March 2002 - Vol. 1, No 2

• One Strike Housing Policy Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court
• State of California Evaluates Child Support System Two Years after Mandated Overhaul
• Los Angeles County Child Support Assessed for Performance and Customer Service
• New Child Support Changes in Effect
• California-Specific Child Support Resource Guides Available to Parents and Advocates
• State Prepares for Welfare Reauthorization

One Strike Housing Policy Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court

On March 26, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous vote in favor of the Oakland Housing Authority's decision to ban three residents from public housing after members or guests of their household were found in possession of drugs on or near the premises of public housing in Oakland. The one strike policy by which they were evicted was designed under federal legislation in 1988 to enforce community policing by households as a zero tolerance measure against drug possession and other criminal behavior by public housing residents. According to the law, entire families are subject to lose housing assistance if a member of their household or guest is found with drugs on or near the housing premises, whether the family is aware, or has reason to be aware, of the drug possession or not. The lower federal appeals court had ruled in favor of the tenants, citing the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment by which an innocent party cannot be denied the right of property access. Civil liberty and legal advocates suggest that such a policy severely punishes those who may most rely on public housing (the three defendants range 63 - 75 years in age and average approximately 25 years of reliance on public housing), and who may have made good effort in complying with the drug policy (two were unaware of drug possession by household members).

For a reading of the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion, go to http://supreme.usatoday.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/2001/february.html, for more information, see 3/26/02 article of San Francisco Gate at www.sfgate.com.

State of California Evaluates Child Support System Two Years after Mandated Overhaul

Spring 2002 marks the two-year anniversary of the January 2000 California state legislation that mandated transfer of child support services from county district attorney offices to a central state child support agency, the California Department of Child Support Services (DCSS). While the transition is complete in only half of counties (thirty-one of fifty-eight counties, including Sacramento, Fresno, and all the Bay counties except for San Francisco and Contra Costa are still due to comply by July 2002), state officials report that the overhaul of California's child support system has offered the opportunity for more efficiency and improved programs (i.e. each county must now provide a formalized complaint process, an ombudsperson to resolve customer needs, the opportunity for client hearings with the state, and public education regarding the availability of these services). The transfer process has prompted several ongoing studies to assess new programs and evaluate areas of further improvement within the system. Areas of biggest concern that DCSS identified in a 2001 mid-year status report include:

• Low rate of collection and resulting high arrearages. As of 1999, $14.1 billion was owed to the state in arrearages (a five-fold increase from 1992). Preliminary study indicates that 70% of child support arrears in California are owed by noncustodial parents with either no recent income or net annual incomes below $10,000. Two hundred thousand obligors have net annual incomes below $5,000 and yet owe a median monthly order of $285. In addition, half of the state's arrearage debt is owed by parents who have not made any payments on the amount for at least two and a half years, during which time interest at 10% continued to grow. An ongoing study has been conducted by the Urban Institute to determine the collectibility of current orders and arrearages, and make recommendations for setting orders and arrearages more responsive to parents' financial situations. The full report will be due late Spring 2002.
• Though the state has increased the paternities established state-wide, 70% of paternity orders are established by default (see "Did You Know?" at the end of this brief for more details on default orders in California). As the DCSS mid-year report notes, " . . . a majority of the state's orders may have no reflection on the ability of the obligor to support his or her children" and may be a major cause of growing arrearages owed to the state and custodial parents. A working group is in the process of making recommendations to the state on how to make orders more accurate, and will be included in the collectibility report of the Urban Institute in late Spring 2002.
• Increased undistributed collections. The state calculated the amount of undistributed child support as $64 million in the Summer of 2001, and identified ways to increase county distribution and avoid backlog in the future.

The mid-year 2001 report (including a list of contact information for each county's ombudsperson) is available at www.childsup.cahwnet.gov. Additional information can be found from press releases and the governor's 2002-2003 budget available at the web site.

Los Angeles County Child Support Assessed for Performance and Customer Service

Los Angeles County Child Support, with a caseload of 576,072 and $425 million collected in 2001, is California's largest child support caseload and ranks behind only Chicago and New York in size as a major metropolitan child support collection center. Responding to complaints that the county severely lagged behind the rest of the state and country in child support collections (32% orders collected) and customer service response to clients, outside contractor Policy Studies Inc. (PSI) submitted recommendations to DCSS in February 2002 based on a large-scale investigation of the child support agency. The report made the following observations and recommendations:

• Though Los Angeles County is comparable to the rest of the state in percentage of paternities established, 79% of court orders are established through default (see "Did You Know?" at the end of this brief for a California-specific explanation of default orders). The outside investigator, particularly alarmed by this figure, noted that "heavy reliance on default processes to establish orders. . . raises serious questions about both the fairness and effectiveness of the establishment process." Frequent results of such a practice include noncustodial parents unaware of paternity proceedings against them, and inaccurate order amounts and resulting noncompliance. In addition, PSI suggested that the county needs to develop a concerted effort to identify and review current cases with inappropriate orders (i.e. default orders established by the minimum needs standard, and current orders with amounts exceeding the income withholding maximum).
• The report also emphasizes the need to reduce the current sixty-to-ninety day delay in communication with fathers following the onset of noncompliance. An immediate and targeted response to fathers who may have become disabled, incarcerated, or whose situation may have otherwise changed, or whose orders were set by default action and are originally inaccurate may reduce the occurrence of impossibly high orders and the resulting accruing of arrearages.
• PSI made the following further suggestions for the establishment of more fair and accurate orders: eliminate the current $191 court fee to respond to paternity and child support action; base monthly arrearage payment amounts on a percentage of the current order rather than percentage of total arrearages owed; and eliminate the role of the Franchise Tax Board in wage withholding.
• Customer service recommendations included more human (versus automated) interaction; more knowledgeable and informed phone staff with the power to address particular cases; smaller and more local child support offices (currently six large offices serve 100,000 clients apiece); decentralized court proceedings (all court cases are handled at the downtown courthouse resulting in long travel time for most clients and difficult parking situations); and the development of more simple initial information packet, forms, and processes and procedures.

Information from the February 2002 report by Policy Studies Inc., "Performance Analysis of the Los Angeles County Child Support Program," available off-line. Please call CFFPP for more details at (608) 257-3148.

New Child Support Changes in Effect

Two new state laws passed in 2001 went into effect for child support offices in January 2002. Though perhaps minor in programmatic changes, the changes could have impact on both noncustodial and custodial parents.

By effect of Assembly Bill 891, local child support agencies are responsible for protecting the particular rights of disabled noncustodial parents owing support. Under the new statutes, those parents receiving, or eligible to receive, SSI/SSP (Supplemental Security Income/State Supplemental Payments) or SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance), may not have more than 5% of their benefits check withheld for arrearage payments; must have their current child support obligations modified by the child support agency within thirty days of the agency's receiving notice of disability; must receive child support credit for derivative government benefits which their children may receive; and may not have their cases handled by the Franchise Tax Board for collection action.

Assembly Bill 1426 will allow local child support agencies to collect from employers who do not comply with requirements that they withhold owed child support from employee paychecks. Under the law, employers may be charged 50% of the negligent child support amount plus interest, payable to either the state or custodial parent (though this amount may not be used in calculating the custodial parent's eligibility for state benefits). Child support agencies will also have the option of withdrawing the owed child support directly from employer bank accounts by means of electronic funds transfer.

For more details, visit the state child support website at www.childsup.cahwnet.gov or the National Center on Youth Law at www.ncyl.org.

California-Specific Child Support Resource Guides Available to Parents and Advocates

The National Center on Youth Law (NCYL), located in Oakland, California, has published new information sheets available to advocates and parents on navigating the child support system in California. The following sheets are available to noncustodial parents: Introduction to Child Support: Your Rights and Responsibilities as a Noncustodial Parent; Child Support and Your Driver's License (available in both Spanish and English); and Child Support and Your State License. NCYL has also provided the following sheets for custodial parents: How to Modify Your Child Support Upward; Introduction to Child Support: Your Rights and Responsibilities as a Custodial Parent (available in both English and Spanish); Child Support Enforcement Time Limits (available in both English and Spanish); Child Support Duties and Time Limits: Establishing Support; and Your Rights Under Medical Child Support. The center has also produced similar publications geared towards advocates. The publications mentioned above, in addition to previously published information sheets, are available on the NCYL website at www.youthlaw.org or by calling (510) 835-8098.

The Center on Fathers, Families, and Public Policy (CFFPP) has also recently made available a new question and answer handbook as a resource to low-income noncustodial fathers explaining the child support system and legal rights regarding paternity establishment and child support in California, in a style accessible to both advocates and low-income fathers. The new publication, in addition to previous editions specific to Los Angeles and Alameda County, is available from CFFPP at (608) 257-3148, or can be ordered or downloaded from the Center's website at www.cffpp.org.

State Prepares for Welfare Reauthorization

By September 2002, U.S. Congress must reauthorize the federal legislation that restructure welfare in 1996. Debates have been intensifying in Congress and states, and advocacy groups, in particular, are intent on examining the effects on low-income families of the large-scale changes in public aid receipt brought about by the1996 law. In California, the assessment of TANF's (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) impact amongst recipients coincides with the state's first rise (centered in the Bay Area) in the caseload since 1995, and with 100,000 families facing the first five-year life-time limit on receipt of aid in January 2003. During the last few months, there have been many activities and reports in California that may prove useful in framing the debate on welfare and low-income families.

• Assemblywoman Dion Aroner held state committee hearings in March addressing concerns about the 100,000 families in California (or one-fifth of the state's caseload) currently facing life-time limits on benefits in January 2003, about half of whom are working for low wages, and many of whom face significant barriers to employment. She is currently in the process of proposing state legislation which would stop the clock for families who are fulfilling their work requirement, live in areas of scarce employment, or for which jobs or support services are not available.
  
  See www.wclp.org or 3/20/02 article at www.sacbee.com for details.
• California grassroots and community-based groups have been organizing public hearing sessions, both in the state and at the national Capitol, to give first-hand accounts of the effects of welfare on the lives of women and families. Organizers are particularly concerned about federal proposals to increase marriage promotion efforts amongst low-income families (see the February 2002 issue of CFFPP's national Policy Briefing).
  
  For more information, visit GROWL at www.ctwo.org, LIFETIME at www.geds-to-phds.org, or Catholic Charities of California at www.cccalifornia.org. A report on welfare recipients in Butte County highlights that more welfare leavers in California are leaving the rolls due to sanctions than employment, at a rate of seven to one. Please contact CFFPP at alipscomb@cffpp.org or (608) 257-3148 for information on how to obtain the report.
• Part of the current reevaluation of welfare has focused on the effects of PRWORA's large-scale aid denial to immigrants. For current research and also policy recommendations for reauthorization, please see California's Immigrant Households and Public-Assistance Participation in the 1990s January 2002 report by the California Policy Research Center of the University of California at www.ucop.edu/cprc; How Are Immigrants Faring After Welfare Reform? submitted to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in March 2002 by the Urban Institute and the Survey Research Center of UCLA available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/immigrants-faring02; and Immigrant Priorities for TANF Reauthorization by the National Immigration Law Center January 2002 at www.nilc.org/immspbs/TANF/imm_priorities.
• A January 2002 Urban Institute report analyzes data to investigate the effect of race on the hiring of welfare recipients. Surveys were conducted by employers in four U.S. metropolitan areas, including Los Angeles, and analyzed to determine that employer suburban location and individual preference indicate a reluctance to hire welfare recipients, especially black and Latino applicants, concluding that "employment may not be very easily obtained for all welfare recipients in all times or places". Such findings may be especially relevant considering President Bush's proposed increased work requirements under Reauthorization. Full report available at www.urban.org.
• For a policy analysis of reasons for the slow decline in Calfornia's welfare caseload compared to other states since welfare reform in 1996, please see January 2002 report Does California's Welfare Policy Explain the Slower Decline of Its Caseload? available from the Public Policy Institute of California at www.ppic.org.