This article is from Cal-Tax Digest, published
by the California Taxpayers' Association.
Cal-Tax Home Page | About Cal-Tax | Subscribe

May 1999

When the California State Senate reconvened in January, one of our first priorities was calling a joint hearing of the Judiciary Committee and the Health and Human Services Committee along with their Assembly counterparts. The topic of this unusual four-way hearing? Child support collection. The result? Strong consensus that dramatic changes are needed to turn around a dismally unsuccessful program.

California has the largest child support caseload in the nation, yet fewer than half of the families here that have asked for help in securing child support have a court order in place to spur collection. Fewer than half of the families who do have a court order in place are receiving any money.

Why do California taxpayers have a stake in whether deadbeat parents pay their child support? Well, when 4.5 million kids in this state are owed more than $8.5 billion in back child support, a couple reasons stand out. The first is that without child support, many families are forced onto welfare. In fact, 65 percent of the children owed child support are on welfare. Second, when there are 17 different state agencies involved in child support collection and 58 district attorneys running 58 separate programs, frankly, the only way to turn this thing around is to put the ultimate responsibility for child support collection inside a single state agency.

That's why, along with Senator Adam Schiff, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have authored SB 542 to create a state Department of Child Support, ending the existing fragmentation in the state's collection efforts and providing badly needed accountability.

Senate Bill 542 requires the director of the department, who will have a direct line of communication to the governor, to develop a plan for a new statewide child support collection system by January 1, 2001. To ensure an orderly transition and minimize disruption of services to families, the director will begin transferring 30 percent of local child support systems into the state program beginning January 1, 2002, with all systems transferred by January 1, 2004.

Recognizing that there is some good work being done despite the overall dismal collection rate, SB 542 also calls for the director to build on current successful practices and maintain existing staff and facilities to the fullest extent possible. That is not only cost- effective, but also indicates that we're not looking for a "one size must fit all" mandate from Sacramento - local flexibility must be a part of the process. Of course, so must accountability, which is why the department will be charged with developing uniform standards and practices so performance can be measured across the board (and so the process won't have to grind to a halt if a family moves across a county line). We don't want to reinvent the wheel, but it makes sense for the wheels we do have to be aligned and actually be capable of moving forward.

The opposition that has surfaced to our efforts to reform the child support collection system primarily has come from district attorneys who run the local programs. I have encountered this same opposition in previous attempts to reform the system. In 1998, I wrote a law to increase accountability by linking incentive payments that district attorneys receive to an actual increase in collections. I also wrote a law requiring district attorneys to use more reliable data on their performance reports. Given the resistance these relatively simple reforms engendered from supporters of the status quo, you can imagine how they view SB 542. Instead of simply protecting turf or defending an indefensible system, opponents of this legislation would be better off working to make sure what they are doing right is folded into the new system that SB 542 creates.

It's a shame that so many parents don't take the personal responsibility to make their child support payments without being forced to. It would be another shame if the state's leaders don't take the responsibility to fix the broken child support collection system.

 Over the past several years, it has become more and more evident that California's child support enforcement system is not working for the more than three million children who rely on it to make sure they get the food, shelter, clothing and medical attention they need.

This system, now enforced by District Attorney's Offices in 58 counties, affects more California children than any state program other than the public schools.

Yet, five out of six children relying on the state's assistance are not receiving any support at all. In fact, California's child support program is consistently reported to be performing below the national average in most measurements of successful programs.

The failures of California's child support enforcement program are rendered even more dramatic because we are living in an era of time-limited welfare. When time runs out, child support payments are going to be the only real "safety net" children can expect. And California's net is full of holes.

That is why I made the complete overhaul of our child support services system a major priority. My legislation, AB 196, which so far has passed both the Assembly Judiciary Committee and the Assembly Human Services Committee, substantially restructures our Title IV-D (child support enforcement) program in a number of ways.

Specifically, the bill requires the governor to appoint an undersecretary for a new child support services agency by January 1, 2000 to oversee and manage the program, and, by July 1, 2000, to adopt uniform standards, forms and procedures, regulations implementing nationwide "best practices" for the establishment, enforcement and collection of child support and best management practices for such programs. Counties must adopt and implement these procedures and practices by September 1, 2000, as well as meet minimum performance standards, set by the undersecretary.

The bill also completely removes the authority of the DA's and, in their place, requires every county to set up a Department of Child Support Services reporting to the state Department of Child Support Services. This department will be established by January 1, 2001 and report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Last year, I successfully carried a bill allocating the collection of all past due support to the Franchise Tax Board. Because of even earlier legislation, allowing DA's to voluntarily turn over collection of past due support to the FTB, they had established a really successful track record and specially trained personnel. AB 196 goes one step further and establishes a pilot project in six counties giving the FTB responsibility for all child support collections, current and past-due. Beginning with a six-county pilot project allows the Legislature to more effectively assess the benefits of turning over all collection activity to the FTB.

To make sure that the new county departments don't fail, the bill requires the new state department to send in a team of experts to any county that requests assistance as a kind of "strike force" and, when counties are not meeting their minimum performance standards, as set by the department, or are not complying with best practices, or uniform standards, forms and procedures, the state will provide immediate technical assistance, then managerial assistance and then, if necessary, completely take over the local child support agency, withhold state and federal funding and even place the local program into a kind of receivership.

The bill also deals with two other problems. Several questions remain as to whether some of the tasks now performed by the district attorneys in court could, without a loss of protection of due process rights, be done just as well in an administrative process. Since there has been no thorough study of this issue, AB 196 creates a task force to evaluate the benefits, if any, of creating an administrative, rather than a judicial, process for activities such as the establishment of paternity and support orders.

One final issue remained to be addressed and that involved the fact that people who are working for salary and who owe child support could have their wages attached, but people working as independent contractors could not. This put the children of independent contractors on unequal footing so, as a final measure, AB 196 requires employers of independent contractors, by July 1, 2000, to begin regular reporting of earnings information to the Employment Development Department so that these earners can be found and required to pay up what they owe.

By taking these systematic approaches, I hope this bill will greatly improve the collection of child support in California. The kids deserve no less.

Prudent management of public resources contributed to a strong nation and a strong economy. To enjoy "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" we must jealously guard the institutions that make a meaningful way of life possible. The continued mismanagement of child support severely threatens that way of life for millions of people throughout the state and the nation.

The issue of family support goes far beyond the economic transfer of dollars between parents. When the child support system breaks down, it undercuts California's competitiveness, children are shortchanged and families are hurt. This ultimately affects our entire society. It can unilaterally shift welfare expenses to taxpayers and diminish the resources available for schools, public works and public safety programs.

Los Angeles County has already taken the initiative to improve child support enforcement. Our county has begun to evaluate private-sector proposals to improve the system. Some of the current state legislative proposals that transfer collections to a state bureaucracy, by contrast, jeopardize local government's ability to be responsive to constituents.

When a working mother is left without support, she may be forced to compromise health care, education, safety, and other quality-of-life issues that affect her children. When a non-custodial parent has paid his child support, and those payments are not properly reflected in the billing and crediting system, he may be deprived of his business or professional livelihood.

Two of the proposed bills (SB 542, Burton and Schiff, and AB 196, Kuehl) do nothing to solve these operational problems. Instead, they create additional layers of government that will increase the burden on taxpayers, without solving any of the day-to-day problems of the people who need the services. This could have extremely negative long-term effects on all 58 counties and the state.

Both proposals deprive local officials of the ability to control costs or tailor solutions to solve problems unique to their constituents. Both require the county to pay for state-administered services, but give them no authority to improve service delivery. Legislative reform, without operational change, is meaningless.

By contrast, my three-point plan highlights simple ways we can help parents, taxpayers and businesses. The plan delivers what we have learned from thousands of constituents; that we need to eliminate bureaucracy, not create additional layers of government. A statewide child support system, as proposed by state legislation, will only complicate an already over-burdened system. 

 These are the key components to my three-point plan for change:

1. Competition and incentives.

Matching privatization with public goals is essential. Through enhanced technology, the private sector can provide better service than the government. Under new federal rules, California will compete with other states for federal reimbursements. We need the expertise of the private sector to meet new performance measures and recoup the reimbursement costs to which California is entitled. The state should look at system-wide solutions based on improved technology and streamlined coordinated operations, not bureaucratic systems that have no bearing on the true problems.

Collections services and billing information services are not new to large entities. The gas company, credit card companies and telephone companies have expertly provided these services for years. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. We have an active market full of businesses that are eager to tackle the challenge of how to best provide these services. Without the involvement of the private sector, state legislation will cost our taxpayers huge sums of money and cost California the chance to receive a return on its investment.

2. Inspector General for Child Support.

An Inspector General for Child Support, empowered to review specific cases, examine broad computer systems management, and propose solutions - independent of the political pressures of elective politics - is essential if Los Angeles County is to become the model child-support enforcement program in the country. We need the independence of an Inspector General to evaluate the current system amidst the alleged mismanagement of child support funds by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office.

3. Systems Management.

Good systems management will enable local problem solvers to create successful business models that can be replicated statewide or adjusted to suit different markets that serve people with different needs.

Our computer system must have the sophistication to properly bill, credit, and disburse the proper amount of money to the correct parties. Each family or individual has different obligations and sources of income that may change from month to month. We should have systems that accommodate those complexities, while keeping it simple enough for the average user to understand.

We need to simplify the process, not create another layer of government. The system must be so simple that the average person can understand how to calculate interest, accommodate staggered billing cycles, or allow for a team-based case management system.

This is what the system lacks and needs most of all: common sense. Adopting these recommendations is a good start in the right direction.