasury will have to examine
hundreds of different procedures from hundreds of different
agencies to see if due process requirements have been met. Or
noncustodial parents may have no recourse to raise legitimate
challenges. What will be the decision rules when there are
multiple tax refund intercept submissions from different
states, with some from IV-D agencies and some from non-IV-D
agencies, in cases where the noncustodial parent owes past
support to several custodial parents? Finally, would the
referrals be made through a case-by-case individualized paper
process, or submitted through electronic, automated means?
Passport sanctions raise similar issues to federal tax
refund intercept, which would need to be resolved before
broadening availability of this remedy. There are also a few
differences, in addition to the amount of qualifying arrears
($5,000 instead of $500). The timeframes for resolving disputes
must be much quicker for passport sanctions. While funds from
the tax refund intercept can be held for many weeks pending
resolution of disputes, passport sanctions must be addressed
expeditiously. The delinquent noncustodial parent may be eager
to settle his debt so that he can get his passport and go
abroad. The State Department will need a clear point of contact
to resolve any questions that may arise. Multiple referral
sources beyond the IV-D agencies will complicate this process.
There appear to be at least four ways for the state or
local non-IV-D child support agency to move these cases through
the system to their final destination at either the Department
of the Treasury or the Department of State:
Send the cases directly to the Treasury or to the
State Department. All communications would take place with
those entities, without involving the Federal Office of Child
Support Enforcement (OCSE) or the state child support IV-D
agency.
Send the cases to OCSE. OCSE would review the
submissions to determine compliance with necessary requirements
and assemble all the referrals from around the country and send
one package each to the Treasury and the State Department,
without involving the state IV-D agency. OCSE would then be
responsible for transmitting the ``hits'' or other
communications back to the state or local non-IV-D child
support agency.
Send the cases to the state IV-D agency. It would
then be responsible for reviewing the submissions to ensure
that the requisite procedures had been followed. It would also
be responsible for serving as the conduit between the state or
local non-IV-D agency and the appropriate federal agency.
Make the cases IV-D cases by entering into a
cooperative agreement with the state IV-D child support agency.
This route is already permitted under federal law, and would
require no additional Congressional legislation. The IV-D
agency would incorporate the referred cases into the existing
system for notice and opportunity for hearing and for
transmission of information in both directions with OCSE. The
cases could be either eligible for the full range of IV-D
services or designated as ``tax refund and passport sanction
only'' cases, similar to the ``locate only'' and ``non-IV-D
income withholding only'' cases that the IV-D agency currently
tracks.
Although states are probably not going to be enthusiastic
about yet another category of cases, it is easier and cheaper
to go this last route and fit them into existing processes. It
would certainly require additional work for the IV-D agency to
set up arrearage histories on the IV-D computer system, to
issue notices and process appeals. However, some or all of this
work can be delegated to the referring non-IV-D agency for
work-up and resolution as part of the cooperative agreement.
The transmission of data to OCSE would also be simpler, as
state IV-D agencies have direct telecommunications connections
with OCSE, used to transmit data several times a week for the
Federal Case Registry and the National Directory of New Hires.
All in all, this approach would provide for more control and
consistency. States, of course, will want assurance that these
cases will be eligible for the federal financial institution
data match and for inclusion as IV-D collections for purposes
of calculating incentives and other program measures. These
cases will bring increased work, regardless of how much is
contracted out to the non-IV-D agency under the cooperative
agreement.
Moreover, such an approach is consistent with the evolution
of the child support program since its inception. In contrast,
setting up separate computer connections and procedures for
non-IV-D state or local government entities to get into the
business of child support enforcement is a step backwards.
Since l975, in response to consistent and widespread criticism
that one of the major weaknesses of the program has been its
historic fragmentation, the thrust of federal law has been to
push states to consolidate child support functions under a
single entity within state government. With the passage of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 (PRWORA), Congress put into place the remaining
necessary requirements to achieve the goal of consolidating the
program at the state level. States are in the midst of
accomplishing these mandates, ranging from automated computer
systems and state case registries that contain information on
all IV-D cases as well as information on non-IV-D cases with a
support order, to state disbursement units where employers in
the State can send all payments subject to wage withholding
orders to a single entity in the State. Consolidation has been
a critical component of automated case processing, which relies
on automated data matches that can take enforcement action on
thousands of cases at a time through issuance of wage
withholding orders and asset seizures. This process has been
made more efficient for all concerned by the use of
standardized forms and uniform procedures. This may not be the
optimal time for upsetting the applecart just as it gets
rolling.
Rather than encouraging more state and local government
agencies to enter the child support enforcement business
independent of the IV-D agency (and not subject to federal
regulations), it would be more economical to encourage those
few remaining clerks of courts providing child support services
outside the IV-D system to convert their cases to IV-D cases.
The cases would then be eligible for the IV-D remedies and
information sought by these proposals and would be subject to
the well-developed rules, regulations, and procedures that
currently exist for the IV-D program.

Access to Unemployment Compensation Benefits

Extended Access to Child Support Information and Remedies

Because a version of the extended proposal was filed last
year in the Senate and a modified version may be filed this
year, I would like to elaborate on a few of its key provisions.
As noted earlier, it would permit state or local non-IV-D
public child support enforcement agencies, private attorneys,
and private collection agencies who employ attorneys to have
access to enforcement remedies and information that are
currently available only for IV-D cases. The enforcement
remedies include federal and state tax refund intercepts, data
matches with information from new hire reporting, income
withholding from unemployment compensation benefits, denial or
revocation of passports, reporting of child support
delinquencies to consumer credit reporting agencies, data
matches with information from financial institutions, and
administrative transfer of income withholding orders.
The information sought by this extended proposal would
include all the information in the Federal Parent Locator
Service, such as names, addresses, telephone numbers, Social
Security numbers, dates of birth, income, group health
insurance coverage and other employment benefits, and types,
status, location and amounts of assets and liabilities of
custodial and noncustodial parents, as well as the name,
address, telephone number, and employer identification number
of their employers. In addition, the proposal would include
access to all the information in the State Parent Locator
Service, such as vital statistics records (including marriage,
birth, and divorce records); state and local tax and revenue
records, (including information on residence address, employer,
income and assets); real and personal property records;
occupational and professional license records; records
concerning the ownership and control of corporations,
partnerships, and other business entities; employment security
records; records of agencies administering public assistance
programs; motor vehicle records; corrections records, customer
records of public utilities and cable television companies; and
information on assets and liabilities held by financial
institutions.
The process of registering with HHS to gain access to the
remedies and information involves filling out an application
that would request information about the entity or attorney,
such as name and address, the kinds of child support
enforcement services provided, the amount of fees and other
costs charged to a client, copies of their standard contracts
or agreements with clients, and number and kinds of legal
actions or professional grievances brought against the entity.
HHS would not have any specific authority to deny registration
to an applicant that disclosed all the information requested on
the application form, nor would HHS have any specific authority
to regulate the performance and services provided by these
entities, other than periodic monitoring to determine if the
information or enforcement remedies were being used for
purposes other than child support enforcement.
Even if additional oversight powers were granted to HHS,
however, properly monitoring all these attorneys and private
collection agencies would be a huge undertaking. HHS would need
to develop mechanisms to regulate, oversee and perhaps
investigate up to thousands of private companies and attorneys
nationwide. While this proposal purports to advance
``privatization'' of government functions, it would in fact
require significant federal taxpayer resources to expand the
bureaucracy. This proposal is profoundly different from the
successful privatization contracts that are in operation in
most states. Those contracts operate under federal and state
law, they are subject to audit, and there are accountability
measures in place.

Privacy Concerns Raised by Extended Proposal

This proposal also raises serious concerns about privacy
and the safeguarding of confidential information maintained by
federal and state agencies. Congress, in enacting the child
support provisions of welfare reform, gave state IV-D agencies
broad access to a wide range of sensitive data. In weighing
privacy concerns against the duty to support one's children,
Congress tilted the balance in favor of strong child support
provisions. However, even as these provisions are being
implemented, concerns have been raised in state legislatures,
in the press, and elsewhere about ensuring that appropriate
privacy safeguards are in place, and that IV-D agency staff are
trained and monitored to protect confidentiality of personal
data. This proposed legislation would essentially give
unregulated public and private entities, private attorneys, and
private collection agencies wide-open access to all the records
and databases available to the child support enforcement
program, without any realistic ability for HHS to monitor its
use. It simply would not be feasible for HHS to oversee each
private entity and attorney closely enough to ensure that
information is used solely for child support purposes.
Furthermore, these entities are not accountable to the public
in the same way IV-D agencies are.
Because the proposed legislation does not have any
effective mechanism for imposing or enforcing confidentiality
safeguards in the private context, expanding access to FPLS as
proposed is ripe for abuse. The wealth of information in FPLS
will be a tempting target for unscrupulous investigators and
other individuals, who might well pose as entities eligible for
registration under this bill. Many private collection agencies
collect for a range of debts, not just child support. It will
be virtually impossible to prevent ``fly-by-night'' operations
from using this data for other purposes. While this is an
unsettling prospect in any instance, it is of particular
concern when a family has fled domestic violence and their
safety could be compromised by disclosure of their whereabouts.
Giving law enforcement powers to seize income and assets to
private collection agencies also raises the specter of private
law enforcement, a concept of questionable constitutionality.
Law enforcement, of which child support is a part, is a public
function, not one delegated to private citizens or private
entities. This too presents opportunities for abuse of power.
In fact, some collection agencies have ``issued'' income
withholding orders on their own stationery, ordering the
employer to withhold child support and threatening to impose
sanctions that can only be imposed by IV-D agencies or the
courts if the employer doesn't comply.
Because they are driven by the profit motive, private
collection agencies are all too likely to take actions for
which the state IV-D child support agencies will ultimately pay
the price. Custodial and noncustodial parents alike may be
mistreated through harassing collection strategies or unfair
contracts. It will be up to the state IV-D agency to straighten
out the mess later, when things go wrong. The real danger is
that there will be a effort to retract the information and
remedies given to the IV-D agency. When all is said and done,
state IV-D agencies answer to the public--to the taxpayers, to
the elected public officials, and to the courts. There is no
comparable accountability for these private entities.

Who Will Pay for These Changes and Expanded Caseload?

Proponents of these changes have asserted that there will
be no cost to the federal taxpayer for these innovations. This
is simply not the case, even with the limited proposal, and
certainly not with the expanded proposal. There are computer
systems to change, procedures to develop, communication paths
to create, and a host of other minutiae to iron out that will
take staff time and resources for personnel at both OCSE and
the state IV-D agencies. This will hold true, whether the cases
are designated as IV-D cases or some other special non-IV-D
category. Any revenue neutral proposal will mean diversion of
resources from other priorities, just as OCSE and state IV-D
agencies are in the midst of implementing the extensive reforms
of 1996.
As noted above, if Congress decides to encourage non-IV-D
public entities to get into the business of enforcing child
support (after spending years encouraging them to relinquish
the business), the most efficient way to do so is to convert
the cases to IV-D cases through cooperative agreements. This
approach avoids unfunded mandates for states. It also builds on
the existing structure by incorporating a few thousand more
cases into the pipeline, rather than investing in new computer
systems and procedural structures that parallel the ones that
are working for the IV-D system.

Conclusion

Madam Chairman, I do not know the answers to all the
questions that I have raised today for your consideration, nor
do I believe that there is a consensus on these issues. Much
more work needs to be done to assess the impact of these
proposals on computer systems, as well as the state IV-D child
support agencies, OCSE, the Treasury, the State Department, and
the unemployment compensation agencies. And we have only
scratched the surface on the ramifications of releasing
confidential data and giving broad enforcement powers to
unregulated private entities. Massachusetts has had a long
history of successful innovation in child support reform that
has involved collaboration with other public and private
entities. Our success has resulted in large part because we
worked out the details with our collaborators before we passed
legislation, rather than handing them a finished package that
did not adequately take into account their operational needs,
requiring us all to scramble to push a round peg into a square
hole.
Thank you for inviting me to comment on this complex area.
The child support community appreciates the attention to the
details of the child support program that this Committee has
consistently shown throughout welfare reform. One of the
reasons that the reforms of 1996 have been so successful so
quickly is that you involved the state child support agencies
at every step of the way. Working cooperatively with you will
enable us to craft workable laws that translate into workable
programs to serve the children and families who depend on us
for support.
I look forward to continuing to work with you on behalf of
the nation's children to come up with practical solutions to
the problems of nonsupport.

Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you.
Ms. Entmacher.

STATEMENT OF JOAN ENTMACHER, VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR,
FAMILY ECONOMIC SECURITY, NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER

Ms. Entmacher. Chairman Johnson, Congressman Cardin, thank
you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the National
Women's Law Center. We appreciate the Subcommittee's continuing
commitment to explore new ways of increasing support for
children; however, we have several concerns with the proposals
designed to expand the powers of private collection companies
and separate non-IV-D agencies.
First, we are concerned that such proposals would divert
much of the child support intended for and desperately needed
by children into the hands of for-profit companies even when
that child support actually had been collected by the IV-D
program.
Second, we are concerned that such proposals would
undermine rather than enhance the IV-D program on which low-
and moderate-income families particularly rely, just as it is
beginning to move forward toward the automated integrated child
support system envisioned by Congress.
Finally, we are concerned that key protections for
custodial and noncustodial parents that are part of IV-D would
be missing outside of the IV-D system.
I understand that this Subcommittee at this point is only
considering a limited expansion in these non-IV-D powers, so I
will focus my remarks on that. We are particularly concerned
that the provision requiring IV-D agencies to send child
support payments directly to private collection agencies or
others could increase the potential for exploitation of
custodial parents and deprive children of badly needed support.
This provision would give con artists who already prey on
desperate custodial parents a direct pipeline to all of the
money collected by IV-D. Mom might not be aware for some time
that the father was even making payments to IV-D that weren't
reaching her. By the time she realized it, the company and the
money could be gone.
But the Center's concern is not simply with outright fraud.
We also are concerned that under this provision requiring
mailing the checks to any address designated by the custodial
parent, many children and their custodial parents could lose
25, 33, 40 percent of already inadequate child support payments
to private collection agencies, even when IV-D did all of the
work.
This problem already exists under current law, but this
proposal would make the problem vastly worse by, as Marilyn
Smith said, turning IV-D into a collection agency for for-
profit companies, not children.
One of the most misunderstood features of many private
child support collection contracts is that the company will
take its cut out of current support payments, even though the
company advertises that it is only collecting past due support.
How can it do this? By redefining in the contract boilerplate
what current support is and what past due support is, and
saying that all amounts received by the company, however they
are designated by a court or by the NCP, will be first credited
to reduce past due support.
What does this mean to a child owed support? Consider a
child who is owed $6,000 in arrears, who is currently receiving
$600 a month in current payments. Mom signs a contract with the
collection agency that charges a one-third fee to collect past
due support. Mom thinks she is offering to pay the agency
$2,000, if it succeeds in collecting the $6,000 arrearage,
thinking that two-thirds of something is better than 100
percent of nothing.
She is probably not thinking that her daughter could end up
losing a third of her current support every month or that she
could end up paying, for example, $10,000 to collect $6,000.
Here is how. As soon as Mom signs the contract, the collection
company takes the current support payments and applies them
first to the arrearage. To the company, each $600 current
support payment becomes a past due support payment. So the
agency takes a third and the child gets $400 a month instead of
$600. And each month, since the company said that was a past
due support payment, the arrearages increase by another $600.
If dad doesn't have enough money to pay off the arrearage,
this situation can continue indefinitely. According to
complaints on file with the Texas Attorney General, some
custodial parents believe this is just what happened to them
under their contracts with CSE, the former name of
Supportkids.com.
Ms. B. of Forth Worth, Texas wrote the collection agency,
``It was my understanding that you all would take 30 percent of
the part that he was in arrears. It certainly was not my
understanding that you would take away what I was getting
currently. This is ridiculous.''
Ms. W.F. of Plano, Texas complained, ``They have only
managed to help themselves and pay themselves for services with
money I would have gotten without their help. I am worse off
financially now with their so-called help.''
As the example in my written testimony shows, even if Dad
increases his monthly support payments to pay down the debt,
say from $600 to $750 a month, Mom would still only be getting
$500 a month-less than she was getting in current support. By
the time the debt was fully paid off, 40 months later, the
collection agency would get $10,000 and Mom would get $20,000,
when she could have gotten $24,000 in support. Bottom line, mom
has paid $10,000 to collect a $6,000 debt. It turns out that
sometimes two-thirds of something can be less than nothing at
all.
I have just a few comments about the remaining provisions
of the proposal. The provision concerning unemployment benefits
would require the unemployment agency to withhold child support
from unemployment benefits in non-IV-D cases and send it
directly to the non-IV-D agency or collection agency. In this
particular provision, there isn't even a requirement that the
custodial parent request this arrangement. This is not
analogous to the way wage withholding in non-IV-D cases is
handled. Those payments go to the State disbursement unit so
the SDU can maintain a record of payments and ensure that they
are properly disbursed.
Similarly, with the invocation of passport sanctions and
tax intercept, the IV-D statute contains a variety of
protections to ensure that the arrearages actually exist and
that funds are properly disbursed and those protections are not
part of this proposal.
I thank you again for your commitment to find ways to help
children get more child support, but we are concerned that this
proposal would be a step away from, not toward that goal. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Joan Entmacher, Vice President and Director, Family
Economic Security, National Women's Law Center

Chairwoman Johnson and Members of the Human Resources
Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on
behalf of the National Women's Law Center concerning proposals
to expand access to government child support enforcement
procedures.
The National Women's Law Center is a non-profit
organization that has been working since 1972 to advance and
protect women's legal rights. The Center focuses on major
policy areas of importance to women and their families
including employment, education, women's health, and family
economic security, with special attention given to the concerns
of low-income women and their families. Most relevant to this
hearing, the Center has worked for more than two decades to
improve the child support enforcement system. On several
occasions, Center staff have presented testimony on child
support issues to Congress, commented on child support
regulations of the Department of Health and Human Services,
litigated child support cases and met with officials in the
Administration, Congress and the states in furtherance of the
Center's efforts to improve child support enforcement. The
Center also provides information to women across the country on
how to exercise their rights to child support through state
child support offices, and assists low-income women in the
District of Columbia with child support and family law issues.
Since the creation of the child support enforcement program
under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act in 1975 (the ``IV-D
program''), the National Women's Law Center has been a strong
advocate of improved child support enforcement. We recognize
all too well that although progress has been made, it has been
painfully slow and uneven throughout the country, and that
millions of children still are not receiving the child support
they desperately need. We appreciate this Subcommittee's
commitment to continue to explore ways of increasing support
for children.
We are concerned, however, that proposals designed to
encourage the use of private collection agents and separate,
non-IV-D agencies would make child support enforcement worse,
not better. We are concerned that such proposals would
undermine, rather than enhance, the IV-D program on which low
and moderate income families particularly rely for child
support enforcement services.\1\ We are concerned that such
proposals would increase the historic fragmentation of child
support enforcement services just as the IV-D program is
beginning to move toward the automated, integrated, nationwide
child support enforcement system envisioned by the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
We are concerned that key protections for custodial and
noncustodial parents would be missing outside of the IV-D
system. Perhaps most of all, we are concerned that such
proposals would divert much of the child support intended for,
and desperately needed by, children into the hands of for-
profit collection agencies, even when that child support
actually had been collected by the IV-D program. One custodial
parent complaining about a child support collection agency to
the Texas Attorney General wrote:
They have only managed to help themselves and pay
themselves for their services with money I would have gotten
without their help... I am worse off financially now with their
so-called help.\2\ (Emphasis added)
It is my understanding that the proposal currently being
considered by the Subcommittee to expand access to government
enforcement procedures, which has not yet been introduced in
Congress, is more limited than, for example, S. 2411 introduced
in the last Congress. On the assumption that the Subcommittee
is not considering allowing private attorneys, private
collection agencies and non-IV-D agencies access to the
sensitive information in government child support data bases,
this testimony will not address the serious privacy concerns
such a proposal would raise, including safety concerns for
battered women, nor the burdens and costs for the IV-D system
that would be involved in arranging for such access. And I
understand that the Subcommittee is considering a more limited
expansion in the enforcement tools available to non-IV-D
agencies, and in particular to private collection agencies,
than some other proposals would authorize. Therefore, this
testimony will not address all of the concerns about possible
abuse, inefficiency, confusion of payment and case records, and
diversion of resources from the IV-D program that more
extensive proposals to promote the use of private and non-IV-D
collection agencies would raise.
However, even the more limited proposal currently being
considered poses serious problems which are discussed below. Of
greatest concern to the Center is the provision that would give
largely unregulated private collection agencies direct access
to child support payments.

Requiring IV-D Agencies to Make Child Support Payments Directly to
Private Collection Agencies Could Increase the Potential for
Exploitation of Custodial Parents and Deprive Children of Badly Needed
Child Support

In the draft proposal, this section is entitled,
``Expeditious Payment of Child Support Collections.'' It would
be more appropriately titled, ``Expeditious Payment of Child
Support Collection Agencies.'' The purpose of this provision is
to ensure that private collection agencies, private attorneys,
other individuals, and non-IV-D agencies can take their often
large cut of child support, including child support collected
by IV-D, before it gets to the child. Under this provision,
instead of sending child support payments to the custodial
parent, the State Disbursement Unit would be required to send
support payments due a custodial parent to any entity specified
by the custodial parent, including a collection agency, even if
the obligation is being enforced by IV-D.
This provision poses very serious risks to children and
custodial parents, mostly mothers, owed support.
First, it would greatly increase the potential for fraud
and abuse. The private child support collection field is almost
completely unregulated.\3\ And the population these agencies
target--custodial parents struggling to make ends meet--is a
vulnerable one. Some custodial parents have lost money to scam
artists who collect application fees then vanish into the
night. Others have dealt with agencies that collected some
money, but have not forwarded any of it to the custodial
parent.\4\ It is a field in which, Better Business Bureau
records show, companies quickly start up and almost as quickly
disappear, leaving behind frustrated custodial and noncustodial
parents and no forwarding address or telephone number.\5\
The proposed provision allowing payments to go directly
from IV-D to private collection agencies would make this
problem worse. It would greatly increase the potential for
getting easy money out of child support--agencies could have
100% of the money collected by IV-D sent directly to them--and
probably would attract more con artists to the field. Custodial
parents could sign up with these fraudulent agencies or
individuals, and, as required, give the collection agency's
address to IV-D for payment. It might take quite some time for
the custodial parent to realize that the noncustodial parent
was making payments which were not reaching her at all. By the
time she realized there was a problem, and got IV-D to redirect
the payments to her, considerable child support could be lost
forever.
But the Center's concern is not simply with outright fraud.
We also are concerned that under this provision, many children
and their custodial parents could lose substantial portions of
already inadequate child support payments to private collection
agencies, under confusing if not deceptive contract provisions,
when they could be receiving all of it through IV-D. This
problem already exists under current law, but this proposal
would make the problem vastly worse by effectively turning IV-D
agencies into agents for the private collection agencies--not
children.
Under this proposal, private collection agencies would be
assured of getting their cut of child support collections--and
the one-third collection fee charged by CSE Child Support
Enforcement Co. is fairly typical \6\--even when the IV-D
agency did all the work of securing the wage withholding order,
tax refund intercept, or bank match.
Moreover, the collections that many agencies would take a
percentage of--their 25, 33, or 40% cut--would include current
support payments, under contract provisions that cleverly
redefine what is ``current'' and what is ``past-due'' support.
This is one of the most misunderstood and disturbing aspects of
some private child support collection agencies' practices. Some
agencies emphasize in their advertising and contracts that they
are collecting ``past-due child support,'' \7\ and that they
take their fees out of these ``past-due'' collections. But then
some contracts--in standard form agreements that few, if any,
custodial parents can negotiate--go on to redefine a ``past-
due'' support payment. Under some contracts, any payment--
including a designated current support payment--becomes a
``past-due'' support payment in the eyes of the collection
agency as long as it is received while an arrearage exists,
because it is applied to the arrearage first.\8\ This permits
the collection agency to claim its cut of even designated
current support payments.
For example, the CSE (Child Support Enforcement, Co.)
contract in use in 1998 states:
``Past-Due Support Owed'' is defined throughout this
agreement as the sum of all past-due child support and any
other monetary obligation, including any interest, due and
owing from the NCP [non-custodial parent] as of the date the
NCP's first payment is received by CSE. ``Past-Due Support
Owed'' also includes any support and interest that become past-
due after the first payment is received. Regardless of how
payments are designated by the NCP, payor, court records, or
other documents, all amounts received by CSE will be first
credited to reduce ``Past-Due Support Owed.'' (Emphasis added)
Similarly, the contract used by Child Support Network, Inc.
states: ``All money collected will be applied against the
arrearage balance, until the arrearage balance is paid in
full.'' Other provisions of the CSN contract state that its
fees apply to any money paid after the agreement is signed,
including any money previously paid to any court or government
agency.
What do obscure provisions like these mean to a child owed
support? They mean that a child may not receive the full child
support payment she is due each month--even if the noncustodial
parent is making regular child support payments that equal or
exceed the current support obligation. They also mean that a
child and custodial parent may end up paying much more in child
support to collect an arrearage than the entire arrearage is
worth.
Consider a child owed $6,000 in past-due support, who is
currently owed and receiving $600/month in current support
payments. The custodial mother signs a contract with a
collection agency that charges a one-third fee to collect
``past-due support.'' Mom thinks she's offering to pay the
agency up to $2,000 if it succeeds in collecting the $6,000
arrearage, thinking that 2/3 of something is better than 100%
of nothing. (She may not be aware of the progress some IV-D
agencies are making in using tax refund offset, bank matches,
and other tools to collect arrearages, which would get her 100%
of the collection, minus at most minimal fees.) What she is
probably not thinking is that she and her child could end up
paying more than $6,000 in lost child support to collect the
$6,000.
Here's how. As soon as mom signs the contract with the
collection agency, it begins applying the support payments
first to the arrearage--which means it takes $200 of the $600
current support payments as ``past-due'' support under its
definition. This situation can continue throughout the duration
of the child support obligation, because under the bookkeeping
rules of the collection agencies, no current support is ever
received. Each month, the current obligation defaults and is
added to the ``unpaid support'' total. Even if the collection
agency, or IV-D, manages to collect part of the arrearage in a
lump sum, if the payments are insufficient to pay off the
arrearage, the agency can take its cut indefinitely. This is
particularly a risk for low-income noncustodial parents, who
can least afford to make large child support payments to pay
off arrearages quickly, and for low-income custodial parents,
who can least afford to lose any part of the child support
payments made.
Suppose the collection agency, or IV-D, arranges for an
increase in monthly payments from $600 to $750 to pay down the
$6,000 arrearage. And suppose Dad regularly makes the increased
payments. Most people would think that Dad is paying $600/month
in current support, and $150 a month in past-due support. But
under the contracts used by many child support collection
agencies, the entire $750 is treated as a past-due support
payment. If they take a one-third fee, this creative
bookkeeping allows them to take $250 per month instead of $50/
month. This leaves the child $500/month: $100 less than the
$600 current support the child had been receiving, even though
the father paid the full amount of current support, and an
additional $150 toward the arrearage.
In addition, under this arrangement, the arrearage is paid
down no faster than it would be if only $150/month were
credited to the arrearage. The reason is that as each month's
entire payment is applied to the arrearage, the current month's
obligation defaults, increasing the arrears balance by $600. If
Dad makes every payment in full, ignoring interest, it still
will take 40 months to pay off the unpaid support.
The bottom line is that at the end of 40 months, the
custodial parent--and the child--would have paid $10,000 in
child support to collect $6,000 in arrears. Dad would have paid
$30,000 ($750 x 40); the agency would have received $10,000,
the child $20,000. But if the mother had written off the $6,000
arrearage completely, she would be better off than she would be
under the ``successful'' completion of her contract with the
agency. She would have received $24,000 in current support
instead of $20,000. It turns out that 2/3 of something--when
that something is cleverly redefined by some child support
collection agencies--can be less than nothing.
Some may think that while it is unfortunate that consumers
enter into unwise contracts--especially when children owed
child support pay the price--that the best solution is to let
the buyer beware, and cancel contracts that aren't working for
them. In this field, however, that solution may not work.
Another disturbing feature of some child support collection
agency contracts is that they purport to restrict the ability
of the consumer to terminate the contract, frequently requiring
the custodial parent and child to give the agency its cut of
all child support collected until the arrearage is paid in
full--which, as the discussion above shows, can take a very
long time.
For example, the CSE contract in use in 1998 stated that
``this agreement shall only terminate in any one of three
ways.'' (1) CSE collects all ``Past-Due Support Owed.'' (2)
Written cancellation within seven days of signing. (3) If
twelve consecutive months go by with no payment received, the
client may cancel. However, this option is qualified. If CSE
has hired an attorney to place a lien against the noncustodial
parent's property, or the client has assigned the right to CSE
to pursue the claim--which another provision of the contact
requires the client to do if CSE decides to take legal action--
then the contract may not be terminated under this clause.
Similarly, the contract used by Child Support Network, Inc.
(CSN) in 1998 stated that the agreement is valid for two years
from the date of signing. However, the contract continued,
``[i]f payments are being made by or on behalf of the
noncustodial parent, or if your case has been referred to an
attorney for collection, this Agreement will be valid until
your arrearage has been paid in full.'' \9\
Complaints filed with the Consumer Protection Division of
the Texas Attorney General's Office concerning CSE indicate the
deep frustration of some custodial parents with what they
allege is the company's taking its 33% cut from current support
payments, especially payments being collected by IV-D, and
their inability to cancel the contract. Some examples: \10\
Ms. WF of Plano, Texas, complained that she had asked CSE
for help in collecting past due child support from her ex-
husband who was living in Hawaii. (Emphasis in original) She
already had applied for IV-D services. She said that before
signing the contract with CSE, she asked if their contract
meant that CSE could intercept payments that the IV-D agency in
Hawaii had already intercepted, and was told they could not.
She said she thought CSE would be making additional efforts to
get unpaid child support from her ex-husband directly or at
least from his insurance company. However, she said, CSE simply
took its percentage out of wage withholding payments and other
payments made to the Hawaii IV-D agency. Ms. WF wrote: ``If
they continue to take current support being paid to [the Hawaii
IV-D agency] and putting it towards arrears he owes, which is
over $11,500 at this point, he will never catch up and they CSE
of Austin will continue indefinitely to take out their cut
first which they have not earned at all.''
Ms. B of Fort Worth, Texas said she had written CSE in an
attempt to terminate her contract: ``It was my understanding
that you all would take 30% of the part that he was in arrears.
It was certainly not my understanding that you would take away
what I was getting currently. This is ridiculous. So cancel the
proceedings.'' She said CSE refused to cancel the contract.
``They even had an attorney call me to, I believe, intimidate
me by explaining, in legal terminology, why I could not back
out of my contract.'' ``I feel that this company is really
taking advantage of people like me. While I realize that I
should have made sure that I totally understood the contract,
which I thought I did, I believe that they misrepresented
themselves. I believe that the entire agreement is very
deceptive.'' She asked, ``They're stating that they're getting
the amount that's late, but what I want to know is: if they are
currently collecting the late part of what he owes me, what
happens to the portion that he should actually be paying me
now....?''
Ms. G of Seagoville, Texas said that she had sought the
help of CSE in collecting $7,130 in child support arrears. She
wrote the Attorney General, ``The contract states...[o]nce
total amount owed was collected then I would receive 100%.
However that was not done--In the 4 years time I was on this
contract they collected $16,000, which means they went ... over
the amount. I would like to have that money back. Can you help?
Please help us. Please help us. Please, Please help us.''
Ms. L of Red Oak, Texas complained that she had tried,
repeatedly and unsuccessfully, to cancel her contract with CSE.
She said she had an open case with the IV-D agency when she
signed a contract with CSE. She complained that now that she is
receiving child support payments, ``They [CSE] take the check.
They shouldn't be taking my money. They have not done anything
on this case like they said.'' She asked that they ``drop this
like I had requested 6 different times.''
Other complaints were similar. Custodial parents also
complained about difficulties getting information from CSE
about their account and the amount of arrearage remaining: a
critical piece of information since the legitimacy of the fee
collection depends on the existence of an arrearage. Some
custodial parents, as well as noncustodial parents, complained
about inaccurate collections and unfair treatment of the
noncustodial parent. Some complainants indicated that they had
asked the IV-D agency to send future child support payments to
them, not CSE; at least one had experienced difficulty getting
the change put into effect.
The issues raised by these and other custodial parents
strongly suggest that increasing the ability of collection
agencies to get direct access to child support payments would
not be in the best interests of parents or their children.

The Provision for Income Withholding from Unemployment Insurance
Benefits by Private Collection Agencies and Non-IV-D Agencies Lacks
Important Protections for Custodial and Noncustodial Parents

The provision under consideration purports merely to
require that state unemployment agencies honor income
withholding orders in non-IV-D cases as well as IV-D cases,
just as employers honor income withholding orders in non-IV-D
as well as IV-D cases. It would, in fact, operate very
differently. Under current law, non-IV-D wage withholding is
governed by specific requirements designed to ensure that
deductions from income are properly made and properly disbursed
to custodial parents. These protections are lacking in this
proposal concerning withholding from unemployment payments.
Current law requires states to provide for income
withholding in most child support orders, including orders not
being enforced by IV-D agencies. However, the law also requires
that withholding of income in non-IV-D cases be carried out in
full compliance with procedural due process (42 U.S.C.
666(a)(8)(B)(iv)). Many of the procedures applicable to
withholding in IV-D cases are also applicable to non-IV-D
withholding (42 U.S.C. 666(a)(8)(B)(i) and (ii)), including the
requirement that employers must be given notice on a form
prescribed by the Secretary and that all amounts withheld from
wages in both IV-D and non-IV-D cases be sent to the State
Disbursement Unit (SDU).
Having payments flow through the SDU provides important
protections to both custodial and noncustodial parents. The SDU
is responsible for accurately identifying payments and promptly
disbursing payments to custodial parents. It maintains payment
records and must furnish to any parent--IV-D and non-IV-D--
timely information on the current status of support payments
(42 U.S.C. 654B).
Currently, unemployment offices electronically match their
case records against child support obligations submitted by IV-
D, and forward the payments to IV-D. This proposal would
redefine ``child support obligations'' in the unemployment law
to include obligations which are being enforced by private
collection agencies and State and local agencies not associated
with IV-D. It would require applicants for unemployment to
disclose whether they owe such obligations, identify the entity
or individual enforcing the obligation, and then would require
the unemployment office to deduct the obligations from the
unemployment check and forward them directly to the collection
agent--private or public--not to IV-D, not to the SDU and not
to the custodial parent. There is no requirement that the
unemployment office even check with the custodial parent before
diverting the child support payment.
It is unclear in this proposal how disputes about the
amount or validity of the withholding would be resolved; there
are no due process or standard notice requirements. It is
unclear that the $5 per case per month that the statute would
authorize the unemployment office to charge would cover the
administrative costs of unemployment agencies of processing
these cases, which cannot be handled as efficiently as data
matches with IV-D; it is not even clear who would pay it. Most
of all, it is unclear what will happen if the payments sent to
a private collection agency never reach the custodial parent.
But it seems very likely that at some point, the burden will
fall on a IV-D agency to sort it out and deal with two
frustrated parents: a custodial parent who didn't receive child
support and a noncustodial parent who paid it, but not, it
turns out, to the child.

The Provision Allowing Passport Sanctions by Non-IV-D Agencies Lacks
Due Process Protections

Current law allows IV-D agencies, through the Secretary of
HHS, to ask the Secretary of State to deny, revoke, or restrict
a passport if an individual owes over $5,000 in child support.
However, before invoking this sanction, IV-D agencies must
comply with explicit due process protections (42 U.S.C.
654(31)): an individual must be given notice of the arrearage,
its consequences, and an ability to contest it, and, to ensure
accuracy, the IV-D agency must comply with documentation
requirements established by the Secretary of HHS.
Under the proposed provision, non-IV-D state or local
government child support enforcement agencies that certify that
arrearages exceeding $5,000 are due may invoke passport
sanctions from the Secretary of State. However, the
requirements of section 654(31) would not apply to non-IV-D
agencies. It is unclear who, then, would be responsible for
affording the necessary due process protections and resolve any
disputes about arrearage amounts: the Secretary of HHS? the
Secretary of State?
Non-IV-D agencies that seek to use the powers of IV-D
agencies should be held to the same standards as IV-D. Congress
has--not without controversy--granted IV-D agencies the use of
tough new enforcement tools, including passport denial and
revocation. It is important that they be used fairly. Misuse,
even by non-IV-D agencies, is likely to undermine support for
their use generally.

The Provision Allowing Federal Income Tax Refund Intercept by Non-IV-D
Agencies Lacks Protections and Would Be Less Efficient than the Current
System

Current law requires the Secretary of the Treasury to
intercept federal tax refunds upon receiving notice from a IV-D
agency that a child support arrearage of a certain amount is
owed. However, before the refund can be intercepted, the
statute requires the IV-D agency to notify the individual owing
support that a tax refund intercept will occur, explain the
procedures for contesting the amount owed, and explain the
procedures that may be followed to protect the share of a
refund based upon a joint return. It also requires the IV-D
agency that receives money through the tax refund intercept to
distribute it to or on behalf of the child in accordance with
the statutory distribution rules. (42 U.S.C. 664(a)(3)(A)).
Under the proposal being considered by the Subcommittee,
these requirements would not apply to non-IV-D agencies seeking
to intercept tax refunds. All the proposal says is that the
Secretary of the Treasury shall develop procedures to enable a
non-IV-D agency to request the Secretary to withhold tax
refunds. There are no provisions concerning due process, or the
distribution of the funds.
The current process for intercepting tax refunds through
IV-D is both fair and efficient. The names of obligors owing
child support and taxpayers due refunds are matched
electronically, through a system that can identify cases in
which past-due support is owed to more than one family. There
is no apparent rationale for encouraging the development of
procedures that would appear to provide fewer protections and
be more costly to implement.

Conclusion

Proposals to increase the powers of private collection
agencies and non-IV-D agencies, and to allow collection
agencies greater direct access to child support payments, raise
serious concerns for the IV-D program, noncustodial parents,
and most of all, millions of custodial parents and children who
need every penny of the child support due them. On behalf of
the National Women's Law Center, I urge this Subcommittee not
to adopt this proposal.

Endnotes

\1\ A recent analysis by the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation, ``Characteristics of Families Using Title IV-D Services in
1995'' (May 1999), found that 63% of custodial parents eligible for
child support used the IV-D system. Only 23% of custodial parent
families in the IV-D system had family incomes of 250% of poverty or
above (in 1995, 250% of poverty was $30,395). Over half (53%) of the
custodial parent families not using the IV-D system had incomes of 250%
of poverty or greater.
\2\ Complaint of Ms. FW of Plano, Texas to the Texas Attorney
General, Consumer Protection Division, concerning Child Support
Enforcement (CSE) of Austin, Texas, July 9, 1997. To illustrate some
concerns of custodial parents, this testimony quotes from several
complaints on file with the Texas Attorney General. The National
Women's Law Center takes no position on their validity.
\3\ See, e.g., Mabe v. G.C. Services Limited Partnership, 32 F.3d
86 (4th Cir. 1994)(child support is not a ``debt'' within the meaning
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692-1692o,
therefore the practices of child support collection agencies are not
governed by the FDCPA which regulates other debt collection agencies.)
\4\ Testimony of Geraldine Jensen, President of Association for
Children For Enforcement of Support, Inc. (ACES) to the Human Resources
Subcommittee of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee,
Nov. 7, 1997.
\5\ Information from Better Business Bureau files in the National
Information System compiled by Amy Collins and Vicki Turetsky, Center
for Law and Social Policy, 1999.
\6\ The website of Child Support Enforcement Co. (CSE),
supportkids.com, currently says that it charges a 34% fee. (A CSE
contract in use in 1998 required payment of a $475 administrative fee,
which would come out of collections, in addition to a service fee of
33% of collections.) Legal services are included in the CSE fee. The
contract of Child Support Network, Inc. (CSN) offers two payment plans.
Under Plan A, the client makes an initial payment of $850 plus 15% of
all collections. If CSN refers the case to an attorney, the fee
increases to 20%. Under Plan B, the application fee is $35, plus 35% of
collections. If CSN refers the case to an attorney, the fee increases
to 40%. The National Child Support Network (NCSN) contract includes a
$49.95 processing fee, and 25% of collections. The agency does not
provide legal representation, and filing fees incurred with the
client's consent must be paid by the client.
\7\ See, for example, the CSE website, supportkids.com: ``Founded
in 1991, Supportkids.com has achieved unprecedented success in
collecting past-due child support....'' The CSE contract in use in 1998
stated, ``I am asking CSE to enforce and collect ``Past-Due Support
Owed....''
\8\ Under Title IV-D, collections are first applied to current
support obligations. 42 U.S.C. 657.
\9\ At least one agency is making a selling point of its
cancellation policy. The website of the National Child Support Network,
Inc. (NCSN), childsupport.org, states: ``YOU MAY ELECT TO DISCONTINUE
YOUR CONTRACT AT THE END OF THE CONTRACT PERIOD AND OWE NOTHING
MORE.... Most collection agencies require a contract that is binding
while there is ANY arrears balance, which means they will take a
percentage of your money FOR AS LONG AS YOU ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CHILD
SUPPORT...'' (Emphasis in original)
\10\ I appreciate the work of Amy Collins and Vicki Turetsky,
Center for Law and Social Policy, in obtaining copies of these
complaints. Some spelling errors have been corrected in the excerpts.

Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Well, thank you all for
your testimony. Ms. Williams, what percentage of the
collections did the agency require you to pay them?
Ms. Williams. It was the 34 percent.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thirty-four percent. Well,
I really appreciate your testimony, because you are laying out
a problem that I have a lot of interest in. It almost certainly
will not be part of the fatherhood bill, but we do expect to do
a child support bill in the course of events thereafter,
perhaps in the beginning of next year.
I personally am very uncomfortable with the fact that we
are doing such a bad job of collecting for so many children.
And I do hear what Ms. Kerr is saying; there is no State
government and there is no Federal Government that is going to
fund this properly.
The reason welfare reform has succeeded is not because we
were smart; it is because the Federal Government guaranteed
that the States would continue to get the money they had been
getting, regardless of the number of people on welfare. So for
the first time they actually had money to pay for day care.
I was here on this Subcommittee when in 1988 we reformed
welfare, a great plan on paper. We never funded day care. So we
aren't going to fund child support enforcement in a way that is
going to serve all the kids, IV-D and non-IV D, it is just not
going to happen.
And we are also now a sophisticated enough society so we
ought to be able to develop a partnership, and the problems
that you point to were very real and I appreciate that. But a
lot of them are also rectifiable. Maybe we need to develop a
system of licensed--where you have to get a license to be part
of that system, and have certain agreements within IV-D
agencies.
But I think to pretend that we can go ahead, I mean at
least from the hearing we had before, it looked like the big
gain in child support enforcement was that we are doing a much
better job of getting the orders and enforcing the orders from
the very beginning. We are just not doing a very good job of
going back and cleaning up the mess behind us. So I think also
there are different categories. I think the fact that Ms. Fink
is a government employee does make a difference, even though it
is at the county level. That is very important, I think, tried
and true agencies who have done a good job.
We may want to limit fees. But on the other hand, the limit
in fees could be paired with certain kinds of contracts that
would give access through you or develop certain partnerships.
So we aren't going to solve this today.
But I hope you will think about how we can move forward,
because the hearing that we had on child support enforcement
and how profitable the new tools are, it is terrific. And the
government-run system is going to do better and better because
they have better tools. But we are a very, very big Nation, and
I have never frankly seen a government agency in any area--even
the motor vehicles department who is obliged to serve everybody
that gets a driver's license, they have a really hard time
doing it.
So I think we are really obliged to look at some of the
partnerships that might help. And I can see that it is
territory that we have to move carefully on. But I urge you and
I hope that by hearing others' testimony you can hear what the
problems are and how we need to do that and under what
circumstances would private agencies be willing to limit their
collection fees for what kind of help, so they cut down the
time actually and your costs.
Let me yield to my friend, Ben.
Mr. Cardin. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank all
of our witnesses for their testimony. I certainly support the
Chair's observations that this issue is not right for the
legislation, the fatherhood legislation that is before us. It
is--it has not yet gone through the vetting process in order to
move forward with legislation.
Let me just express some of my concerns. If the IV-D
agencies are overworked and don't have enough resources and are
not effective in collecting child support, then we should work
at that and get it the resources that it needs. I am very
concerned about opening up particularly to private collection
agencies. I know there is a difference between the government
and nongovernmental agencies here, the tools that we have
available for child support enforcement and the information
that we have available for child support enforcement.
The hearing that we held 2 weeks ago in which Ms. Smith and
others were present where we talked about some of the things
that are happening around the Nation, the new higher
information, how banks are matching up records, financial
records, with the child support delinquency orders and
employers are matching up, that is a wealth of information that
is there, that I don't think we know how to control, if we
start opening up this information potentially to private
entities that are seeking to collect child support, tax
records. And I think it is not difficult to see how that
information could work its way into collections beyond child
support or could work itself into information available that
has nothing at all to do with collection of any funds, but
valuable information concerning individuals that could be
useful to other individuals.
So I have--we developed the tools for child support
enforcement nationally and got the support for it because of
its objective, using it for a specific purpose and having it
well controlled in its supervision and use. And to now start to
expand that beyond the governmental agencies that are charged
specifically with that function, I think, is one that you are
going to have to come over a heavy burden of proof before we
move in that direction.
And I am as strong as anyone in this Congress about helping
all families collect the child support that is owed, so let us
figure out a way that we can do it that doesn't compromise some
of these other concerns, or that you address some of these
other concerns.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This has been an interesting
hearing. I assume it will not be the last we have on this
subject.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. I purposely laid this out
early on because it is going to be a challenge, but I think the
experience of Texas is frankly not one we can ignore.
Mr. Cardin. If I might, I do have a statement from ACES
that was addressed to us that deals with this issue, raises
some of the concerns that I have just raised, and I would ask
unanimous consent that I could put it into the record.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Sure.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3641.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3641.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3641.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3641.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3641.015

Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you very much for
being here, we really appreciate you, and thank you, Ms.
Williams, for your testimony. Thanks.
[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the record follow:]

Statement of Geraldine Jensen, President, Association for Children for
Enforcement of Support, Inc., Toledo, Ohio

ACES members are clients of State Title IV-D child support
enforcement agencies. ACES has 40,000 members, and 390 chapters
located in 48 states. We are representative of the families
whose 30 million children are owed $50 billion in unpaid child
support. We have banded together to work for effective and fair
child support enforcement. ACES has surveyed our membership to
gather information from families as they make the transition
from welfare to self-sufficiency. We have asked welfare
recipients about the actions taken or not taken by child
support enforcement agencies that have assisted them to become
self sufficient. Collection of child support when joined with
available earned income allows 88% of our membership to get off
public assistance. Collection of child support enables our low
income working poor members to stay in the job force long
enough to gain promotions and better pay. The collection of
child support means our members can pay the rent and utilities,
buy food, pay for health care, and provide for their children's
educational opportunities. Lack of child support most often
means poverty and welfare dependency.

Private Collection Agencies Not The Answer to Child Support Problems

Private collection agencies for child support do not work
any better than the government child support agencies. These
agencies do not and should not have access to confidential IRS
information. They should also should not have access to state
information such as tax records, employment records, worker's
compensation records, and any other protected government
records. The private agencies collecting child support are
currently not regulated. In fact, The U.S. Supreme Court
recently ruled that these agencies do not fall under the
regulations of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Private collectors
are a bad solution to a hard problem. It is a better investment
to fix the child support enforcement system.
Custodial parents who have used private collection agencies
have encountered many problems:
Private collectors take huge fees on money they
had no part in collecting. Private collectors literally get 30%
of the children's money for merely mailing a piece of paper to
the State IV-D agency. They have taken no action to collect the
money, they are not involved in selecting the cases to be
submitted---states are required under federal law to submit all
cases with $500 or more arrearages. They are not involved in
preparing the case for submission, they are not involved in
verifying arrearage, handing arrearage disputes etc., yet they
still get 30% of the children's money. For example, private
collectors got paid by taking their 30% fee from an IRS refund
that the state government child support agency attached. This
is occurring in states like Texas, where the private collector
merely notifies the state IV-D agency that the family has given
them permission to collect the support and requests that all
child support collected by the IV-D agency be sent to the
private collector rather than to the family. So, after the
State IV-D agency prepares the case for submission for IRS and
State offset by verifying the arrearage, name, and social
security numbers, preparing the documents to be sent to the
Federal government, handing any issues that arise from the non-
custodial parent after they receive notice of the attachment
such as a dispute as to the amount of arrears, new spouse
claim, receive the check from the IRS, process it, and send it
onto the private collector. The private collector then takes
their fee, usually 30% of the amount of the check, and sends
the remainder to the family.
If federal law requires state Disbursement units to send
child support collected from wage withholdings, interstate or
local, attachment of unemployment compensation, attachment of
bank account, etc., to private collectors, they will profit
from the work of the state at the expense of the children.
If someone has a IV-D case open, federal law requires
automatic submission via the new computers for attachment of
most type of assets upon a 30 day default. The proposal to
require state Disbursement units to send the child support
checks to private collectors are merely a way for private
collectors to make a windfall profit while doing no or little
work.
If it is a non-IV-D case and a family sign up with a
private collector and the private collector does the work of
finding the employer, preparing an income withholding order and
claims they have a right to be paid for this service. If
private collectors provide a service not part of the IV-D
system they should be paid but not at the expense of the child.
Instead they should be paid by the non custodial parent who
failed to meet their obligations and caused the custodial
parent to need to seek services to collect the support. The
non-custodial parent should be required to pay the fee, the 30%
in addition to the child support. The fee should only be
allowed to be collected after child support due to the child
has been paid.
Some private collection agencies collected
payments from the non custodial parent but never sent the
payments to the family. This is literally stealing money from
the children. Since private collection agencies are not
required to follow the Fair Debt Collection Act, families have
no recourse in dealing with agencies who act inappropriately.
We have had reports that private collectors laughed at one
custodial parent when she told them that the child's father
said he had paid the money to the collector and she has not
received it. The private collector told her, ``sue us for it!''
Most of the families who turn to private collectors out of
desperation for support payments are in serious financial
distress. They do not have money to hire a private attorney,
they have not received efficient services from the state IV-D
agency, and then they get ripped off by a private collector.
Many give up and eventually end up on welfare, or working two
or three jobs to support their children. The children suffer
financially and emotionally because now they have lost both
parents, the one who has abandoned them financially and
emotionally and the other who cannot be home to nurture them
because they are working all the time!
States have large amounts of undistributed child support
payments on hand. Thirty-four states responded to our request
for information about undistributed/unidentified funds. They
reported that they are holding $68,712,546. This is very
similar to the problems of private collectors not sending money
on to the family. However, the difference is that citizens can
call for a state auditor to check records of the state child
support agency, and state IV-D agencies can be required to
follow federal regulations about payment distribution. Neither
of these remedies is available for resolving problems with
private collectors. ACES recommends that language be added to
the Fatherhood Initiative legislation which requires States IV-
D agencies to use the Federal Parent Locator System and New
Hire reporting system to find the addresses of families for
whom payments are being held.
Some private agencies have closed down and totally
disappeared after custodial parents have paid application fees
of hundred's of dollars. Since there are no state or federal
laws or regulations which govern the practices of private
collectors on child support cases, these problems continue to
occur unanswered.
Contracts used by some private collector have
hidden clauses which require families owed support to pay
additional court costs and attorney fees on top of the 30% fee
taken from the child support collected. Some private collectors
require contracts or power of attorney agreements that are
binding for the entire childhood or are renewable for a full
year if even one payment is received, such as an annual
collection through the IRS Offset program by the State IV-D
agency.
Some private collectors have violated contracts.
Agreements were made for taking percentage out of arrears;
instead they took a percentage of current support.
Here are some examples of what happened to families using
private collectors:
A mother in Texas has one child that is owed over $50,000
in unpaid child support. She signed a contract with Child
Support Enforcement (CSE) in Texas more than one year ago.
Since signing the contract, Phyllis had to go on Public
Assistance. CSE did not close her case when she went on welfare
and turn it back over to the state as they are supposed to do.
When she asked CSE if the case should be turned back to the
state, CSE told her it did not matter because this was an
interstate case. CSE has taken 32% of the current support but
has not collected any money on the arrearage of $50,000.
A mother in California had a $60,000 arrearage. She went to
a private collection agency. Nothing was done on her case so
she canceled her contract in writing. She came to ACES and
learned how to collect the back support. When she was due to
get the $60,000 the private collector notified her that she
owed them 30% of the arrearage, even though the contract had
been canceled. The private agency even tried to foreclose on
her house to get their portion of the $60,000.
A mother in Virginia hired Blue Moon, a private collector
who collected money from the non-payor's mother. The company
closed their doors and kept all of the child support they had
collected and the children received nothing.
A California mother hired Child Support Enforcement out of
Austin, TX. She tried to cancel her contract because the agency
had done nothing to collect the support. The company would not
allow her to cancel.
A grandmother who has custodial care hired Blue Moon. She
paid an up front fee of $50, signed over her power of attorney
and the company closed its doors, kept her money and kept her
power of attorney.
Another California mother hired Blue Moon. The company
harassed her rather than the non-payor, never answered any of
her questions or calls, never collected money, and closed its
doors.
Another family reports they hired Child Support Enforcement
from Austin, TX, who did nothing to collect any money. The
company sent her a notice that they were raising their
percentage from 33 to 34% even though she had signed a contract
for 33%.
ACES recommends that State Disbursement Units be prohibited
from changing the payee on IV-D cases unless they have a court
order certifying that all fees will be paid by the non-
custodial parent in addition to and separate from any child
support obligation.

Non-IV-D Agencies Having Access to IRS Offset

Several states have several different government child
support agencies. In some communities these are local Clerk of
the Courts offices or court trustees. Before State wide
distribution, many of these offices had a cooperative agreement
with State IV-D agencies for payment processing, income
withholdings, and other services. These agencies were quick to
refer families to State IV-D agencies in the past for services
such as Parent Locator and IRS Offset because the family still
had a case open at their agency and they received federal
funding via the cooperative agreement. Now they do not like to
refer cases to IV-D because families chose full IV-D services
rather than using both agencies. Because of the history of
cooperative agreements, local offices hired staff and often
used child support positions as part of the local political
patronage system.
When states moved to the State Disbursement units, these
offices have been looking for a way to continue to keep their
staff and continue the local patronage system. The newest
method is to get access to the IRS Offset system so that
families will keep their case on file with their office rather
than change over to the State IV-D system. This is good for
some families who have had success with collection by these
non-IV-D government agencies, such as those where the mother,
father, and child all live in the community and the non
custodial parent has been making regular payment on their own
through this agency. Since employers now send all income
withholding payments to the State Distribution Unit so that
they have only one government agency to deal with, since almost
40% of the cases are interstate, and since contempt and
criminal non-support actions are done by attorney under
contract by IV-D at no charge to families in most states, it no
longer makes sense for most cases to be handled by these local
offices.
For the few families continuing to have open cases at local
agencies it does not make sense to create a system where they
can access enforcement to the IRS Offset. It does make sense to
set up a system where state IV-D agencies must accept cases
referred from these offices and ensure that the cases are
forwarded to the IRS. They can require these offices to provide
the same information that they do of custodial parents opening
cases for IRS Offset. This process includes a copy of an
arrearage statement certified by the court or, in affidavit
form, the name of the non-custodial parent, their last known
address, and social security number.
ACES recommends that federal law require State IV-D
agencies to accept and process these cases to ensure services
to these families. This would enable these offices to provide
services to the families who have cases on file where other
collection services are working. If the case on file at the
Clerk of Courts or Trustees' Office is not receiving regular
payments, these offices should be required to notify the
custodial parents in writing that full collection services for
locating absent parents, income withholding, attachment of bank
accounts, unemployment, etc. are available at the state IV-D
agency.

Fatherhood Initiative

Current federally funded Access/Visitation Projects fail to
reach families most in need of help in solving visitation
problems. States that have set up mediation/counseling programs
to help families resolve visitation problems are often
voluntary and therefore don't reach families with ongoing
disputes. Voluntary projects have successfully helped families
establish visitation orders and custody agreements at the time
child support orders were entered. Programs such as the
Fatherhood Initiative have had minimal impact. For example, the
Los Angeles Fatherhood Initiative told ACES in July 1999 that
they had only 39 fathers enrolled in the program.
There are 650,000 open child support cases in Los Angeles.
Manpower of New York reviewed the fatherhood program by
establishing a control group of non-custodial parents to
determine the effectiveness of the program. The review showed
that 30% of the fathers participating in the fatherhood
programs and 30% of the fathers not enrolled in the program
paid child support. The program did successfully ``smoke'' out
those who were really working because, after the court ordered
them to attend job training, they began paying child support to
avoid losing their jobs!
ACES recommends that program be expanded to include more
fathers so that more children benefit. However, provisions
should be made to ensure that the programs are cost effective.
Programs should be held to a standard that they produce child
support collections of at $5 for every $1 spent. In the past,
programs have spend millions of dollars to serve a few fathers,
of whom only 30% paid child support. Establishment of
paternity, if needed, should be a prerequisite to participation
in the program since the goal is to provide fathers' job and
parent training needed to successfully financially and
emotionally support their children.
When parents see that the support paid actually benefits
their children, it encourages them to meet legal child support
obligations. Passing child support collected to families on
welfare rather then keeping it to pay off welfare debts help
children and encourage non custodial parents to meet child
support obligations. Child support payment passed on to
families should be counted toward TANF eligibility in the same
manner as earned income.
Federal law should encourage states to establish amnesty
programs for parents who owe the states welfare child support
debts. Parents should be allowed to make arrangements to pay
current support obligations based on the state child support
guidelines. These guidelines use actual parental income and
cost of raising children to determine the amount to be paid.
The non custodial parent should be allowed to enter into a
legal agreement with the state that set up a process that if
the non custodial parent meet's current child support
obligations and past obligations owed to the child, the state
waives the arrears owed to them. If the parent violates their
agreement, they become liable for the debt owed to the state.
In 1995, the U.S. Census study of children growing up in
single parent households showed that 2.7 million children
received full payments, 2 million received partial payments,
and 2.2 million who had support orders received no payments.
About 6.8 million children received no payments because they
needed paternity or an order established. About 32% of the
families who do not receive child support live in poverty. In
single parent households, 28% of Caucasian children, 40% of
Black children and 48% of Hispanic children are impoverished.
There are now 30 million children owed $50 billion in
unpaid child support according to the Federal Office of Child
Support Enforcement's 1998 Preliminary Annual Report to
Congress. If we are truly serious about strengthening families
and promoting self-sufficiency rather than welfare dependency,
by making parents responsible for supporting their children, it
is time to get serious about setting up an effective national
child support enforcement system. Taking care of the children
one brings into the world is a basic personal responsibility
and a true family value.
Preliminary statistical reports from the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Administration of Children and
Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement show that the
average state collection rate for 1998 is 23%. This is about
the same rate as the 20% rate in 1995 (pre-welfare reform). The
National New Hire Directory identifies information about where
parents who owe child support live and work so that the state
can process an income withholding or establish a child support
order. For example, Ohio reports they have received information
about where 98,437 parents who owe child support live and/or
work. This would enable Ohio to issue income withholding orders
to collect child support or establish a support order if
needed. Ohio does not have a functioning child support
enforcement computer system to match the data with the federal
registries and has no manual system in place to distribute the
data to counties that are responsible for acting on the cases.
Other states with the same problems who do not have certified
automated child support tracking systems include Alaska,
California, District of Columbia, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan,
North Dakota, Nebraska, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South Carolina
and the Virgin Islands. Thirty-five per cent of the child
support caseload in the U.S. is in these states.
The National Directory of New Hires has sent more than one
million matches to state child support agencies. Most states
reported that they have no system in place to track the number
of matches used to initiate income come withholdings,
establishment of orders, establishment of paternity,
administrative enforcement, or court enforcement. Nor could
they identify the number of cases where payment resulted from
use of data received from the National New Hire Directory.
State directors told us during a meeting with them to discuss
the issues that the data received from the National New Hire
Directory is difficult to use because it contains previously
sent data with new matches.
Problems persist with State Automated Child Support
Tracking Systems. In addition to the states listed above, 23
states who are conditionally certified, have systems that are
missing key capabilities, such as not being able to send
payments out to families, not being able to distribute the
correct amount of payments to families and pay off state
welfare debts, not being able to process interstate cases, and
not being able to communicate with existing welfare computer
systems. Only Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, New Hampshire,
Idaho, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Kentucky, South Dakota, Arkansas,
Massachusetts, Florida, Missouri and Hawaii have statewide
child support computers that are working. For example,
California paid a private contractor more than $200 million for
a system whose design was so flawed it was unable to perform
even basic required functions. With all of these problems
experienced within the states, how can we expect these systems
to be successfully linked nationwide?
Due to the 50% divorce rate and the fact that 25% of all
births are to parents who were never married, 60% of the
children born in the 1990's will spend part of their lives in a
single-parent household. In its impact on children, the child
support system is now only second to the public school system.
We need a national enforcement system where support payments
are collected just like taxes, instead of a 50 state
bureaucracies full of loopholes and red tape.
ACES recommends that congress should enact, H.R. 1488,
sponsored by Representative Henry Hyde (R) IL and Lynn Woosley
(D) CA. It sets up a federal and state partnership to collect
child support throughout the nation even when parents move
across state lines. These interstate cases now make up almost
40% of the caseload and are the most difficult to enforce.
State courts or government agencies through administrative
hearings would establish orders within the divorce process or
through establishment of paternity and would determine the
amount to be paid based on parental income, modifying orders as
needed. Enforcement would be done at the federal level by
building on the current system where employers payroll-deduct
child support payments. Instead of the state government
agencies in each state having their own systems to do this, the
new law would have payments paid just like federal income
taxes. Withholding would be triggered by completion of a W-4
form, and a verification process. Self-employed parents would
pay child support quarterly just like Social Security taxes. At
year's end, if all child support due was not paid, the
obligated parent would be required to pay it just like unpaid
federal taxes, or collection would be initiated by the IRS.
For low income and unemployed fathers, states could
continue to operate fatherhood programs. Such programs offer
fathers, many of whom are young, an opportunity to develop
parenting skills and job skills that will allow them to
financially support their children. About 40% of the children
who live in fatherless households haven't seen their fathers in
at least a year. Census Bureau data shows that fathers who have
visitation and custody arrangements are three times as likely
to meet their child support obligations as those who do not. If
collection of child support were through the tax collection
system, local Domestic Relations Courts would have more time
and resources to focus on visitation and custody issues.
The child support system was established in 1975 in the
Social Security Act. When the children born in 1975 were age 9,
Congress acted again by passing the 1984 child support
amendments. They deemed it necessary because the collection
rate for children with cases open at the state government
agencies was only about 20% and 50% of the children still
needed orders established. When the children were age 13 in
1988, Congress acted again and passed the Family Support Act.
This law promised collection of child support via payroll
deduction right from the time the order was entered in the
divorce or paternity decree. It required the states to place a
lien on the property of those who failed to pay support, and
set up mathematical guidelines to determine a fair amount of
support to be paid. In 1996, with the children grown (age 21),
only 20% of them received child support and 50% never did get
an order established to collect support. Congress, acted again
through the welfare reform laws. Unfortunately, this didn't
solve the problem because the infrastructure for an effective
state-based child support enforcement system does not exist.
State child support caseloads grow yearly and the amount of
support collected increases, but the percentage of families
receiving support remains at about 25%. We have now lost a
whole generation of children because of a ``broken system''--
one that is state-based, different everywhere, and one where
judges review cases one at a time in a slow, antiquated process
designed for the 19th Century, when divorce or having children
outside of the marriage was unusual. For example, in the State
of Ohio, there are about 600 judges and more than 700,000 child
support cases in need of legal action to establish or enforce a
child support order. Even if every judge, Traffic Court to
Supreme Court, worked day and night on child support cases they
could not handle this caseload.
Further, privacy issues associated with passing sensitive
social security and financial information between many agencies
and a private contractor hired by government is worrisome. It
is almost impossible to ensure confidentiality when states have
county child support agencies and contracts with private
collection companies. Literally, any child support worker in
the county could gain access to sensitive financial information
that is essential for successful child support enforcement. The
IRS already has this information listing place of employment
and income. They have a proven track record of maintaining
confidentiality.
The child support agencies and courts throughout the county
are already overburdened, and backlogged. They will not be
capable of handling the new tools provided to them by the child
support provisions in Welfare Reform. Please enact HR 1488, and
make children as important as taxes!

Statement of Charles Bacarisse, District Clerk, Harris County, Texas

Ms. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I
would like to submit this statement to lend my total support
for this legislative proposal. Providing non-IV-D enforcement
agencies with additional tools will make them more effective in
ensuring that court-ordered child support is provided by non-
custodial parents.
As the District Clerk of Harris County, Texas, I oversee a
child support registry that processes more than $240 million in
child support payments per year. That sum translates to over
5,000 transactions and about 1 million dollars per working day.
In fact, if Harris County were a state, it would rank 26th
nationally in terms of child support payments processed. In my
opinion, as the child support caseload continues to rapidly
grow, child support enforcement agencies (including non-IV-D)
must continue to enhance their enforcement methods. Assuring
that deserving recipients receive their monthly checks is not
just a duty of the child support community; it is a moral
obligation.
As you examine and discuss this matter, please consider
these facts. In Texas, the IV-D agency's child support caseload
is over 1 million cases and it grows by about 20,000 cases per
month. This growth pattern has created a backlog that is
systematic and without help from the non-IV-D agencies, the IV-
D agencies will never be able to adequately service every case.
In Texas, like every other state, IV-D collection rates are
disappointing and frustrated parents are often provided service
that is too slow to keep up with their needs. Often,
enforcement information obtained by the IV-D agency on behalf
of the custodial parent is 'stale' by the time it is received.
While the enforcement problem facing the child support
community is monstrous by any standard, the solution, in my
judgment, is not. A successful approach to addressing this
problem requires the use of all available resources. By
allowing local child support enforcement agencies to utilize
tools currently only available to IV-D agencies, the local
agencies could effectively handle cases that had previously
overwhelmed the IV-D agencies. By absorbing these cases the
non-IV-D agencies will provide custodial parents with
responsive, local service. Not only is this a commonsense
approach, it is also taxpayer friendly. Where federally funded
IV-D agencies cost taxpayers over $3 billion per year, at a
cost-effectiveness ratio of less than $4 in collected child
support for every $1 of administrative expenditures, locally
funded enforcement agencies offer service at no cost to the
federal taxpayer. In Harris County, the local enforcement
agency is funded by fees paid by those who use its child
support and visitation enforcement services. The user fees are
based on income and ability to pay.
Unfortunately, non-IV-D agencies are not allowed to use
certain enforcement tools. Because these tools are exclusively
used by IV-D agencies most custodial parents are forced to use
their services. As mentioned above, this situation is partly to
blame for the overwhelming caseloads currently being handled by
IV-D agencies. Let's give custodial parents a choice.
The enforcement tools that I believe should be pushed down
to the local level are income withholding for unemployment
insurance benefits, passport revocation, and federal income tax
refund interception.
All of these measures would require safeguards in regards
to access to, and use of, confidential information maintained
in federal databases. The legislation should require any non-
IV-D enforcement agency to register with the Department of
Health and Human Services. These measures would ensure that the
use of these tools would be solely for the enforcement of child
support. It goes without saying that the use of these tools
would be helpful in closing the collections gap if they could
be used by non-IV-D entities.
Ms. Chairman and members of the committee, I hope that I
have clearly defined the gravity of this situation. While this
legislation will not solve every problem faced by the child
support community and those that depend on these payments, the
need for it is great and it is now.
Thank you for allowing me to present this statement before
your committee.

Statement of Richard Bennett, President, Coalition of Parent Support,
Livermore, California

Introduction

The Coalition of Parent Support is a California advocacy
group representing divorced fathers and non-custodial mothers.
We've been involved in the efforts recently undertaken in
California to restructure the Title IV-D welfare reimbursement
and child support and system, as invited speakers and members
at several legislative committee hearings, commissions, and
oversight boards. Some of the recommendations we've presented
on child support reform have been adopted, and some have
stimulated new dialog on aspects of the system that haven't
received adequate attention in the past.

The Role of Fathers

We're concerned about the tendency to view divorced and
never-married fathers as nothing more than a source of income
for the mothers of our children. Recently, some high-profile
absent fathers have sought to deflect criticism about their
lack of participation in the lives of their children by saying
``But I paid all my child support.'' We don't accept such
excuses. All of us who bring children into the world, mothers
and fathers alike, have a responsibility to provide our
children with financial support, and more. Children don't
become healthy, responsible, happy adults unless they're
provided with emotional support and guidance in their moral and
academic development. Fathers are an indispensable resource for
the development of children, and so are mothers.

The Value of Marriage

We're pleased that the pendulum is shifting on the value of
marriage to children and society. For too long, academics and
certain interest groups went too far in understressing the
value of this battered institution, celebrating the supposedly
liberating value of divorce, especially for women, to an
extraordinary degree. The point of view that marriage doesn't
matter reached its zenith in an article recently published in
the American Psychologist that essentially denied the unique
benefits that good marriages hold for children. Fortunately,
the article (by Louise Silverstein and Carl Auerbach of Yeshiva
University) was soundly condemned by the media.
Thanks to researchers and social theorists like David
Blankenhorn, David Popenoe, and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, the
pro-marriage perspective now has a voice at the public policy
table where issues about children and families are concerned.
This is a healthy development, but one that might also go too
far in its direction if it's the only perspective in the
debate.
In many ways, the marriage-boosters are even more down on
fathers than those who devalue marriage. They claim that
marriage has a ``civilizing influence'' on men that binds us
our children in a way that cohabitation doesn't. With all
respect to these authors, this is a lot of romantic and bigoted
hooey.
The only functional difference between a cohabiting couple
committed to raising a child together and a married couple is
that the married couple filed a piece of paper at the
courthouse and paid a tax, while the cohabiting couple did not.
The cohabiting couple enjoy certain advantages over the married
couple: they don't have to pay the government's marriage
penalty each April 15th, for one, and they don't face the
possibility of California's lifetime alimony law that kicks in
for both men and women after ten years of marriage, for
another.
The notion that fathers are uniquely in need of civilizing
is also offensive and in contradiction to the research. Since
mothers commit more crimes of violence against children than
fathers, including murder, we have to reject Blankenhorn and
Popenoe's thesis that we're dangerous unless married, just as
we reject Silverstein and Auerbach's claims that we cost more
than we bring to the family.

Incentives to Marry

Marriage is good for men, women, and children, and we wish
that the Congress and our state legislatures would please
repeal all of the legislation currently in place that
discourages marriage. Then, the discussion of incentives to
marry will have more positive effect.
In the meantime, we have to support the value and the
participation of fathers in the lives of their children
wherever we find fathers: in marriage, in committed
relationships, and in divorce. Single fathers are rarely single
by choice, and we love our children as much as their mothers
do.
The first thing the government can do to support and
encourage marriage is to remove the barriers that keep people
out of it at present.

Whether child support arrearages should be given to mothers

Some, but not all.
Child support arrearages that accumulate while the mother
was on welfare--welfare reimbursement arrearages--are largely
uncollectable debts. To understand why this is so, it's
necessary to understand how and why they accumulate.
In the vast majority of IV-D cases, child support orders
are issued by default because the father was either not served
with proper notice of the hearing, or he was too afraid of the
system to show up. At the hearing, an order is issued without
any consideration of his ability to pay, generally at a level
far excess of his means. This order is made retroactive to some
time on the past--three years under present California law, and
one year if the governor signs a bill we put on his desk a few
weeks ago--and the father is instantly carrying a debt that
accumulates interest faster than he can pay it off.
Meanwhile, because mother is on welfare, any money he does
pay on this order (except for the token passthrough) is seized
by the government and does not benefit the children. So what
happens in many of these cases is that the father makes cash
payments to the mother under-the-table because he doesn't want
to see his children go hungry. This puts him in a deeper hole
with the IV-D system, which doesn't give him any credit for
these payments.
So by the time mother's welfare time limits expire, father
is in debt for two or three years' salary. Transferring this
paper debt to the mother will not benefit the children, but it
will ensure that father does not become a regular member of
society, ever. He will still be paying child support to mother
when the children are grandparents. This is a horrible idea,
and one that has bizarre consequences if custody changes after
mother leaves welfare. Then we have father supporting the
children in his household, while paying all his disposable
income to an absent mother. Changes of custody happen all the
time in these families, by the way.
A better way to handle welfare reimbursement debt is to use
it as leverage to encourage good behavior:
1. Waive the welfare debt if the couple marries.
2. Waive the welfare debt if the obligor makes current
payments as he should.
3. Pass some of the welfare debt to the mother--a year's
worth--provided she doesn't interfere with the father's
parenting time with the children.
4. Pass any welfare debt remaining after the children reach
majority directly to the children for education or vocational
training.
5. Waive the welfare debt if there's a change of custody.
We'd like to clarify that don't like the practice of
welfare reimbursement to begin with, however, but if you
eliminate it, you have come up with a new formula for funding
IV-D. Presently, the state of California makes a $200 million
profit from IV-D each year, and that's money our governor is
not eager to give up. We tried to eliminate it this year, and
when we learned that we couldn't, we tried to increase the
passthrough from $50 to $75 per month, and we couldn't even do
that. So good luck eliminating welfare reimbursement, our least
favorite Reverse Robin Hood Tax.

Whether fatherhood services should be provided primarily by
nongovernmental or governmental entities

Of course.

What the level of coordination should be with child support enforcement
agencies, the TANF agency, and the agency conducting Workforce
Investment Act programs

California has just begun a major reorganization of our
child support enforcement agency, and until the new
organization is in place, we can't consider any new
requirements for coordination with other programs. It's not
practical. The other agencies should coordinate with Fatherhood
programs, however.

Whether the approach of earmarking funds for projects that emphasize
the enrollment of fathers at the time of the child's birth is a good
one

On it's face, this seems like a good emphasis. There are
some problems with voluntary paternity programs, however. These
programs are great when the man signing the paternity
declaration actually is the father, but if he's not (and has
merely been told he is), then they amount to an illegal
adoption program. Paternity declarations by unmarried men
should always be supported by a DNA test showing that the man
is, in fact, the father of the child. Any program of voluntary
paternity that ensures due process for the actual father and
for the child is a good one, and should be supported, of
course.

On expanding access to government child support enforcement procedures

We would not support this policy. IV-D tools are not
sufficiently fool-proof to make available to the general public
without tremendous outcry over mistaken identity, falsely
calculated arrears, and mistakenly suspended licenses. This is
a recipe for disaster.

Conclusion

We're pleased that this Congress has opened a dialog, for
the first time, on the extra-monetary value of fathers. We hope
that this dialog continues, and results in the creation and
funding of policies and programs that support the efforts made
every day by fathers in every situation to have a positive
influence on our children. All of us, whether we are married,
divorced, separated, or cohabiting, love our children. All of
us want our children to become healthy, happy, productive
adults. For too long, there has been a tendency to demonize
fathers as deadbeats and abusers, for reasons that aren't
entirely clear.
Certainly, there are some deadbeat dads, just as there are
some abusive mothers and some dishonest politicians and biased
reporters. Discarding this destructive rhetoric and focusing on
our positive and constructive potential can make the world a
better place for our children and the rest of society. Please
continue down that path.
Richard Bennett,
President, Coalition of Parent Support
(408) 326-1845

Statement of Casey Hoffman, Founder, Supportkids.com, Austin, Texas

Madam Chair, Representative Cardin and distinguished
members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to
testify on expanding access to government child support
enforcement procedures.
My name is Casey Hoffman. I am the founder of
Supportkids.com, a private company that collects child support
for custodial parents. Before founding Supportkids in 1991, I
served for five years as Special Assistant Attorney General and
Director of the Child Support Enforcement Division of the
Office of the Texas Attorney General, the state's designated
agency for the administration of the child support enforcement
program under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. During my
tenure as Director of the nation's largest Title IV-D program,
the Texas program was recognized by this subcommittee and by
the National Child Support Enforcement Association of
Washington, D.C. as the ``Most Improved'' in the nation. Prior
to my heading the Texas Title IV-D program, I was an assistant
district attorney, practiced family law in Massachusetts for
eighteen years, and, in 1984, served as President of the
Massachusetts State Bar Association as well as a member of the
Massachusetts Governor's Child Support Commission. While I am
currently serving as the immediate past president of the
National Child Support Enforcement Association on its board of
directors, I want to state for the record that I am not
representing that organization here today nor presenting its
viewpoint on any issue.
I last testified before this committee on May 19, 1998, and
submitted written testimony as to the limitations of the Title
IV-D community to work the caseload that has been mandated by
federal legislation. It is inconceivable that any professional
in the child support community would offer testimony that would
suggest that we have made significant progress in working
through the 20 million cases in the Title IV-D program. More
importantly, a prognosis that we will significantly impact the
caseload in the next few years would be an ungrounded
assessment that would be met with skepticism especially by the
dedicated people who actually work these cases everyday. In
fact, each year, regardless of the millions of cases that are
closed, we have fallen further behind and now additional
billions of dollars in child support are owed to custodial
parents. If I have the privilege of testifying before you any
time within the next five years, I am positive that there will
be billions more in unpaid child support on the books. Sadly,
there are the very real faces of parents and children that
speak much more powerfully to the need for more professionals
to work on these important cases than does the adding up of all
the statistics that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
Title IV-D program is overwhelmed.
There is no need to repeat my previous testimony in 1998
and set forth updated statistics or put forth the very same
proposals that were presented for your consideration and
adoption on this very issue. It is all a matter of record.
Congress must recognize the difference it can make today in the
lives of millions of children at no cost to the federal
taxpayer. Until that occurs, the specific proposals suggested
in my earlier testimony may be considered good policy and
adopted at some time in the future. With that in mind and with
a sense of urgency, I would at this time respectfully ask you
to listen to the testimony of Susan B. Williams who traveled to
our nation's capital to assist this committee in understanding
the impact of unpaid child support on the millions of custodial
parents and children because there is no one to work their
cases in the Title IV-D agencies. After hearing Susan Williams,
I believe you will be convinced to act now rather than later.
Susan Williams is one of those 15 million-plus parents who
have previously sought help from the Title IV-D program and did
not receive a monthly child support check. Susan Williams
refused to become a victim in despair and instead chose to seek
help from professionals outside the Title IV-D community to
work a case that if successful pursued would make a big
difference in her daughter's life. I have attached the written
testimony of Susan Williams as Appendix A at the end of my
testimony.
I am here today to give testimony that asserts forcefully
but respectfully that the parents who make the choice to use
public and private sector services outside of the Title IV-D
agency are not being treated fairly. Furthermore, it is that
same government that promised them services and failed to
deliver on that promise that now fails to provide their chosen
representative with the same tools that the Title IV-D agency
has a right to use. The parents who are not receiving child
support and seek help from outside of the Title IV-D program
should have the same rights and the same tools to meet their
objective of collecting child support as a parent who is a
customer of the Title IV-D agency. We must not forget that one
third of all the child support cases in this country are not
part of the Title IV-D program. Why should those parents not
have the benefit of important tools make available to the IV-D
agencies.
Over the years the legislation that has been passed by
Congress that amended Title IV-D of the Social Security Act
created a taxpayer-subsidized legal services program that has
promised everyone, regardless of ability to pay, free services
to establish, enforce, modify, collect and distribute court
ordered child support. The problem, of course, arises from the
fact that the legislative mandates on the Title IV-D agencies
have never been funded at the levels needed to keep the
promises. In the published articles I have written over the
last 15 years, I have freely admitted that we could not
possibly work the millions of cases in the Title IV-D system.
On each and every occasion, I urged more funding for the Title
IV-D program. Unfortunately not only have we not been fully
funded to help the millions of children in the Title IV-D
effort, there are now proposals to cut the funding.
I have worked with this distinguished body for the past 15
years to support legislation that would allow parents and their
children to be treated fairly as they sought to enforce the
lawful orders of our judges. The efforts of Congress in ending
welfare as we knew it deserves the highest praise and the
success of the legislation to date is well documented. Child
support enforcement is one of the cornerstones of welfare
reform and in order for it to work in the long term the Title
IV-D program will need to be fully funded and they will need to
prioritize their caseload. In addition, other non IV-D
professionals will have to complement their efforts by working
unresolved cases. I know that the members of this committee and
Congress would never intentionally want to treat a parent who
sought help outside the government Title IV-D program in an
unfair manner, especially for such a needed service. I think
now is the time to ask ourselves how we can continue to say NO
to the millions of parents seeking child support services that
are in effect standing in the same place as Susan Williams but
who are not able to collect the child support owed their
children.
How can we say NO to parents like Susan Williams who ask
that their private attorneys who are representing them be
allowed to assert the same rights and use the very same tools
that are currently being used by the IV-D agencies.
How can we say NO to parents like Susan Williams who ask
that their non-Title IV-D government agency which is
representing them be allowed to assert the same rights and use
the very same tools that are currently being used by the IV-D
agencies.
How can we say NO to taxpayers like Susan Williams who paid
for the development and implementation of these same tools that
the Title IV-D community uses and then deny her and her lawful
representative access to them.
How can we say NO to taxpayers like Susan Williams who are
not allowed to have their legal representative take advantage
of and assert the rights that you legislated exclusively to the
Title IV-D community.
How can we say NO to the Susan Williams who are committed
to teaching their children that it is the responsibility of
parents to stand up for their children and seek justice for
them.
How can we say NO to the Susan Williams of this country who
are committed to teaching their children that you obey the
lawful orders of a court and if you do not there are
consequences.
How can we say NO to all the Susan Williams who believe
that their employers should not be burdened by the problem of
unpaid child support. The Susan Williams of this country know
that when you work two jobs you are probably not at peak
performance at one or both of those jobs. Single custodial
parents know the real effects on their health when they have to
work two jobs to make ends meet and are under great pressure to
meet the needs of their children. Lost time on the job for
court appearances and meetings with attorneys reduces
productivity and creates even more pressure on custodial
parents.
As concerned, compassionate citizens, we can support the
political leaders who were the proponents and architects of
welfare reform, and we must take actions to make sure that
those who have escaped poverty receive their child support
check as well as their paycheck.
As taxpayers like Susan Williams, we need to support people
in leaving public assistance by collecting a child support
check as well as a paycheck. We must remain steady in our
commitment to parents to ensure they receive effective child
support services and make their way up the economic ladder.
As a concerned, compassionate citizen, Susan Williams knows
that we need to collect the child support owed custodial
parents so that they can avoid getting a second job that takes
them out of the home at the end of school, at dinner time, at
bed time or on the weekends. Lost time with your children is a
heavy price to pay when you have to work two jobs to make ends
meet.
As taxpayers like Susan Williams we know that every case
worked by a professional in the private sector is one less case
to be worked in the public sector and paid for with tax
dollars. Working a case to a successful conclusion in the
private sector in many cases requires access to the same
enforcement rights and tools that the Title IV-D agency has in
their programs.
As a concerned, compassionate citizen, Susan Williams knows
that approximately 20 percent of our children in this country
live in poverty and if adequate child support was paid they
could be lifted out of poverty. Many of these cases could be
worked if there were more services being provided by the
private sector and non-IV-D child support agencies to
complement the work of the IV-D agencies.
As a citizen, Susan Williams is concerned that she is
living in one of the richest nations in the world where one out
of every five children (and one out of every four in major
cities) is living in poverty. The number one reason for this
condition is the failure to pay child support. As a school
teacher, Susan Williams knows the harm that befalls children
living in poverty:
They are 4 times more likely to be involved in the juvenile
justice system.
They are 5 times more likely to be hospitalized for
accidents and injury.
They are 2 times more likely to drop out of school.
They are 1.3 times more likely to have learning
disabilities.
They are going to have IQ scores 9 points lower than other
children by age 5.
They are going to score 11 to 25 percent lower than other
children on achievement tests.
In conclusion, I would urge you to provide more funding for
the Title IV-D program and say YES to the good men and women
who work hard in the Title IV-D agencies across the country. We
should not forget that it is this same dedicated Title IV-D
staff that has to say NO to millions of families that come to
them for help with their child support problems. They have to
say no in these situations because the reality is and will
continue to be that they are overwhelmed by the size of their
caseloads. These same cases could be worked effectively by
private attorneys and non-Title IV-D government agencies the
possibility of success increases if they are given the same
rights and tools as the IV-D agencies. The burden can be lifted
on the IV-D agencies if we support other professionals in
working these important cases and support the parents in having
a choice as to who will work their case.
I want to express my sincere thanks to this committee and
their staff for once again inviting me to give oral testimony
as well as submit written testimony on this important
legislation. More importantly, after hearing Susan Williams, I
hope that you will be able to vote YES to legislation that
supports expanding access to the tools you have given to the
Title IV-D government agencies. I respectfully urge you to vote
YES on legislation that supports the efforts of private
attorneys and non-Title IV-D government agencies in
successfully working these important cases.

Statement of Tracie Snitker, Director, Government Relations Men's
Health Network

The Men's Health Network again welcomes the opportunity to
submit testimony on the issue of fatherhood. The Human
Resources Subcommittee as well as the current Administration
should be applauded for recognizing fathers as an integral part
of their children's lives. As current fatherhood initiatives
are being considered we must make efforts to reduce the
barriers that keep fathers from becoming involved with their
children.
We feel that the ultimate goal of any fatherhood
legislation should be to engage the participating father in
actively parenting his child(ren). Unfortunately, the current
draft of this bill will not achieve that goal. We propose
language which focuses the bill on successful parenting and
insures that this goal is implemented on the state and local
level. Our recommended changes are attached to this testimony.
These changes are meant to insure the following outcomes:
Fathers will know how to parent their children.
Fathers will be actively involved in parenting
their children.
Fathers will have financial child support orders
consistent with their ability to support their children.
Specific language changes address the following concerns:

Domestic violence provisions:

Domestic violence diversion courses are currently well
funded and ubiquitous. Courts and administrators are expected
to require attendance in such a course if evidence of domestic
violence arises. A fatherhood bill should focus on possible
parenting deficiencies rather than restate existing law.

Parenting Plans:

Arrangements for division of parenting time between the
parents should be developed in a mediated atmosphere.

Fatherhood Grants Recommendations Panel:

The Fatherhood Grants Recommendations Panel should consist
of persons who can demonstrate a history of commitment to
programs that promote positive father involvement and Section
442(b)(1) of the bill should be rewritten to reflect those
qualifications.

Child support obligations should reflect ability to pay:

Most low income fathers have court ordered child support
obligations which are inappropriate for the state's child
support guideline and exceed their ability to pay. Those child
support orders should be modified to comply with the state's
guidelines.

State Plans should explain how the program will be implemented:

States should be required to submit a State Plan describing
how the state intends to implement this legislation.

Eligibility should reflect the lifestyles of the population served:

The programs should be open to parents who are experiencing
the birth of their first child even if either parent had
children with another individual.

Personal Responsibility Contracts should define the responsibilities of
both parents:

The Personal Responsibility contract entered into by the
parent must outline the parenting time responsibilities of each
parent and be binding on both parents. Noncustodial parents who
are completing basic education or job training should have
child support obligations cancelled during that period.

The Bradley Amendment impedes progress:

This Committee invited testimony from a retired judge who
explained that the Bradley Amendment unfairly restricts the
court's ability to make decisions that are in the child's best
interest.\1\ Written testimony received by this Committee
reflected the frustration that the Bradley Amendment causes
state legislators when trying to design state programs that
encourage parental participation in the child support
system.\2\
Addendum 1. Suggested language changes to the Discussion
Draft
Addendum 2. Bradley Amendment portends of failure for the
programs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3641.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3641.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3641.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3641.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3641.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3641.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3641.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3641.010

Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas
Child Support Division
January 20, 2000
Congresswoman Nancy L. Johnson
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Human Resources
Committee on Ways and Means
2113 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Johnson:

At the October Subcommittee on Human Resources hearing on
``Fatherhood Legislation,'' your members heard testimony about access
and visitation programs. I would like to provide your committee with
information about Texas' experience with the federal grant that funds
these worthwhile programs. I would also like to emphasize our keen
interest in continued funding as this grant allows our agency to
participate in the critical issue of fostering stronger parent/child
relationships with non-custodial parents without overstepping the
boundaries of federal and state mandates which disallow our
intervention in visitation and custody issues.
As you know, the Access & Visitation Grant was created by Congress
to ``enable states to establish and administer programs to support and
facilitate non-custodial parents' access to and visitation with their
children.'' Eligible grant activities include mediation, counseling,
education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement
(including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pick-up
sites), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative
custody arrangements. Federal law allows the states to either use
allocated funds to carry out program objectives within the Title IV-D
agency or to make subgrants to eligible entities in local communities.
The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) determined that distributing
grant funds to community-based programs would have a significantly
greater impact on the citizens of those communities than would
operating a centralized, state-run initiative. Therefore, we chose to
allocate funding to those programs which would best fulfill the grant
objectives.
Current law does not permit grant funding to be used to support the
establishment of visitation orders. The OAG understands that Congress
has established enforcement as one of the most critical components of
the Access and Visitation grant, and has given preference to grant
applicants with a focus on enforcement activities, as described in the
enabling legislation, in all three years of the program's history.
The Texas Access & Visitation Program has a proven track record of
successfully addressing the needs of non-custodial parents, and we are
understandably proud of that record. As previously stated, the CSD
provides financial support via subgrants to a broad range of community-
based service providers, then carefully monitors the programs for
performance and cost effectiveness. Texas' share of the $10 million
appropriation was set at $704,262 for the first two years and $624,429
for subsequent years, providing Congress does not alter the level of
funding. Although modest in comparison to other federally-funded
programs, this initiative provides non-custodial parents with viable
avenues for developing meaningful relationships with their children.
Prior to receiving financial awards from the Access & Visitation grant,
these programs encountered limited resources for funding.
In order to ensure a fair, impartial and comprehensive review of
applications, CSD management established a panel of experts from
outside the OAG to determine the award recipients and funding amounts.
The panel is routinely comprised of IV-D Masters, who preside over
child support cases, and representatives from the Texas Office of Court
Administration. In addition to the judicial segment of the panel, other
members have represented the Texas Child Protective Services agency and
The University of Texas School of Law. Each selection criterion is
subject to a point system, and awards are made to those applications
scoring the greatest number of points.
FFY97, FFY98, and FFY99 subgrantees reflected a broad spectrum of
service delivery organizations. These entities are geographically
dispersed across the state in both large and small communities. Most of
the subgrantees are private, non-profit organizations, while a few
subgrantees are divisions within county governments. Among the
subgrantees are advocacy groups, social service organizations and legal
service entities.
In keeping with the directives of Congress, subgrantees are
restricted to those activities outlined in the enabling legislation.
The primary, preferential element funded by the OAG is visitation
enforcement. As defined by Congress, visitation enforcement includes
``monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pickup.'' The OAG
refers to the neutral drop-off activity as ``parental exchanges'' to
emphasize the true nature of the activity. As a supplement to these
enforcement remedies, the OAG also gives preference to parental
education programs.
During the FFY97 and FFY98 grant years, 13 programs provided a
remarkable level of services in their respective communities. Building
on the strengths that these local community organizations bring to the
program, the OAG has enhanced its focus on performance-based
programming for FFY99. Even with the reduction in federal funding for
this period, the OAG estimates a significant return on the investment
of federal and local dollars in this critical endeavor.
During the FFY99 grant period, grantees provided:
approximately 23,400 hours of supervised visitation;
over 3,500 neutral drop-offs;
nearly 5,500 hours of parental education;
over 800 hours of professional counseling/parenting plan
development;
grantee-sponsored community fatherhood summit;
attorneys to assist non-custodial parents with enforcement
of visitation orders; and
parenting plan development and enforcement.
As part of the OAG's effort to maintain program integrity and to
support the subgrantees' efforts in delivering program services, a
comprehensive monitoring initiative has been developed in accordance
with the Final Rule on Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting,
promulgated by HHS, effective March 30, 1999. The OAG established an
independent team of specialists who conduct field assessments of each
subgrantee's performance, financial policies and practices, client
record protection policies and practices, and adequacy of grant billing
support documentation. Written assessments are provided to CSD
management, thereby allowing the agency to take action or to enhance
performance monitoring if warranted. These independently written
reports are available to the application review panel as a tool for
rating grantees' past performances.
In addition to formal monitoring, the CSD has designated a project
team to oversee the day-to-day activities, respond to subgrantee
inquiries, process and approve requests for reimbursement and monitor
ongoing performance. This project team is charged with the
responsibility of ensuring that subgrantee performance indicators are
reported and to
intercede if performance falls below expected levels. By contract,
the OAG reserves a substantial array of remedies to protect program
interests and to ensure optimal performance.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that our agency is very
pleased with the direction this program is taking and proud of the
accomplishments to date. Should you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact me. Thank you for your
continuing support of this critical program.
Sincerely,
Howard G. Baldwin, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General for Child Support

HGB:pjf
cc: Mr. David Arnaudo, Access & Visitation Grant Program Manager,
Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and
Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
bcc: Mr. Ron Haskins, Subcommittee on Human Resources, U.S. House
Committee on Ways and Means