[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 19, 1998
__________
Serial No. 105-89
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
60-898 WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
BILL ARCHER, Texas, Chairman
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 BARBARA B. KENNELLY, Connecticut
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 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, George JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio XAVIER BECERRA, California
PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JON CHRISTENSEN, Nebraska
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri
A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Human Resources
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida, Chairman
DAVE CAMP, Michigan SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
MAC COLLINS, Georgia ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma
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 from. 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 May 12, 1998, announcing the hearing................. 2
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Donna Bonar,
Director, Program Operations Division, Office of Child Support
Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families.......... 7
----------
Bacarisse, Charles, Harris County, TX............................ 56
Broward County Support Enforcement Division, Judith Fink......... 63
Center for Policy Research, Jessica Pearson...................... 75
Connecticut Department of Social Services, Diane M. Fray......... 19
CSE* Child Support Enforcement Co., Richard (Casey) Hoffman...... 40
Georgia Department of Human Resources, Jacqueline M. Jennings.... 35
National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, and Wisconsin
Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Kathleen Krenek........... 90
New Jersey Division of Family Development, Alisa Griffin......... 27
Vermont Office of Child Support, Jeffrey Cohen................... 13
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
American Payroll Association, Rita Zeidner, statement............ 111
Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc.,
Toledo, OH, Geraldine Jensen, statement........................ 115
California, State of, Department of Social Services, Eloise
Anderson, statement............................................ 123
Child Support Network, Inc., Phoenix, AZ, Daniel N. Jacobson,
letter and attachments......................................... 126
Children's Rights Council, David L. Levy, statement and
attachments.................................................... 133
Vermont, State of, Agency of Human Services, Cornelius D. Hogan,.
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1998
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:06 p.m., in
room B-318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. E. Clay Shaw,
Jr., (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.003
Chairman Shaw. If everybody could find a seat, we will
commence with today's hearing.
Today we are continuing our series of oversight hearings on
the 1996 Welfare Reform Law. Our hearing today spotlights the
child support enforcement program. We're delighted to have
three very strong panels of witnesses. The first panel will
present testimony on two of the most important provisions of
the 1996 child support reforms, the New Hire Directory, and the
requirements on paternity establishment. It would appear at
this early stage that the implementation of New Hires is going
smoothly and that many States are having remarkable success in
implementing the paternity establishment requirements.
I want to especially thank the Administration for allowing
Donna Bonar from the Department of Health and Human Services to
testify today. More than anyone else, Ms. Bonar knows what is
happening with the New Hire program around the country; but
especially, she can tell us about the very important role that
HHS plays in advising the States and establishing and operating
the national directory.
I'd like to caution our members that Ms. Bonar is here to
tell us about the New Hire Directory, but is not expected to
comment on any aspect of Administration policy on child support
or any other. She is an expert witness on child support; not a
political witness here to defend the Administration's policy.
The second panel will address what I believe will become an
issue of increasing importance. Believe it or not, the Federal-
State IV-D child support program is not the only game in town.
There are a select number of counties and cities around the
country that conduct their own child support programs outside
of this system. In addition, many private attorneys provide
assistance to parents owed child support, and there is an
increasing number of privately owned companies that are
providing child support services, either directly to custodial
parents or under contract with local or State government.
We hope to find out how effective these programs are and
how they are connected, if at all, with the IV-D program. We
also hope to explore in subsequent hearings whether it is
appropriate for the program to cooperate with these outside
programs. And if so, whether we need legislation to promote
this cooperation.
I'm also pleased that these panels include a witness from
Georgia who will discuss a flaw that has long been obvious in
the child support programs. Specifically, we treat certain
veterans' benefits differently than we treat other forms of
income, thereby making it possible for non-custodial parents
who receive certain veterans' benefits to protect some of their
income from child support payments. I want to recognize the
fine work of Mac Collins on this issue. With Mac's assistance,
we hope to work with the Veterans' Affairs Committee to address
this problem.
Finally, during consideration of last year's Labor-HHS-
Education appropriation bill, I promised our colleagues in the
Senate that we would examine the issue of domestic violence and
how it impacts women participating in the child support and
TANF programs. We are very pleased to have Dr. Jessica Pearson
here from Denver to provide us with research information on the
number of women applying for child support who have been
abused, and whether the abused mothers wanted to be exempt from
the State child support programs because of the threat of
abuse. We will also hear from Kathleen Krenek, who directs the
Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence, about State
programs designed to help victims of domestic violence,
including victims who are enrolled in public programs.
So we have a full day ahead, and Sandy, do you have any
opening remarks at this time?
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The 1996 Welfare Reform
Law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act, reinforced how important child support is
to the economic well being of children. In the law, we
instituted a number of innovations to improve the way the child
support system works, enabling us to improve collections and
get money to families struggling to become and remain
economically self-sufficient.
We have recently revisited the child support program and
enjoyed broad bipartisan support on a bill that seeks to
enhance performance through meaningful incentives, and to
further emphasize the importance of establishing statewide
automated information systems in the program. These
developments have fostered a series of continuous improvement
in the child support system.
Today, in that same spirit, we'll hear about efforts to
improve paternity establishment and the innovative national
Directory of New Hires are impacting the program. We recognize
that the system can be considered truly successful only if it
works for those in the most difficult circumstance.
Senator Murray from Washington has been instrumental in
making us aware of the plight of families that are victimized
by domestic violence. We have invited experts from the field of
domestic violence to tell us about the challenges faced by
those in violent family situations and the way that the child
support system can both assist and protect them.
Finally, we'll turn our attention to a relatively new
topic, local child support collection efforts outside of the
Federal and State, Title IV-D, child support program. We look
forward to hearing about developments in this area, so that we
can explore how the system is working as a whole. We have a
strong interest in continuing to pursue innovations in the
child support field, but we must proceed with some caution, to
be sure that the best interests of children remain at the
heart--at the very heart--of all of our efforts. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Shaw. Thank you.
Our first witnesses--if they would come to the table--Donna
Bonar is the Director of the Program Operations Division,
Office of Child Support Enforcement, of the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services; Jeffrey Cohen is the Director,
Office of Child Support, in Waterbury, Vermont; Diane Fray, IV-
D Administrator, the Department of Social Services, Child
Support Program, Hartford, Connecticut; Alisha Griffin, who's
the Acting Assistant Director from New Jersey Division of
Family Development, in Trenton, New Jersey; and, Jacqueline M.
Jennings, Manager, Office of Child Support Enforcement,
Department of Human Resources, Columbus, Georgia.
Because of members being out, we are starting late today.
I'm going to try to enforce the five minute rule. That means
I'll bring the gavel down at the end of five minutes, and I
will tell each of you that your full statements have been given
to the committee and will appear in the record. I would invite
you to summarize in any way you might be comfortable. Ms.
Bonar.
STATEMENT OF DONNA BONAR, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM OPERATIONS
DIVISION, OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Ms. Bonar. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name
is Donna Bonar, and I'm the Director of the Division of Program
Operations in the Office of Child Support Enforcement. Thank
you for giving me the opportunity to testify today on the role
of the National Directory of New Hires in strengthening the
child support enforcement program.
I'm very pleased to report that we have met the October 1,
1997 statutory deadline for implementing the National Directory
of New Hires, and that all 50 States are providing data to the
directory. As of May 1998, the National Directory of New Hires
has 23 million new hire records, 159 million quarterly wage
records, and 9 million unemployment insurance claim records. In
addition, over 100 Federal agencies have transmitted over
350,000 new hire records and roughly 5 million quarterly wage
records. These reports represent 96 percent of all Federal
employees.
The real benefit of the National Directory of New Hires is
that our Nation's children are receiving increased child
support collections. Case workers are receiving up-to-date
employment information available on absent parents, in order to
be able to locate parents, establish paternity, and to enforce
child support orders.
Welfare reform expanded the Federal parent locator service
by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
develop the National Directory of New Hires. The directory is a
database of information for all newly hired employees,
quarterly wage reports, and unemployment insurance claims, to
assist States in locating child support obligors who are
working other States.
I'm glad to report that we are also on target to meet the
implementation date for the Federal Case Registry, October 1,
1998. Federal law requires that the Secretary of Health and
Human Services develop a national database of all child support
orders. As we did in establishing the National Directory of New
Hires, we are using a collaborative model to develop the
Federal Case Registry and look forward to reporting on it's
success later this year.
I would like to turn my attention to our early results of
the National Directory of New Hires and to answer the question,
``so what does this mean for children?'' Beginning October 1,
1997, we started matching State locate requests against the
National Directory of New Hires. Since then, we have matched
700,000 interstate locate requests against individuals in the
National Directory. When States receive matched information
from the National Directory of New Hires, they are able to
quickly establish an interstate case or enforce an existing
order.
It is very important to remember that this success
represents only the first step in getting more support for
children. Once the Federal Case Registry is operational on
October 1, 1998, new data in the National Directory of New
Hires will be matched proactively to child support cases and
order information in the Federal Case Registry. States will no
longer have to submit individual locate requests. Instead,
States will automatically receive current employment
information on child support obligors any time that individual
takes a new job. States will also receive information on
obligors quarterly wage and unemployment insurance claims. We
believe that the simultaneous establishment of these two
databases will revolutionize States' ability to process child
support cases across State line.
Since the program's inception, the implementation strategy
has been a cooperative model, rather than one of dictating
systems requirements to the States. As a consequence, the
entire development of the system evolved to better meet the
users' needs.
The National Directory of New Hires is maintained by the
Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement and is housed at
the Social Security Administration's national computer center.
Our collaboration with the Social Security Administration has
been instrumental in the expeditious implementation of the
National Directory of New Hires. Housing the database at Social
Security's computer center provides that the database is
maintained in a world class computer center with state-of-the-
art security standards. Due to this partnership, we have been
able to assemble the National Directory of New Hires in less
time and at a lower cost than if we had reproduced the existing
Social Security Administration infrastructure.
Finally, technical assistance played a critical role in
implementation. The Office of Child Support Enforcement
provided technical assistance to every State and territory
through the design and implementation stages, covering issues
from employee training to systems support. Technical assistance
also included information on our web site, videos, guides to
implementation and data submission, brochures and information
packets, and a variety of printed material for States to use to
train their own employees and to conduct outreach to employers
and employer groups.
In conclusion, we are pleased to report that our efforts to
implement the Congressional legislation, creating a National
Directory of New Hires, has been a success. Mr. Chairman, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for your
invitation to testify today.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.007
Chairman Shaw. Thank you.
Mr. Cohen.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY COHEN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT,
WATERBURY, VT
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to
testify today about Vermont's child support program,
particularly about our efforts to establish parentage.
As the committee probably knows, establishing parentage is
prerequisite to everything else we do. You can't have a child
support obligation without having parentage established. You
can't establish medical support without parentage. And, kids
won't even know both parents without establishing parentage.
Like the rest of the country, Vermont has experienced
rising out of wedlock birth rates. In our State, one out of
four kids is born out of wedlock. In the rest of the country--
some jurisdictions--have over 70 percent of their children born
out of wedlock.
It probably is no surprise also that a disproportionate
number of the children in the welfare program under TANF are
also kids who are born out of wedlock. In our State, the
portion of our TANF caseload born out of wedlock is more than
double the general population. What this means for the child
support agencies is that they have a disproportionate share of
these difficult cases to work in the first place, compared to
the rest of the population.
We've come a long way in our program. We started out with
criminal actions in 1982--when kids were called bastards--and
establishing parentage was a criminal action. We did very few
cases back then. We've since bypassed the stage of paternity,
which tends to characterize fathers as obligors, and we've
moved to the concept of parentage, which focuses on all the
rights of the kids, including child support, custody, and
visitation.
We've had, I'm pleased to say, considerable success since
the 1980's. In 1988, only 42 percent of our out of wedlock
cases had parentage established. By 1996, we were up to 82
percent, and that's using the cases in our IV-D caseload, as
opposed to the entire population.
While it's encouraging to know that we're only 6 percent
away from Congress' goal of 90 percent, I must say that, even
using the Statewide measure, that's doing fairly well. I
believe the next 6 percent are going to be more and more
difficult to address. The cases are harder and harder.
We've also had some other outcomes that coincide. We've had
reductions in teen births during this period of 40 percent
reduction to births to teens between the ages of 15 and 17,
during the same period.
People may ask how we did it. I wish I could say there was
a single magic bullet. The only single thing I can say is it
takes a lot of hard work. It would be nice if parentage
establishment were as simple as applying for a driver's
license. But unfortunately, in our caseload, we have many cases
where the only information we get is that it was a one-night
stand, a first name, and maybe a tattoo. And from there, the
child support agency has to figure out who the father is. So
this takes a lot of time and effort and we've made a lot of
effort to do that. In fact, our case workers have prioritized
those cases.
Also, we have relied on automated systems, which we've had
in place in our State as an integrated system since 1981. It's
been tied into our welfare agency. What that meant is we've
been able to start cases within a matter of weeks of
application for public assistance. In the old days, I used to
bring cases where kids were 15 years old. Now, we're doing it
when the kids are six months old. It makes a big, big
difference. Of course, that only works if you have a sufficient
number of case workers to respond to the automated system.
Also, we have a tight integration with our welfare agency.
In cases where the custodial parent is unable to cooperate or
refuses to, our welfare agency has been very good about
applying sanctions to gain their cooperation.
Also, genetic testing has played a big role in our
improvements over the years. The cost of the tests are about
$300 for the mother, the father, and the child. But, it has
enabled us to be sure who the parents are, has eliminated all
doubts, and I believe in many cases, has avoided court cases
because there's no question about who the parents are.
We have not relied yet on the voluntary acknowledgments of
parentage that Congress required in PRWORA--not to the extent
that other States have. That's because, in our State, the
acknowledgments did not have a legal presumptive basis. But we
anticipate that that will improve in time. Our acknowledgments
do include information about visitation and custody as well. I
understand from the Children's Rights Council that this is a
unique feature.
There are still some barriers to establishing parentage and
perhaps Congress can help in a few of these areas. First,
helping to locate parents is very important and Congress should
do whatever they can to support ways to prevent people from
avoiding the system. I believe the National New Hire Reporting
process will accomplish that and will have an impact far beyond
just wage withholding, but will also help find people who need
to have parentage established.
Also, Congress should continue to support the automated
systems efforts, which are really critical to tracking down
parents. And as laws change, we need to keep changing those
systems.
Congress can also support the effort by enhanced funding
for genetic testing. As I said, if a question is ever raised,
simply doing the test, can avoid a court hearing.
And finally, I would hope that Congress would consider
looking at ways to prevent out of wedlock births in the first
place. Thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.011
Chairman Shaw. Thank you, Mr. Cohen.
Ms. Fray.
STATEMENT OF DIANE FRAY, IV-D ADMINISTRATOR, DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM, HARTFORD, CT
Ms. Fray. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, it is
a pleasure to be here today to talk about new hire reporting.
It has been too often the case that those with the moral and
legal obligation to support their children, fail in this
fundamental responsibility of parenthood. I view new hire
reporting as an opportunity to get all children what they
need--the financial support of their parents.
One of the main challenges in the child support arena is
the ability to obtain timely data regarding employment of
noncustodial parents. Prior to the implementation of new hire
reporting, the only financial data available was obtained from
the IRS when the noncustodial parent filed his Federal tax
return or from the quarterly wage data obtained from the
Department of Labor.
The usefulness of this data was limited, because it was
anywhere from three months to one year old. By the time the
data was received, and the child support worker sent out the
appropriate forms to place an income withholding, the
noncustodial parent had often already terminated employment.
Child support professionals felt that they were always one step
behind the noncustodial parent and could not obtain the
necessary child support for the children of this Nation.
Effective January 1995, Connecticut established a new hire
reporting system. All employers maintaining an office or
transacting business in Connecticut, were subject to this law
and were required to report new employees within 35 days.
Connecticut feels strongly that new hire reporting is a
critical tool to the effective establishment and enforcement of
child support. While we have mandated compliance by all
employers, we provide the necessary vehicles to assist
employers in meeting these requirements: toll-free fax lines,
electronic reporting, use of Connecticut W-4 form, and a hot
line for employer questions.
One of the keys to our success has been this close
relationship with the employer community. Through a coordinated
effort of the Connecticut State agencies, employers are
informed of their legal responsibilities through yearly
mailings and an employer guide. IV-D staff from the New England
States attend a yearly conference of the American Payroll
Association, to provide information regarding both income
withholding and new hire reporting. Presentations are also
given to various employer and payroll organizations. Due to
this continued association, the usable data has increased to 97
percent in March 1998. Employers will cooperate because they
want to do their part in ensuring all kids receive support.
I believe that I have a reason to be excited about this
resource. During calendar year 1997, over 30,600 noncustodial
parents were matched through the new hire process. 24,000 of
these parents had an existing child support order. For these
matches, our staff were able to place more than 3,300 new
income withholdings and transfer an additional 5,000 to new
employers. From 1995 to the present, collections due to new
hire reporting, have increased 13-fold, from $540,000 in 1995
to $7.3 million in 1997, and a projection of $9.6 million or
more for 1998.
Additionally, under the new law, this data can now be used
to establish child support orders. During 1997, over 10,200
noncustodial parents without child support orders were matched,
and new support orders were established for more than 5,500
families.
Several States, including Iowa and Massachusetts, have
expanded new hire reporting to include payments to independent
contractors. This change was made because many noncustodial
parents who were formally classified as employees are now
becoming self-employed, and many employers are outsourcing
tasks that used to be done in-house. Massachusetts has also
expanded new hire reporting to include employees who retire and
begin to collect a pension, and those who are injured and
collect worker's compensation. These are some issues that we
also need to look at in the near future.
In conclusion, I cannot stress strongly enough the value of
new hire reporting to the task of establishing and collecting
child support. I've been a child support professional for more
than 21 years and I believe that the combination of new hire
reporting and the issuance of wage withholding is one of the
most significant improvements in the way we do business.
Mr. Chairman, this does conclude my prepared statement, and
I would be pleased to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.017
Chairman Shaw. Thank you very much.
Ms. Griffin.
STATEMENT OF ALISHA GRIFFIN, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NEW
JERSEY DIVISION OF FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, TRENTON, NJ
Ms. Griffin. Thank you. I want to begin by thanking
Chairman Shaw and members of the committee for the opportunity
to speak about New Jersey's Paternity Opportunity Program,
called POP.
For New Jersey, the POP program has been a tremendous
success. We believe that POP results can be duplicated by other
States. The success depends upon the investment of time, money,
resources, building partnerships, and implementing new
technologies. The increased investment does, and can, pay off.
In New Jersey, POP approaches paternity establishment more
broadly as a social issue, not just as a welfare issue. In our
outreach to parents, health care workers, and the community,
POP emphasizes the benefits for children when paternity is
established, not just solely focusing on the financial
enforcement of the obligations.
We provide through POP multiple opportunities for assigning
of a certificate of acknowledgment of paternity. Paternity can
be acknowledged at the hospital, at local registrars, and at
county child care agencies.
We began our POP program in November of 1995. In calendar
year 1996, there were 109,884 births in New Jersey. Of these
births, 32,126 or 29.2 percent were out of wedlock births. In
that same year, the first full year of POP's operation, 71
percent of those out of wedlock births in New Jersey had
paternity established through the POP program. Although 1997
figures have not closed, our preliminary findings for the full
second year are even better than the first year. The third
quarter of 1997 closed at 73.8 percent, up almost 3 percentage
points from the previous year.
Since the inception of POP, more than 45,000
acknowledgments have been obtained, and almost 4,000 children
who came onto the IV-D caseload have come on with paternity
already established. This makes POP one of the most successful
voluntary acknowledgment programs in the country today.
The necessary elements for a successful voluntary
acknowledgment program with broad appeal to the general public
include strong partnerships, support for those partnerships,
the monitoring of them, and the technology to enhance them. The
keys players in those partnerships are vital statistics, local
registrars, hospitals, health and social service providers
serving pregnant women and young families.
Vital statistics maintains and updates all the birth
records in the State. They supervise, direct, and are
responsible for local registrars, who are critical links to a
successful paternity program. They have established
relationships with the hospitals and with birthing facilities.
They're also an important source for outreach and marketing.
Hospital staff are the front line of communication with all
unmarried parents, and are best able to convey to parents the
importance of paternity establishment. Health and social
service providers have an opportunity to educate respective
parents regarding the paternity issues prior to the admission
to the hospital. And informed parents are more likely to sign a
certificate of parentage at the time of birth. They can also
educate parents who have children for whom paternity has not
yet been established. Health and social service providers are a
critical component in increasing our postbirth paternity
establishment rates.
One of the other key components to our POP program has been
the provision of support and monitoring to all of those
partners. We visit hospitals, marketing paternity establishment
as a priority. We provide technical assistance to all the
players and all the partners in the program, staff training and
retraining, program brochures, videos, and other materials that
help educate both providers of service and potential parents
and parents in the program.
We refer legal and eligibility service questions that have
traditionally gone unanswered directly to our IV-D attorneys
and our social case workers. We provide 24-hour, 7-day a week
customer service, and verify and follow-up on certificates that
are problematic.
We provide program monitoring and immediate feedback to
line staff and supervisors throughout the program, and we
evaluate performance and create performance improvement plans.
In technology, we have utilized our technology at the
hospital, where demographic information is collected on all
parents, and the data is electronically transferred into the
POP system, which then interfaces with the automated child
support system on a weekly basis to match certificates of
parentage with cases where paternity has not been established.
We're also using document imaging to capture certificates when
they are received. The certificates can be accessed and printed
on line by county workers and used in courts, which saves an
inordinate amount of time.
The benefits are to all players in the system; to the
child, to the parent, to the State, and of course, to the
taxpayer. It is a program that benefits all of us. Thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.020
Chairman Shaw. Thank you, Ms. Griffin.
Ms. Jennings, you have a fan on this committee who's not
here. His plane has been delayed, and he has made a special
request that I hold you to the second panel. If that doesn't
inconvenience you, I'd like to do that. Mac Collins has been
delayed, but we've gotten word that he's on the way in, so we
would appreciate your waiting.
Mr. Camp.
Mr. Camp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bonar, I just want
to congratulate you on the success that's been made in getting
the New Hires Directory up and running. Because I think all of
us believe that, if this is implemented successfully, we will
increase child support collections. I noticed in your testimony
you mention that all 50 States are providing data. I wondered,
in addition to those 50 States that are in compliance, are all
the territories and the District of Columbia providing the
required information as well?
Ms. Bonar. Actually, Puerto Rico and the District of
Columbia are providing new hire data, however, we're not
receiving new hire data from Guam or the Virgin Islands. There
were some technical problems there. In addition, Guam just
passed their legislation. For quarterly wage--we are not
receiving quarterly wage data from Guam or the Virgin Islands
either.
Mr. Camp. Obviously, the law requires the employers to
report this new hire data within 20 days. Is there any idea or
any comments you can make about compliance by employers?
Ms. Bonar. I think it's too early to tell about compliance.
Also, not all States have passed the legislation so that every
employer in the country needs to be reporting. We had
anticipated that there would be about 60 million new hires a
year, and we have 23 million now. So, we have a lot of
reporting that needs to be done still.
Mr. Camp. Any idea whether this is large firms, small
firms, where there are greater difficulties maybe with
compliance? Do you have any idea at this time?
Ms. Bonar. No, at this time, we don't.
Mr. Camp. I've heard from my State legislators about the
sensitive personal information that is on these files. I
realize social security number is optional, but in reality, I
think that's the number that's being used. Can you comment just
on the privacy safeguards and confidentiality concerns that
will help keep the information from being made public?
Ms. Bonar. Certainly. We take real seriously the
confidentiality and the security of this data that we're
entrusted with. The law's real explicit about who has access,
who the authorized users are, for what purposes this database
can be used, and we ensure that it's only used for the
authorized purposes. I think also the fact that our database is
housed at the Social Security Administration's computer center,
it is that state-of-the-art in security standards, and we're
subject to those standards. The data is transmitted to us over
secured dedicated lines, so that there is no possibility for
unauthorized access. With respect to social security numbers,
the new hire data that comes into us--the social security
numbers on new hire data--those are verified before they go on
our National Directory.
Mr. Camp. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shaw. Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin. I'd like also to congratulate the Department.
Timeliness has been a real problem in child support. Deadlines
have been urgently enacted and often, I won't say flaunted, but
have not been met. And so it's heartening the deadlines that
have been set here have been met. So, congratulations.
I gather from your testimony that all of you are fairly
veteran public servants, and proud of it. And I'd like to
congratulate, if I might, all of you on your work in this
field. It often isn't heralded, but it's critical to reform of
our welfare system. And each of you have indicated that the
kind of, not only diligent, but imaginative and committed,
efforts that you have undertaken, and I hope you have a real
sense of pride.
So, I just have one question that may, if I understand the
data, may illustrate that we have a real challenge here.
Now, let me just ask you about the Connecticut data. On
page two, and I think it ties in to the testimony from Mr.
Cohen, that the journey ahead may not be easy and it means that
we have to really be totally dedicated if we're going to meet
the deadlines. In calendar 1997, on page 2, Ms. Fray, through
this system that you're rightfully excited about, you matched
over 30,000 through the new hire process--24,000 had an
existing child support order--and you were able to place more
than 3,300 new income withholdings and transfer an additional
5,000. So maybe this doesn't show how many of these 30,000, I
guess--or 24,000--did not have an income withholding, right?
That doesn't really appear here?
Ms. Fray. No, that's correct.
Mr. Levin. But would that--in other words, after you've
finished with the successful 3,300 and then the transfer of
5,000, there still was a considerable number where there wasn't
a withholding--where there wasn't withholding information,
right?
Ms. Fray. Right, that is correct. Sometimes, with the new
hire reporting, even though employers attempt to comply and
give us the data on time, even now sometimes the noncustodial
parent may either have left the job already or his wages may be
so minimum that we can not in fact place the income
withholding.
In Connecticut, up until October 1, 1998, we are still
under the State law that allows our employers 35 days to report
new employees. Because Connecticut was one of the States that
had new hire reporting prior to the passage of PRWORA, we were
allowed to wait until then to make our changes. Effective
October 1, our employers in Connecticut will have to report
within 20 days. And I believe that will also help narrow the
gap that you see in my figures here--that we will be catching
up with the non-custodial parents even more quickly than we are
now.
Mr. Levin. Good. And the 20 day provision, do you think is
feasible?
Ms. Fray. Yes, I believe that there are many States----
Mr. Levin. It's modern technology.
Ms. Fray. There are many States that are already doing it,
and yes, with modern technology, I do believe that it is
feasible.
Mr. Levin. And just one last question, you mention about
the self-employed. How considerable a problem is that?
Ms. Fray. When I talked to Iowa this week because they had
passed their law quite awhile ago, and what they told me, was
that they estimated a match rate similar to the regular new
hire reporting. So I would have to say that it appears that it
is now, and will in the future, increasingly be a larger
problem.
Mr. Levin. Ms. Griffin, you were shaking your head. You
agree?
Ms. Griffin. We anticipate some of the same problems.
Mr. Levin. Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Yes.
Mr. Levin. And we'll finish with you, Ms. Bonar. Should we
do anything further in that regard?
Ms. Bonar. The definition now is the IRS definition for
employer and employee and that does not include independent
contractors, so I've heard from States that that is an issue.
Mr. Levin. And the independent contractors--there is a
requirement to fill out a form. There is information that comes
into the Federal Government, right?
Ms. Bonar. There would be for the W-2 reporting.
Mr. Levin. Or it's equivalent.
Ms. Bonar. Right.
Mr. Levin. Mr. Chairman, we may want to look at that as a
further improvement on what this subcommittee has labored
effectively to achieve. Thank you.
Chairman Shaw. Mr. Collins, do you want to hold your
questions for the next panel? We've held your witness.
I'd like to thank this panel for some very fine testimony.
It's truly quite rewarding to see some of the things that we
have been cooperating on with the States and see them coming of
age and actually working. And I think it shows the wisdom of
the legislation. Thank you very much, all of you.
And Ms. Jennings, you can just stay right there, while I
introduce the next panel.
We have Richard Casey Hoffman, the President of CSE, the
Child Support Enforcement Company in Austin, Texas; Charles
Bacarisse, who is the Harris County District Clerk from
Houston, Texas, and from the great State of Florida, Judith
Fink, who is the director of the Broward County Support
Enforcement Division in that great city of Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida.
Welcome. As with the previous panel, we have your full
statement which will be made a part of the record, and we would
invite you to summarize as you see fit.
Ms. Jennings, we will lead off with you, in that you are
still with us from the previous panel.
Mac, would you like to make any special remarks before we
proceed?
Mr. Collins. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate you
and Ms. Jennings working together to wait until I could arrive;
my first flight was canceled.
I just want to take the opportunity to welcome Ms.
Jacqueline Jennings from Columbus, Georgia. She's manager of
the Child Support Enforcement Office in Columbus with the
Georgia Department of Human Resources. She has 21 years of
experience in this office. In the Columbus area, she has
jurisdiction over five counties. Fort Benning, Georgia is
located amongst them. She's been a real leader in the area of
child support recovery. In the Welfare Reform bill we had in
the last Congress, Mr. Camp, Ms. Dunn and I worked very closely
together trying to come up with some new provisions on
enforcement. Ms. Jennings played a major role in advising me
back in the District of some things that we needed to look at.
In your opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned another
area that I think Ms. Jennings could be very helpful to us in.
We look forward to her testimony and welcome Ms. Jacqueline
Jennings.
STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE JENNINGS, MANAGER, OFFICE OF CHILD
SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, COLUMBUS,
GA
Ms. Jennings. Thank you, Representative Collins. To
Representative Shaw and the other members of the great body, it
is indeed a pleasure for me to be allowed this opportunity to
talk about the plight of some of America's children who are
being denied support from their fathers. I currently serve as
the office manager of the Child Support Enforcement Office in
Columbus, Georgia. We have the unique distinction of being near
one of the Army's many training centers--Fort Benning--and the
home of some 30,000 military veterans and retirees. We're near
the Tuskegee VA Hospital and Martin Army Hospital; therefore,
we handle a large number of child support cases where the non-
custodial parent is a veteran.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of
1996 provided the Office of Child Support Enforcement
additional laws and techniques to obtain support payments from
more delinquent parents to ensure that their children receive
the financial support and security that they're entitled to
have. Yet, children of thousands of veterans are being denied
support that has been established through court orders because
we're unable to send the Veterans' Administration Income
Withholding Orders. The policy regarding veterans' benefits
needs to be reviewed to assure that no child fails to receive
support from their parents, even if their parent is a veteran.
I have two different cases handled by my office that I
believe will illustrate the need for additional changes in this
policy. These cases are only a fraction of the cases of parents
who are veterans who are not living up to their obligations in
our caseloads in Georgia and throughout the Nation.
The first case involves the Office of Child Support
Enforcement and the Office of Child Support Enforcement in
Washington working together to obtain support for a parent. The
custodial parent sought congressional assistance in this case,
contacting the Washington courts and providing updated
information regarding the non-custodial parent's income. Her
efforts resulted in her being awarded $41.00 a month from
Veterans' Administration. The non-custodial parent's obligation
is $300.00 per month, resulting in a $259.00 deficit each
month. Since the VA payments are the NCP's only income, the
Washington courts acknowledged that they were unable to secure
support payments from the non-custodial parent until he was
employed. Washington Child Support Unit offered to refer the
non-custodial parent for employment services, but he refused.
To date, he is behind in his support payments well over
$12,000.
The second case involves a non-custodial parent who had
several proceedings regarding his support payments. The non-
custodial parent continued to receive his VA benefits while in
jail, but he failed or refused to pay his child support for his
child. This non-custodial parent has placed his child at risk
by not being willing to help provide for the child's basic
needs. Although we were able to get payments on the arrears
after the child turned age 18, the tragedy of this situation
was that the veteran's son never benefitted from a parent who
supported him. The support due on these cases totaled over
$20,000 and that's just two cases in my office.
If you multiply this number throughout the United States,
these figures are staggering. All of these cases highlight the
need for changes to be made to allow veterans' benefits to be
shared with their children. Child support workers throughout
the country are able to secure support payments from parents
who receive disability income from Social Security. This does
not include supplemental income but RSDI based on the non-
custodial parent's employment history. If the law allows for
children of those parents to receive--who receive Social
Security disability to pay support, then the children of
veterans should have the same rights.
The right to receive child support should be afforded to
all children. The need for these changes are increasing as many
veterans are obtaining benefits at an early age and are
remarrying and becoming parents of additional children. We are
aware that each claim must be viewed on an individual basis--
keeping in mind the needs and conditions of the veteran who
will be affected. The non-custodial veteran can request a
review and adjustment of their court orders to reflect a change
of circumstances, but yet be still allowed to pay support based
on current income.
The VA has worked with numerous custodial parents to allow
some apportionment to be sent to families, but in most cases,
it is far less than the amount that is court-ordered and the
children are still suffering. Many of these children have
working mothers who need this money to improve their lives. Our
staff in Georgia is committed to providing the highest level of
service to all clients. We're utilizing all the techniques
passed in the Personal Responsibility Work Act of 1996 to
provide assistance for our children. But we really need and
feel that this is important that the veterans' children are
looked at. Allowing access to VA benefits will provide millions
of dollars of support to the children of the country who may
otherwise be unable to receive support through wages. While we
are proud of our veterans and their many sacrifices for our
country, we must also focus on their children who are our
future.
A change in the Federal statute to allow VA benefits to be
paid for support will help ensure that veterans' children have
a better chance of life. We must all remember that the children
are who we are working for in child support. Thank you for
allowing me this opportunity to bring this important issue to
your attention.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.023
Chairman Shaw. Thank you, Ms. Jennings.
Mr. Hoffman.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD ``CASEY'' HOFFMAN, PRESIDENT, CSE, CHILD
SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT COMPANY, AUSTIN, TX
Mr. Hoffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. My name is Casey Hoffman. I'm the president of the
oldest and largest attorney-led enforcement firm in the country
that's headquartered in Austin, Texas. We have 85 people at
CSE. Seven of whom are attorneys. We have focused strictly on
enforcing court-ordered child support for private clients. It
is important to note that we do not receive Federal funds of
any kind and are not part of the Title IV-D program.
My training and experience give me a unique perspective in
working with child support professionals to solve this crisis.
I have been an Assistant District Attorney. I practiced family
law for 18 years. I've co-authored a book and numerous articles
on child support enforcement and I've served as a State Bar
president. But most importantly for five years, I ran the
largest Title IV-D program in the country as a special
Assistant Attorney General in Austin, Texas.
Taking testimony from this panel is a historic occasion in
your dedicated efforts to solve the child support problem. This
particular panel is comprised of representatives who are not
part of the Title IV-D effort. As such, they do not get any
Federal funds, but each day help families across the country
collect child support and distribute the child support check
promptly. It is a most appropriate time to focus on what non-
Title IV-D agencies like these can do for the families who do
not and cannot get help from the federally-funded Title IV-D
program. Given the millions of families that go without child
support, there can be no competitive reason for supporting a
Title IV-D solution over a non-Title IV-D solution.
From the taxpayer perspective and a Title IV-D perspective,
each case where we provide services is one less case for the
overburdened Title IV-D worker. I believe it is clear to most--
every experienced professional that we can no longer design a
Title IV-D program that assumes each and every case will be
successfully worked by the Title IV-D agencies in this country.
We must, instead be inclusive and do what is needed to attract
other armies onto the battlefield to work--the caseload--that
overwhelms our IV-D agencies. Just as importantly, we must work
the cases for the millions of children who are not even in the
Title IV-D program. We must remember that there's a huge
caseload of families that are not part of the Title IV-D agency
and do not receive child support.
The latest Federal statistics for 1996 demonstrate the
above presumptions clearly and unequivocally. The Title IV-D
program while improving dramatically in collecting an
impressive $12 billion was able to collect on 52 percent of the
current support owed for that year and on 8 percent of the
total arrearages. What this means in total dollars not
collected--not collected for 1996--in just the Title IV-D
caseloads, is $8 billion in current support went uncollected,
while $36 billion in arrearages went uncollected. Said another
way, the Title IV-D program fell behind another $4 billion in
collections. Therefore, our message today is focused on
proposal that supports putting more armies on the battlefield.
That proposed is to provide non-Title IV-D agencies with the
same tools that you have given to the IV-D program and the
information you have given to the IV-D program so that they can
help more families.
Title IV-D families cannot claim an exclusive right to
providing child support services, nor should they be given an
exclusive right to the tools and information you legislated for
all children. If there's one thing that the Congress can claim
all the credit for and deserves to be praised for, it is giving
the Title IV-D program some of the best tools and information
to serve their clients.
For example, where would we be without wage withholding--a
tool that has been widely used by the non-Title IV-D programs.
The issue becomes how can we give the non-Title IV-D programs
who are using attorneys the very tools that the Title IV-D
program has. A little over 90 percent of our clients who have
come to us for help are owed over four years worth of child
support and have already been to the IV-D agency; they had not
received child support collected; and are now benefiting from
our services. Families also go to Judy Fink's agency in Broward
County and get help. She's a non-Title IV-D agency. They get
services from Charles Bacarisse in Houston, Texas and he's a
non-Title IV-D agency.
I feel very strongly about this proposal and describe it in
detail in my written testimony. I've set forth the tools that
we need to be giving to the non-Title IV-D programs that will
help millions of children in this country and help us win the
child support war. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.037
Chairman Shaw. Thank you, Mr. Hoffman.
Mr. Bacarisse.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES BACARISSE, HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK,
HOUSTON, TX
Mr. Bacarisse. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of
the committee, I come before you today to ask your support for
legislation that would give non-Title IV-D enforcement agencies
additional tools to be even more effective players in the field
of child support enforcement. My name is Charles Bacarisse and
as the District Clerk of Harris County, Texas, I oversee a
child support registry that moved more than $220 million in
payments last year. There's simply no doubt in my mind that
child support enforcement has grown at such a rate that outside
assistance is desperately needed.
From my office in Houston, my staff processes over 5,000
transactions totalling more than $1 million a day. In fact, if
Harris County were a State, it would rank 26th nationally in
terms of the volume of child support payments processed. You
may not be aware of the more than 19 million cases currently in
the nationwide IV-D caseload, nearly 40 percent lack support
orders. In those cases having orders, collections could be made
in only one of five because of the difficulty inherent in that
enforcement. At the same time, the State IV-D agencies struggle
to increase establishments in collections, their caseloads
continue to grow by the hundreds of thousands and the backlogs
in establishments and enforcement actions continue to mount.
While the problem is monstrous by any standard, the solution in
my judgment is not. A successful full-scale attack on this
worrisome problem requires the enlistment of all available
resources including locally funded, non-Title IV-D government
enforcement entities and members of the private bar and
responsible private firms specializing in support collection.
This attack also makes sense from a taxpayer's standpoint.
Title IV-D support enforcement services cost the taxpayer more
than $3 billion annually. By contrast, locally funded support
enforcement agencies and private attorneys can offer services
at zero cost to the Federal Government. In this regard, Harris
County custodial parents in need of support enforcement
assistance are more fortunate than those in some other areas,
because Harris County operates its own child support
enforcement agency--the Harris County Domestic Relations
Office.
The Harris County DRO is funded by fees paid by those who
use its support and visitation enforcement services. The user
fees are based on income and ability to pay. Unfortunately,
Texas' domestic relations offices in similar non-IV-D public
child support enforcement agencies in other States are
presently unable to use some of the enforcement tools available
to the IV-D agencies. The result is the custodial parents may
be forced to go to the IV-D agency for certain types of service
adding to the number of cases to be handled by the IV-D agency.
As one who deals with this matter on a daily basis, my
suggestion for involving capable non-Title IV-D enforcement
entities must come with Federal legislation to allow the
following four enforcement tools: the equal use of income
withholding for unemployment benefits; the equal use of Federal
and State tax refunds; the extension of data matches with non-
Title IV-D entities; and the ability to report child support
delinquencies to credit bureaus. All of the measures would, of
course, come with the appropriate safeguards on access to and
the use of this confidential and sensitive information. The
legislation should require that any non-IV-D entity or private
attorney seeking to use these specified tools and information
register with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The
use of the specified tools and resources would be solely for
child support enforcement purposes.
My view is that the more resources that can be applied to
improving the collection of support, the better for the
children owed that support. I believe Federal legislation and
policy should encourage participation in support enforcement by
responsible public and private agencies and attorneys. This
subcommittee can begin that process today by considering the
recommendations I've just presented, as well as those of my co-
panelists joining me here today. Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee, I hope I've clearly defined the gravity of this
situation and left you with at least part of the solution.
Thank you for allowing me to testify before your committee.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.042
Chairman Shaw. Thank you. Not to be outdone by Mac Collins,
it's now my pleasure to ask Judy Fink to testify before the
committee--of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
STATEMENT OF JUDITH FINK, DIRECTOR, BROWARD COUNTY SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, FT. LAUDERDALE, FL
Ms. Fink. Mr. Chairman 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'm the director of
the Broward County Support Enforcement Division, an agency of
county government in Broward County, 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. Due to the diligence of Congress, and in particular
the work of this subcommittee, very effective child support
enforcement tools have been created. A very notable example is
wage withholding--also known as income deduction. 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 use of this tool to non-IV-D cases.
Eventually Congress required immediate wage withholding for
child support in all cases.
Congress should take this approach now and extend the use
of other child support enforcement tools initially given only
IV-D agencies to non-IV-D enforcement organizations. Our newest
enforcement tool is the ability to revoke drivers' licenses.
Through this program, we have been able to convince people to
meet their child support obligations that previously ignored
all other enforcement attempts. In some States, non-IV-D
enforcement agencies are not able to utilize this enforcement
tool. Congress should enact legislation making it clear that
license revocation as an enforcement--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 the non-IV-D child support
enforcement agencies are able to access important tools.
I'm here today to ask for your help in leveling the playing
field--that is child support enforcement. Our clients give up
opportunities for access to effective enforcement tools because
they would rather work with the local agencies that reports to
the county government and is more responsive to community
needs. This choice should not be necessary. In order to afford
the non-IV-D client the same enforcement opportunities as those
made available to IV-D residential parents, we are requesting
that non-IV-D agencies be given access to the following
enforcement tools.
Income withholding from unemployment insurance benefits:
Non-IV-D clients already benefit from the use of income
withholding through use of income deduction orders to the
employers. A logical extension of this very effective tool
would be grant non-IV-D agencies the right to issue income
deduction orders against unemployment insurance benefits.
Without this right, child support payments come to a grinding
halt when non-residential parents lose a job. Conceivably six
months to a year can go by without any child support payments
being sent to the residential parent.
The New Hire Directory: As stated earlier, the singular
most effective enforcement tool is the income deduction order.
New hire directory is a service that our clients frequently
request and believe that we are obligated to provide. 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 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. Even though non-IV-D case information will be
maintained, the non-IV-D client will receive no tangible
benefit. Information matched through the registry will be
extremely valuable and helpful in our ongoing enforcement
efforts.
Passport Revocation: The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 allows
for passport sanctions when child support debt of more than
$5,000 is owed. We believe that much like the driver's license
revocation, this would be an extraordinarily valuable tool. We
would like to ensure that child support obligations are placed
ahead of international travel on a 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 an amendment to current
law.
Under existing law, when a residential parent files for
bankruptcy there's an automatic stay for child support
enforcement. While the child support enforcement obligations
cannot be discharged as a result of bankruptcy until the
bankruptcy issue is resolved, our hands were tied with regard
to enforcement. We propose that child support enforcement be
exempt from the automatic stay.
As part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, each State is required to establish
a central disbursement unit through which all income deduction
order payments shall be processed. While this may be more
efficient for the employers, we have some serious concerns
regarding customer service to our clients. As a local
depository, we also make arrangements for the parent to come to
our office to pick up the check when they are in critical
financial need. Once the central disbursement unit is
established, this vital customer service will be eliminated.
Together we have made great strides in improving child
support enforcement services. Collections are on the rise,
however, we can do more. We see ourselves as the unofficial
partners to the IV-D agencies in the war on child support. The
truth is that the IV-D agencies cannot do it all. We're not
asking for funding. We're not even asking for recognition for
the wonderful work that 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 that
our clients may be the recipient of many of the remarkable
enforcement methods that you've made available to those parents
who choose to apply for these services.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the invitation and the
opportunity to testify before this distinguished committee. The
lives of the single parents of America are improved through the
diligent efforts and caring of this committee. Thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.048
Chairman Shaw. Thank you, Ms. Fink. Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want
to refer to Ms. Jennings and a couple of questions pertaining
to veterans' benefits. Ms. Jennings, you mentioned two
particular cases. But would you please walk the committee
through the process when a custodial parent comes to you
seeking child support from a non-custodial parent that is
currently receiving veterans' benefits?
Ms. Jennings. A lot of times, the custodial parent may not
know that the parent is receiving benefits. What we do is we
try to go through all of the possible things that the non-
custodial parent may be receiving. One of the first questions
we ask in Columbus is, is the person a veteran? Did they serve
in the military in any way? For how long? So that we can start
the process. Usually, we'll send the custodial parent to the VA
ourselves to let her apply and find--and get the information
from them. A lot of times they will bring us back the paperwork
and we'll help the client fill out the paperwork, answering the
questions and providing the information. Sometimes she may or
may not know it all--the information. So we're kind of the go-
between between the client and the VA administration trying to
get the information so the client can find out. They'll write
back to us and to the client and notify us if the veteran is
receiving benefits or is the parent able to get a apportionment
out of the benefits at that time.
Mr. Collins. Is it a lengthy process?
Ms. Jennings. It is a lengthy process. They--a lot of
times, VA, they tended to be a little slow when they respond
back to you. So a lot of times we'll have to go back in and ask
them over and over again. It's a lot of paperwork. A lot of our
clients don't understand what they're asking about--about the
service member injuries. They ask a lot of times questions that
the mother may not know. So it is a lengthy process and it does
take awhile for VA to answer back to us.
Mr. Collins. Do you have an idea of your caseload? I
believe today you have about 13,000 cases. What percentage of
your caseload is actually veterans?
Ms. Jennings. Probably about 45 percent in some ways.
Mr. Collins. Do you know of any other Federal paycheck or
benefit check that cannot be processed for child support other
than the veteran?
Ms. Jennings. No. That's the only one that we--and because
we at Ft. Benning deal with attachments to most military or
Federal pay--from civil service to retired pay--and that
veteran's check is the only one that we know about that we have
not been able to actually access.
Mr. Collins. You mentioned an apportionment benefit. Would
you explain in more detail what this actual apportionment
benefit is. Is it limited or not limited? Give us some kind of
idea of just exactly what you mean.
Ms. Jennings. Well, first, it's going to be based upon the
veteran's disability and how much that veteran is allowed to
receive. Then the apportionment--in some cases, we've had where
the VA will tell us that the client, the mother and children
are not able to receive any amount of apportionment because the
veteran needs that money to support himself. The thing that
strikes us about these cases, that these are veterans who are
walking around, who are able to do odd jobs and have a second
income that we may or may not can find--but yet they're saying
that the money is needed totally to take care of this veteran.
Usually the apportionment is a smaller amount of money and is
far less than what is already obligated or already ordered by
the courts. So there are some cases where the mother will get
an apportionment, but it'll be a smaller amount of money--like
the $401 that this lady is currently receiving now.
Mr. Collins. Do you have any problem with VA obtaining the
actual information as to how much a veteran is drawing in
benefits?
Ms. Jennings. That's a challenge. Usually that's why we
usually send the client there because it is very difficult to
get any information from the Veterans' Administration directly
ourselves. So we usually send the client there to get the
information.
Mr. Collins. Okay. In the welfare reform measures that we
included in the child support provision--including the Welfare
Reform bill--it seems to have been a lot of things that have
been very helpful to you in order to help you recover payments
more easily. Can you give some ideas of----
Ms. Jennings. Well, the license suspension is very, very
helpful. That's one of the things that we utilize quite a bit
in my area. I'm on the border State and so I border Alabama. I
have a large, tremendously large, interstate caseload. The
passage of the URISA Act so that we can send court orders
across the county/State line makes it much more simpler and of
course they can do it to the employers there in Georgia. So
those are just two things. We're just now starting to get
into--going into bank accounts and some other things that the
law will allow for. But we think that this will help increase
our caseload all the way around.
Mr. Collins. Very good. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from
a constituent--I won't read her name--that I would like to
share with the committee and have it entered into the record,
please sir.
It says ``Dear Mr. Collins, I have written in an attempt to
gain child support for my son since 1987. I've requested aid,
written letters, sent in outlined budgets and constantly asked
for medical, educational and general support benefits to no
avail from VA. I've been denied access to my spouse's records
as to what percentage of disability and total amount of his
entitlement are from the VA. My sons are now 16 and 14 and have
been denied the opportunity and right to benefit from the
allotted monetary gain set by VA standards no matter what the
amount. I have not objected to inquiry into my type and mode of
employment nor salary and lifestyle. Are we to live below the
poverty level; be denied clothing, shelter and whatever joys in
my life that my salary cannot provide? I work two jobs and
attend graduate classes in order to provide. My children have
needs as well as any other. Does my salary and the fact that I
do work prevent their father from participating in their
welfare? I pray that the concerns of these children that are
being abandoned by the government--the VA--be voiced. That the
VA rethink the position that allows these deadbeat fathers to
flagrantly flourish under the protection now set in the VA
guidelines. I await you reply with interest. Signed.'' I'd like
to enter that into the record, please.
Chairman Shaw. I thank you for bringing this question to
our attention. Mr. Hoffman, how do you answer the question as
to the rights of privacy that the IV-D for the agencies by law
can overcome? I mean, there's a certain amount of information
that they can receive that you cannot. I assume that you're
advocating that you should be able to receive this information.
How would you answer those people that are concerned about
that?
Mr. Hoffman. Well first off, I think that's one of the
paramount issues. The way we propose to resolve it in the
written testimony is very clear. The first point is that only a
private attorney can make the request to the agency. In an
affidavit, that private attorney is going to have to swear that
he is seeking that information for one purpose only and on just
that one particular case, and it has to be for the purpose of
child support enforcement. When the IV-D agency gets that
request--just as they do now with a FPLS--request--we would get
all of the information from FPLS. The information that we would
be asking for under the State case registry and under FPLS
would be secure as that attorney would be very concerned that
he or she would lose their license to practice law if the
provision was violated. We would have them sign it under oath
and it would indicate that the penalty would be disbarment if
used for any purpose other than child support enforcement.
The second provision we put in the written testimony is
that there would be a registration process with the Federal
agency whereby you would be entitled to get this information
only if you were properly registered. If you violated the rule,
then you would of course be taken off the list and would not
get this information from the IV-D agency. We think that way,
privacy will be protected in a way that's no different from
every child support worker that handles that information right
now. We have no guarantee that every Title IV-D worker is going
to handle that information responsibly. We believe they do--we
believe they do a good job, but they're also subject to losing
their employment I would assume if they violated the security
promised the title IV-D agency.
We've put very specific provisions in our request for this
committee to consider that kind of legislation. We think, quite
frankly, it's necessary. We would not extend this to any agency
beyond a private attorney. Right now, I would like to see how
that works. I think that if a client is allowed to go in and
ask for this information--get it from the Federal IV-D agency,
why would you not let an attorney who represents that client
get the very same information. If the client is going to get it
then the person who has a lawyer ought to get it.
Chairman Shaw. Ms. Fink, is that information available to
you?
Ms. Fink. No, not currently. We do have access to the
driver's license bureau record--on-line inquiry access. So
that's one area where we've already opened the door a little so
to speak. So we see this as just an extension beyond some of
the very confidential information that we're already receiving.
We found that the driver's license has been very beneficial to
us for some child support. We actually have an agreement with
the driver's license bureau that if we--if anyone on my staff
uses that information for anything other than child support
enforcement, then that access will be denied to our entire
agency.
Chairman Shaw. You brought something to my attention--even
though I practiced law for many, many years. I wasn't aware
that child support was subject to an automatic hold during
bankruptcy proceeding. That I feel is outrageous.
Ms. Fink. We think so----
Chairman Shaw. We need desperately to address a bankruptcy
bill that's beating around the House here. I don't know whether
it's going to get to the floor this week or not but there's
some things in there I think that we may want to address. But
this is something that we ought to take a look at and see if we
can straighten it out.
I want to thank you all very much for your very fine
testimony. Thanks for being with us, we appreciate it.
The next panel is made up of two people--Jessica Pearson,
Ph.D. and director of the Center for Policy Research, Denver,
Colorado; and Kathleen Krenek, the policy development
coordinator, Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence,
Madison, Wisconsin.
As with the other panels, we have your full testimony,
which will be made a part of the record.
I have to apologize to this panel. I've got a meeting with
the leadership that I have to attend at 4:30. Mr. Collins will
chair the hearing and I will try to get back in time for the
questioning. We appreciate this panel being here.
Mr. Collins [presiding]. Well, we'll go ahead. Ms. Pearson?
Ms. Pearson. Yes.
Mr. Collins. Welcome and we'll receive your testimony. It
will be entered into the record and included in its entirety.
STATEMENT OF JESSICA PEARSON, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR POLICY
RESEARCH, DENVER, CO
Ms. Pearson. Thank you. I'm Jessica Pearson. I'm the
Director of the Center for Policy Research which is an
independent, nonprofit organization in Denver, Colorado engaged
in research on issues that pertain to children and families.
During the past 18 months, my colleagues and I have
conducted a study of applicants for public assistance in four
social service agencies in Colorado in both urban and rural
settings. As part of our study--intake workers in four public
assistance and child support agencies in Colorado--asked 1,082
female applicants for public assistance explicit questions
about whether they had ever experienced domestic abuse. Those
who disclosed domestic abuse were asked more detailed questions
about the perpetrator, the frequency and the severity of the
violence. They were also asked about whether they were
interested in applying for the so-called Good Cause Exemption
which accords victims the right to apply for an exemption to
the child support requirement for reasons of domestic abuse. We
analyzed the responses to these questions. We also reviewed
files maintained by these social service agencies to gauge the
number and status of any good cause applications that they had
filed. This is what we found.
Finding 1: Many applicants for public assistance have
experienced domestic violence. Like many other studies of women
on welfare, our screening efforts revealed that domestic
violence is extremely common. Across the four office sites in
our study, 40 percent of applicants disclosed current or past
abuse. This is presented in the first pie chart on your
handout. Most of the abuse reported by the women involved
former partners, although a quarter are currently involved in
an abusive relationship. Three-quarters of those reporting
abuse said the abuser was the father of one or more of their
children making cooperation with the child support agency and
the pursuit of child support at least a potential danger.
Eighty-one percent of the women reported being hit or beat up;
half characterized the abuse as frequent; about one-third
reported that the abuse had occurred within the past two years.
Finding 2: Very few victims are interested in applying for
good cause. In our study, child support technicians explained
that all victims of domestic violence have the option of
applying for a good cause exemption. They asked each
interviewed victim whether she was interested in making such an
application. Across the four offices we studied, only 6.7
percent of the women reporting violence said that they would be
interested in applying for the exemption; while 93.3 percent
declined. Looked at somewhat differently, only 2.7 percent of
the 1,082 applicants for public assistance studied in this
project expressed an interest in applying for good cause. Those
figures are shown in the second and third pie charts on your
handout.
Nearly all of those who declined to apply for good cause--
93 percent--said that they wanted child support. The desire to
obtain child support was the main reason most victims gave for
not pursuing the good cause option. Other common reasons given
by many victims of domestic violence for not applying were: the
absent parent knows where I live; the abuse happened long ago;
there's no current danger; and I already have a child support
order for him.
Finding 3: Some women do fear that they will experience
harm if child support is pursued. Of the 1,082 women we
interviewed, 2.7 percent--or 29 victims of domestic violence--
said they were interested in applying for good cause. These
women believe that the abusive parent wanted to take or harm
the children and/or harm them. They worried that the pursuit of
child support would stimulate the abuser to visit; learn her
whereabouts; and/or take retaliatory actions. To avoid an
abusive partner, 72 percent of these victims said they had
changed residences; 55 percent had moved out-of-state; and 34
percent had stayed at a shelter for battered women.
Finding 4: Victims who applied for good cause may have
trouble producing official records needed to document a threat
of harm. One-third of those who applied for good cause were
successful; two-thirds had their applications denied--typically
because they provided no documentary evidence or because the
evidence provided was deemed to be insufficient. Successful
applicants provided at least two types of documents such as
police reports and restraining orders. However, there was a
fair amount of subjectivity in what an agency considers to be
accurate documentation.
What does this all mean? Our research shows that domestic
violence is a common problem. At the same time, the vast
majority of these women do not request good cause from child
support requirements. Like their non-abused counterparts, these
women want child support--they ask for no accommodation.
Congress should continue to encourage child support agencies to
pursue child support for these women. A small proportion feel
otherwise. In these instances, Congress should encourage States
to explore ways to provide child support interventions that
offer victims more confidentiality. Washington State's Address
Confidentiality Program is one example of a State-funded
program that offers the use of substitute addresses to victims.
Some women will only be safe if child support interventions
are suspended all together. In these instances, Congress should
encourage States to review their procedures in public
assistance and child support agencies to ensure that those who
need protection are being identified or offered the opportunity
to apply for exemption in an understandable manner and are
accorded reasonable and sensitive treatment. The small number
of victims who believe they face a serious threat of harm and
want good cause should not be burdened by requirements to
produce an array of official documents. Their sworn statements
and those of their family and friends should also be taken into
account.
Finally, before considering changes to current
requirements, Congress should await the results of research
currently underway in the States of Massachusetts, Minnesota,
New York and Missouri on the topic of domestic violence,
cooperation and child support policies. Thank you for your
attention.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.060
Mr. Collins. Thank you. Ms.----
Ms. Krenek. Krenek.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN KRENEK, POLICY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR,
WISCONSIN COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, MADISON, WI
Ms. Krenek. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
House Ways and Means Committee. Thank you for providing this
opportunity to testify before the committee on behalf of the
National Resource Center on Domestic Violence.
The NRC is one of four centers funded by the Department of
Health and Human Services to provide comprehensive information
and technical assistance to those involved in domestic
violence, intervention and prevention efforts. My name is
Kathleen Krenek and I'm the incoming director of the NRC. For
the past nine years, I've been the Policy Development
Coordinator for the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic
Violence.
I think we share a common goal for low-income battered
women and their families. We want them to be both self-
sufficient and safe. Many battered women need some combination
of temporary financial assistance, access to job training, and
educational activities, domestic abuse services and support,
and child support. We commend the committee for including the
panel on domestic violence within the TANF child support
oversight hearing.
In the area of child support, it is important to break out
of the enforced child support--don't enforce child support
paradigm--and expand it with the concept of safely enforcing
child support. Adding this third strategy starts with a careful
assessment of each family's risks and results in the
individualized enforcement plan. The circumstances faced by
battered women and their families are complex and diverse. A
significant majority of battered women want and need child
support orders enforced as Jessica Pearson has just noted. Some
women, however, will be endangered or their children will be
endangered by child support efforts. The clearest example is
the woman whose abusive partner threatens to hurt her and her
children if she cooperates with child support, including
paternity establishment. These families may require alternative
strategies that address safety risk and the suspension of child
support enforcement altogether, if needed.
Determining what child support enforcement strategies
families need requires close collaboration between advocates,
TANF and child support enforcement agencies and the families
themselves. A number of promising approaches already exist that
balance safety and self-sufficiency interests. As Congress
intended these specialized responses are being created and
implemented at a State level. Some examples include: child
support agencies informing custodial parents every time an
enforcement step is taken--such as service of papers, seizures
of bank accounts or other assets, withholdings, suspension or
revoking licenses, or attachment of wages--so that the
custodial parents are able to take precautionary steps to deal
with the potential backlash. Only requiring battered custodial
parents to attend court orders when absolutely necessary and in
those cases providing them protection.
Establishing address confidentiality programs as you've
heard like Washington State protects the location of a battered
woman's residence while giving her some sort of address that
she can receive legal documents. As you may know, Wisconsin
received a Federal waiver to allow most custodial parents
receiving cash assistance, to keep all child support that is
collected. This new system allows many victims receiving their
child support to maintain a level of independence once only
hoped for.
Importantly, the PRWOR Act also has strong language
addressing the restriction of disclosure and use of the
information--in the Federal Parent Locator Service and other
databases. However, there are implementation issues to resolve,
including the design of computer information systems. This
again will benefit from a collaborative process on both the
Federal and State levels. Regarding TANF and its impact on
domestic violence victims, here again not all battered women
have the same needs. Only some battered women--and we don't yet
know how many--will need exemptions from time limits, work
requirements or other program provisions. The available
research shows us that not all abused women coming into contact
with TANF and child support agencies will have problems with
their ability to participate in job training, work or education
programs and meet other program requirements.
However, some of abused women will have lingering safety
concerns or trauma that will interfere with job training or
employment. There are promising practices in this regard, as
well. By adopting a family violence option with similar
provisions many States have recognized that some battered women
need temporary exemption from work, child support cooperation
or other requirements. Many States have developed an instituted
training program designed to increase TANF workers' sensitivity
and responsive to domestic abuse issues. In some communities,
partnerships that combine the best local domestic violence
advocate expertise where agency researchers have the potential
to provide the meaningful, practical help battered women need.
Building a broader culture change initiative and the State
flexibility provided by Congress, some TANF and child support
enforcement offices have explored ways to coordinate their
efforts and create an environment in which battered women can
safely get the information and resources they need to comply
with program requirements and work towards a greater economic
independence.
We thank you again for placing domestic violence on today's
hearing agenda. It's somewhat of a historical feat for us.
Without the means of supporting themselves and their children,
battered women cannot be free from the violence and control of
their abusive partners. The National Research Center and others
will continue to advocate for victims in domestic violence as
State implementation of TANF and child support enforcement
programs proceed. We urge you to continue to support States and
their efforts to balance safety and self-sufficiency. Thank you
for allowing us to testify.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.076
Mr. Camp. Thank you very much. Ms. Pearson, I have a few
questions.
Ms. Pearson. Sure.
Mr. Camp. Two-thirds of the women who applied for the good
cause exception indicated that they were worried about the fear
of further abuse. However, their applications were denied
because they didn't produce sufficient documentation of past
abuse. Is this documentation specifically required in Federal
law or is it something State agencies have the power to change?
Ms. Pearson. These are State agency requirements.
Mr. Camp. Ms. Krenek, do you have any estimates of the
number of women who are actually harmed by cooperating with
child support enforcement?
Ms. Krenek. Not yet. No it's a fairly new area for
gathering statistics. There isn't much research available.
Mr. Camp. Do you know to the extent which States that are
implementing some of the approaches? The extent to which they
are that you outlined in your testimony?
Ms. Krenek. No. In fact, those are very new as well. I can
speak to the one in the State of Wisconsin, it began just in
July of this year--so it's very hard for us to tell whether or
not they're going to work. We do know in one county of
Wisconsin, that very few battered women want the good cause
exception because they have to have child support in order to
survive--they're working minimum wage jobs.
Mr. Camp. I think I understood your testimony to say--you
know have some caution here and wait until the research is more
complete.
Ms. Pearson. Right.
Mr. Camp. You named a number of States----
Ms. Pearson. That's right.
Mr. Camp [continuing]. That are working on that in your
written testimony. Before we address this clause, there's an
exception issue here--do you have any further detail on what
some of the research questions are in this----
Ms. Pearson. Yes.
Mr. Camp [continuing]. When we're likely to see some
information or results come back.
Ms. Pearson. There were a number of awards made by the
Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement last September.
They were effective October 1. They're three-year demonstration
projects. In several cases, for example--in Massachusetts,
there's an attempt to try and identify the incidence of--
domestic violence among applicants for public assistance.
Levels of interest and exemptions and waivers for not only
child support requirements but other TANF requirements dealing
with work requirements, time limits are being studied.
Experimentation with different methods of identifying victims
of domestic violence. Comparing direct screening, direct
questioning versus notification procedures where written
documents--written notification about the ability or the
opportunities to disclose are merely presented. I think that
we're really looking at the--numbers coming out in the next 18
months. Something of that sort takes a while to do.
Minnesota is experimenting with types of issues. New York
State will be doing that too. They have just released an
announcement for an evaluation contractors to get involved with
a study. So they're really in their infancy--their early
stages. I think that was the intent of the Federal Office of
Child Support Enforcement when it announced these initiatives--
the desire to get some good empirical information in this area.
That's why this Colorado study is, to my knowledge, is the only
one that we have.
Mr. Camp. Do you think there's enough flexibility in the
current welfare reform law to address the needs of victims of
domestic violation?
Ms. Pearson. At this point, I think there is, particularly
with the Wellstone-Murray which allow States to exempt victims
of domestic violence and to take domestic violence into
account. I think there's a tremendous amount of variation even
within States--jurisdiction by jurisdiction--about how these
women or how these victims are identified and accorded
treatment. For that reason, I think the collaborations with
domestic violence professionals and public assistance agencies,
and child support agencies are important so there is some
mutual training and education and some of the best methodology
that will inspire sensitive treatments will be used by an
agency.
Mr. Camp. Then one last question, Ms. Krenek. Can you
describe some of the ways that TANF and child support offices
have collaborated to help battered women get the information
they need? Are you aware of those?
Ms. Krenek. Yes. Well, I can give you one example of a
project that I coordinate in LaCrosse, Wisconsin as a
federally-funded project awarded by the Department of Health
and Human Services. We have an economic advocate who is hired
by the battered women's program and placed in the economic
support division office. Women are referred to her when
domestic violence has been disclosed. LaCrosse Dept. of Social
Services have been working with us--they provide us free space,
all of the copying and clerical work. They're working with us
on different methods of voluntary disclosure to help battered
women. Then we do case management with them on what is the best
course of action to take at this point. They have been willing
to allow us to critique their methods and it has provided some
interesting results in how battered women are viewed within the
system. Many women don't disclose to economic support workers
but do disclose to economic advocates. We will be following
women for one year to find out what the obstacles are for that
group of women versus the women who either don't disclose or
have not been abused. So it's a really great effort and
collaboration.
We also did a piece with the State Department of work force
development which is the administering agency in Wisconsin. In
that we collaborated on the training manual on domestic
violence that all economic support workers in Wisconsin
received. So we've done some team training with them as well.
Mr. Camp. Thank you. I believe that ends all of our
questioning today. I used to serve on my local council on
domestic violence.
Ms. Krenek. Oh really?
Mr. Camp. So I appreciate your testimony here today. Thank
you for coming. It may have been mentioned your written
comments will be part of the record.
Ms. Krenek. Thank you.
Mr. Camp. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:43 p.m., the hearing adjourned subject to
the call of the Chair.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60898A.105