NOTE: Hyperlinks provided in this policy fax briefing were correct as of the time of publication.

May 2000 - Vol. 2, No 4

• Two Reports Reveal Racial Bias in the Criminal Justice System
• Institute for Research on Poverty Devotes Focus Issue to Child Support
• Ohio House Passes Bill to Allow Disavowal of Paternity Based on Genetic Tests
• California Proposes Child Support Amnesty
• Update on Previous Fax Briefing News Items
• Child Support Collection And Welfare Reform Firm Under Scrutiny But Still Gaining New Contracts

Two Reports Reveal Racial Bias in the Criminal Justice System

Both the adult and juvenile justice systems are slanted against minorities, from the point of arrest to the level of confinement, according to two recent reports. Justice on Trial: Racial Disparities in the American Criminal Justice System was released May 4, 2000 by the Leadership Conference Education Fund. The study found that race is a better indicator of how long a person's sentence will be, whether or not a person will be pulled over by police, whether or not a person is given the death penalty, what kind of plea bargain a person is offered or whether or not a juvenile is tried as an adult than any other indicator. Among the report's findings:

• Federal prison sentences overall, after implementation of the new federal sentencing guidelines, are almost fifty percent longer for African Americans than for Whites.
• Although African Americans and Whites have approximately the same rate of drug use, African Americans constitute more than a third of those arrested for drug offenses and 59 percent of those convicted of drug offenses.
• Between 1985 and 1995, rates of imprisonment for Hispanics have more than doubled, and the rate of imprisonment for Asian Americans has more than quadrupled in the past twenty years.

A copy of the report can be downloaded from the web at www.civilrights.org.

In a separate report, And Justice for Some, released by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency in April 2000, strikingly similar phenomena were found to occur in the juvenile justice system. The report points out that minority overrepresentation is often a product of actions that occur at earlier points in the juvenile justice system, such as the decision to make the initial arrest, the decision to hold a youth in detention pending an investigation, the decision to refer a case to juvenile court, the prosecutor's decision to petition a case, and the judicial decision and subsequent sanctions. Minority youth are found to be more likely than White youth to become involved in the system with their disproportionate involvement increasing at each stage of the process. Examples of the many findings contained in the report include:

• While White youth comprised 66% of the juvenile court referral population, they comprised 53% of the detained population. In contrast, African American youths made up 31% of the referral population and 44% of the detained population.
• African American youth are more likely than White youth to be formally charged in juvenile court, even when referred for the same type of offense.
• African American youth were overrepresented among cases receiving a disposition of out-of-home placement (e.g., commitment to a locked institution). This was true in all offense categories and was most pronounced among drug offense cases. In every offense category, minority youth were also more likely than White youth to be actually placed out-of-home.
• When White youth and minority youth were charged with the same offenses, African American youth with no prior admissions were six times more likely to be incarcerated in public facilities than White youth with the same background. Latino youth were three times more likely than White youth to be incarcerated.

Institute for Research on Poverty Devotes Focus Issue to Child Support

The Spring 2000 issue of Focus, a quarterly publication of the Institute for Research on Poverty (IRP), concentrates on child support enforcement and low-income families. The issue includes articles on such subjects as: the impact of child support enforcement on noncustodial parents and on parental relationships; the preliminary findings from IRP's Wisconsin Works (W-2) Child Support Demonstration that seeks to determine the impact of Wisconsin's child support pass-through on families, and family law with regard to low-income families. A copy of the issue can be downloaded from the web at www.ssc.wisc.edu/irp/focus/htm.

Ohio House Passes Bill to Allow Disavowal of Paternity Based on Genetic Tests

The Ohio House of Representatives has passed a bill, H.B. 242, that creates a substantive legal right for a father to disavow paternity when genetic tests prove that he is not the father of the child. This also would mean that the father would not be responsible for child support in the future, and could be relieved by a court of responsibility for any child support arrearages that resulted from the previous child support order for that child. The bill would exclude fathers under certain circumstances, including: fathers who adopted the child; fathers whose child was conceived by artificial insemination with the father's consent, and fathers who were aware that the child was not their biological child but took actions to become the legal father.

DNA testing has presented lawmakers with a difficult choice. Currently, most states have laws that presume that, for married couples who have a child, the husband is the legal father. For fathers who have raised children as their own, a disavowal of paternity would arguably not be in the best interest of the children, particularly if it were sought in order to avoid child support obligations.

Under the bill, if paternity is established by default, a putative father who has not had a relationship with the children would have the right to correct a wrongful paternity and child support obligation. In fact, the bill could affect a significant number of the paternity cases associated with the Ohio welfare caseload, since new welfare laws make eligibility for benefits contingent on the applicant cooperating with the state to establish paternity, increasing the pressure to name a father for the applicant's children. A recent Associated Press article quotes lab directors as saying that up to 30% of the welfare-related paternity cases that are challenged through DNA testing result in a finding that the putative father is not the biological father.

California Proposes Child Support Amnesty

In California, Assembly Bill 1995, introduced in February 2000, would create a one-time child support amnesty program for child support arrearages that are owed to the state as reimbursement for welfare payments and that, as of January 2000, exceed $5,000. The amnesty would be contingent on an individual remaining current on all future child support obligations. If payments were missed for more than 60 days, regardless of the circumstances, the arrears and interest would be reinstated. The bill stipulates that the amnesty would be a one-time program in order to prevent individuals from not paying child support on the expectation of a future amnesty program. The bill has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

Update on Previous Fax Briefing News Items

• TANF Supplantation Investigation Requested. As reported in the April 2000 Policy Fax Briefing (available on-line at www.cffpp.org), some states are using TANF funds to finance existing services and using the resulting savings for various expenditures that do not necessarily benefit low-income families, including tax cuts. Representative Nancy Johnson (R-CT) has asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to inspect the welfare spending of the states to determine how widespread the supplantation has become. The GAO will look at the budgets of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin.
• Illinois Pass-Through Legislation Dealt Another Setback. A bill (H.B. 3126) to increase the pass-through in Illinois has been blocked by the Senate Rules Committee, eliminating prospects for the bill's passage this legislative session, in spite of changes made to the bill in order to garner additional support. A bill that was introduced last session, H.B. 1236, would have provided for a pass-through of 66% of child support, and came within one vote of overriding a veto by the governor. This session's bill reduced the pass-through percentage to 50%, but failed to get a floor vote.

Child Support Collection And Welfare Reform Firm Under Scrutiny But Still Gaining New Contracts

Maximus Corporation, a leading private company with contracts for child support services in 10 states and 24 locations and welfare-to-work and welfare reform contracts in nine states, has been targeted for investigation of its contracting and billing in Wisconsin and New York. In New York, Maximus is under criminal investigation for its role in improperly influencing the contract award process to gain a $104 million welfare-to-work contract. A former mayoral aide and designer of the welfare-to-work programs would have been awarded approximately 30% of the funds as a subcontractor. The company allegedly used inside contacts including Jason Turner, one of the architects of Wisconsin's W-2 program and now the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA) Commissioner, to win contracts without a competitive bid process. Maximus is also accused of denying to New York City officials that it had been part of a criminal investigation in West Virginia over a contract bid there. In Wisconsin, the firm will be the subject of investigations into its role in: billing Wisconsin for work the firm did in preparation for its contract bid in New York; an improper diversion of W-2 clients to its own subsidiary, Maxstaff, a temporary employment agency, and employment discrimination allegations by former employees.

Maximus had FY 1999 revenues of over $320 million. It's first quarter FY 2000 net income increased 37% from the first quarter of 1999, to $7.7 million, and the company had record contract wins of $217 million in the first quarter FY 2000. The company was recently awarded contracts of up to $5 million for child support enforcement services in Alaska, and $2.2 million in a Welfare-to-Work contract in Chicago, IL.