help

NOTE: Hyperlinks provided in this policy fax briefing were correct as of the time of publication. February 2001 - Vol. 3, No 1 Child Support Assignment for Children Excluded from TANF Ruled Unconstitutional Surveys on Federal Spending Priorities Released New Leadership for House Ways and Means Committee and Human Services Subcommittee Wisconsin's Percentage-Expressed Child Support Orders Challenged by Federal Government Religious Community Expresses Concerns About Bush's Faith-Based Initiative TANF Case Closure Reported to be Caused Primarily by "Other" New Resources Available for Advocates and Practitioners Child Support Assignment For Children Excluded from TANF Ruled Unconstitutional On December 5, 2000, a U.S. District Court in Indiana ruled that the state's requirement that children who are excluded from receiving TANF benefits assign their right to child support to the state was unconstitutional. Indiana has adopted a "family cap" benefit policy, which excludes any children from TANF eligibility who are born more than 10 months after the custodial parent's initial month of benefits. The District Court held that Indiana's policy of retaining child support payments from children excluded from TANF benefits due to the family cap policy effected unconstitutional taking of private property for public use without compensation. The Court also determined that the policy was not required by federal law. A permanent injunction against enforcement of the policy was entered, and notice to all class members of their right to request a re-examination of their child support assignment was ordered. As of March 1999, 21 states had a family cap policy in place. Only four of these states pass through a portion of child support that is paid on behalf of children who are excluded from cash benefits due to the policy. To find out if your state has a family cap policy, visit the State Policy Documentation Project at www.spdp.org/famcap/. The decision is currently available through Westlaw under the citation 2000 WL 1902187 (S.D. Ind.). Surveys on Federal Spending Priorities Released The University of Chicago recently released the results of their annual survey of the general public on U.S. spending priorities. Results include: More people favor increases over cuts in overall spending on federal programs. The public's response to increased spending on domestic social services is at a near high for the almost 30 years of the survey's existence. "Assisting the Poor" was ranked as the 7th top spending priority out of 20 categories. This category has been increasing in rank since 1996, and in 2000 1.5 times more people prefer increased over reduced spending on the poor. "Child Care" as a newly introduced category ranked third in priority. Among those programs declining in public favor for spending were "Law Enforcement" (at it lowest in 20 years) and "Defense" (16th in popularity with an overall public preference for less public spending in this area). While "Welfare" has ranked consistently low in the priorities of a public who favors assistance to the poor, in recent years this category has been steadily gaining support as a program to be funded. The Catholic Campaign for Human Development recently conducted a separate survey on poverty. According to survey results, poverty ranked low for the public among other societal concerns but when presented as an isolated issue, 87% expressed concern about poverty in the U.S. Half of the general public surveyed reported feeling threatened by poverty at some point in their lives. Poverty was overwhelmingly defined by those surveyed as "homelessness". The University of Chicago survey results can be accessed at www.norc.uchicago.edu/online/spend00.htm. The report from the poverty survey by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development can be found at www.nccbuscc.org/cchd/povertyusa/pressrel/pulserel.htm. New Leadership for House Ways and Means Committee and Human Services Subcommittee Representative Bill Thomas (R-CA) has been assigned the position of Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, replacing Representative Richard Armey (R-TX). The Committee oversees Subcommittees on Social Security, Trade, Oversight, Health, Human Resources and Select Revenue Measures. Of these, the Subcommittee on Human Resources will have oversight over programs and policies most likely to affect low-income families. Representative Wally Herger (R-CA) has been named the Chairman of this subcommittee, replacing Representative Nancy Johnson (R-CT). The subcommittee is responsible for both the upcoming reauthorization of welfare reform and any legislation related to child support. Rep. Herger has announced that one of his priorities will be to "address the problem of our nation's fugitives who illegally receive hundreds of millions of dollars in welfare payments each year", and has expressed his enthusiasm at working on the reauthorization of the 1996 welfare reform law. The Subcommittee on Human Resources is planning to conduct a series of hearings related to reauthorization, with particular emphasis on the impact of welfare reform on children and families, the use of welfare funds to promote marriage, abstinence education and fatherhood. With regard to marriage promotion, some of the proposals that are likely to be considered include: requiring states to spend part of their welfare money on pro-marriage activities; encouraging caseworkers to talk to pregnant women about marrying the fathers of their unborn babies, and teaching about the value of marriage in high school. The Subcommittee also plans to examine proposals to simplify and improve the collection and distribution of child support, and to hold hearings on the financing of child support enforcement programs in light of the decline in the welfare caseload. Wisconsin's Percentage-Expressed Child Support Orders Challenged by Federal Government With the intent of creating a child support order that would automatically adjust to changes in income on the part of the obligor, the State of Wisconsin, since 1983, has permitted judges to enter orders that are expressed exclusively as a percent of income. No other state has such a policy, which differs from using a percent of income standard to set an order in that the order itself is entered as a percent, rather than a fixed monthly amount. Use of the percentage-expressed orders prevents large arrearages from accumulating for fathers whose income fluctuates, and who often are not successful at obtaining a child support modification each time their income changes. It should be noted, however, that in spite of the fact that the state's allowance for these orders is often viewed as a means to prevent unfair orders for low-income obligors, in some counties percentage-expressed orders are rarely granted to low-income obligors. Recently, the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) notified the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development that the state risks losing its funding for child support as well as its TANF block grant unless it eliminates the use of percentage-expressed orders. The federal action is based on the difficulty of tracking program performance with regard to child support that is owed and collected, because the percentage-expressed order does not allow for an immediate reconciliation of this data. The Department of Workforce Development has now proposed legislation that would prohibit the use of percentage-expressed orders, in order to comply with the federal requirement. The legislation will require that 40,000 current child support orders in the IV-D caseload be converted from percentage-expressed to a fixed sum order. Religious Community Expresses Concerns About Bush's Faith-Based Initiative In response to one of President Bush's first initiatives in office, several groups within the faith community have voiced concern about the administration's proposal to extend funding for social services to faith-based organizations. Under past regulations the religious community could provide social services through separate affiliated social services organizations which had to comply with the separation of religious philosophy from service provision and with federal employment laws barring discrimination against gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, and national origin. Bush has proposed to discard such a separation. In two recent reports, members of the faith community have identified concerns with both the opportunities for discrimination and also the threat to restrict their guiding religious philosophy in both service provision and hiring practices. The Interfaith Alliance, comprised of members of different religions and denominations, raised the following issues on behalf of the faith community: As funding for social services would not increase under the initiative, funding to faith-based organizations would be allocated away from existing social services. The provision of additional social programs, in addition to the administrative burdens of competitive grant seeking and regulations compliance, would present new burdens to many churches and other religious groups. The National Council of Churches supported this concern, reporting that most churches lack the capacity to work with a large population on an ongoing basis. The churches that do possess this institutional capacity are generally located in communities with the least need for social services. Regulations on the use of tax dollars provided to religious groups could put such groups at risk of becoming increasingly legally accountable to the government for the use of funds, as churches attempt to mix state and religious funding and activities. Government money would be allocated on a subjective basis, raising concerns that dominant religions and denominations would be in a stronger position to compete for federal funds. The reports can be found at: www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0130-128.html (The Interfaith Alliance) www.ncccusa.orgs/01news10.html (National Council of Churches) www.adl.org/PresRele/Rel_ChStSep_90/3748_90.html TANF Case Closure Reported to be Caused Primarily by "Other" In a TANF data report prepared by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE), which is based on reports from states, TANF case closures by reason for the closure were evaluated. The period of time assessed was from October 1998 to September 1999. States reported the percent of case closures by category. Overall, only 23% of TANF cases were closed due to employment, 6.2% due to sanctions, and .2% due to marriage. But by far the largest category of reasons for persons leaving TANF and having their cases closed was "Other". Fifty-four percent were reported to have been closed for this reason. "Other" was described as referring to cases closed due to "all other unknown reasons including that family voluntarily closes the case." The second most-often cited reason for case closure was "Policy", at 16.5%. OPRE acknowledges that the data are limited due to questionable reporting from States, and suggests that the final rule of TANF data collection requirements, effective October 1999, should provide a detailed reason for case closure classification codes. This may allow for a more accurate picture of the reasons that TANF cases are closed. The tables are available at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/director.htm. New Resources Available for Advocates and Practitioners As welfare reauthorization gets underway, there are increasing numbers of articles and positions being written and discussed. For a useful website developed by the University of Colorado at Denver, devoted to welfare reform and reauthorization, visit http://thunder1.cudenver.edu//cwr/issues/tweakingtanf.htm. The site has summaries of recent articles, activities and resources from a variety of sources. Meeting the Challenge: What the Federal Government Can Do to Support Responsible Fatherhood Efforts, was released by the Department of Health and Human Services Fatherhood Initiative in January 2001, and is a resource for those involved in fatherhood programs. Topics covered include: developing local programs; identifying potential partners; the effect of federal policies on fathers; resources for program development and improvement, and program funding. The report is available on-line at http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/guidance01/index.htm. Please Note: We are now able to provide you with the Policy Briefing via e-mail! If you would prefer to begin receiving this briefing electronically, contact Rebecca May at 608/257-3148 or rmay@cffpp with your e-mail

Copyright 2001, the Center on Fathers, Families, and Public Policy. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement | Copyright Statement | Disclaimer