April 2024 CSQ

More documents

Recommendations

Info

administrative and automated enforcement, which moved case processing from “retail to wholesale.” At the same time, states were implementing income withholding and the other provisions of the Family Support Act of 1988, while OCSS had just issued its paternity rules. Two years earlier, in 1992, the U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support had released its groundbreaking “blueprint for reform” report that provided the framework for the child support provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). I was a part of a coalition of states and advocates providing input into the legislation. PRWORA ushered in the computerized child support program. Computerization was essential for the modern program, and strong enforcement authorities established its credibility to collect child support. But this stronger role also led to excesses that did harm. Change is hard. After PRWORA was enacted, states struggled to implement their new computer systems. I testified on the hill about computer systems delays, and developed the alternative computer penalty provision included in legislation. I also played a role in the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (CSPIA). Yet program performance remained dismally flat. Discouraged Congressional members threatened to move the program to the IRS or to privatize it. Just as the political threat was becoming real, PRWORA results kicked in. As the quarterly reports rolled in, I saw with amazement that performance rates had doubled in one quarter. I jumped in a cab to the House committee office, quarterly data in hand, and the political crisis was averted. The child support program had reached another crossroads: retained collections were no longer sufficient to pay for the program, and the federal government was losing money. However, states continued to “make a profit,” that is, state retained collections exceeded state expenditures. To address the problem, OMB threatened behind the scenes to cut the federal match rate to 50 percent. Yet the program was not overfunded but instead grossly underfunded. In a meeting with OMB, I identified cost recovery revenues—not the federal match rate—as the problem, and suggested that
ACF meet with stakeholders to reexamine the mission, financing, performance, and role of noncustodial parents. OMB gave us a year reprieve. We traveled around the country, holding 10 or 12 national and regional meetings. This was about 1998 and 1999. The outcome was a consensus mission that embraced low-income fathers and a plan to eliminate cost recovery. Between 1997 and 2005, Congress introduced about 40 bipartisan bills to reform distribution. A family-centered program requires a broader perspective. A more holistic child support program focuses more broadly on family needs, and relies upon collaboration with other family-serving programs. Throughout its history, the child support program has been isolated from other human services programs, and has had trouble attracting media interest and advocacy support. During our push in Congress to reverse the funding cut included in the DRA, I realized that the standard political arguments for funding the program no longer worked. I introduced a family-centered framework as OCSS commissioner in part to make the child support program more relatable to program stakeholders. I brought a broad human services perspective to my child support work. My professional background included AFDC, Food Stamps, Medicaid, child welfare, housing, employment, refugee assistance, and other programs. Throughout my career, I’ve toggled between legal, administrative, direct service, and research roles. As a division director for the Minnesota Department of Human Services, I was in charge of several crossdepartment functions, including administrative appeals, rulemaking, and grants and contracts, and received the state’s first “reinventing government” award. I also represented the state in contract negotiations to develop FAMIS, the old mainframe system for Medicaid, AFDC, and Food Stamps. During my time at CLASP, I was active in NCSEA, as well as APHSA and NCCSD. I served a term on the NCSEA board, coordinated much of NCSEA’s policy work, and participated on conference planning committees for several years. I also helped launch the <strong>CSQ</strong>, and wrote monthly legislative columns for the publication. Program staff have to get behind real change. I became OCSS commissioner during the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. To make matters worse, the DRA had included a devastating cut in child support funding, which we were only able to postpone by a couple of years. Some county child support programs experienced 30
Page 2 and 3: Table of Contents April 2024 Execut
Page 4 and 5: innovative solutions. I attended se
Page 7 and 8: Balancing Act: The Shifting Focus o
Page 9 and 10: Rightfully, the child support progr
Page 11 and 12: Moving the Program Forward: Final R
Page 13 and 14: to protect and enhance Tribal lands
Page 15 and 16: now has “an important tool to hel
Page 17 and 18: of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975. O
Page 19 and 20: Income of both parents: $15,000 Par
Page 21 and 22: From Customer to Commissioner by Vi
Page 23 and 24: Employment Demonstration (CSPED). I
Page 25: support. Better-off fathers, on the
Page 29 and 30: communications strategy and conduct
Page 31 and 32: Creation of the Child Support Reent
Page 33 and 34: incarcerated parent with a copy of
Page 35 and 36: NCSEA 2024 Policy Forum Wrap-up:
Page 37 and 38: employment on the various programs
Page 39 and 40: Carla West Connie Chesnik Corrinne

April 2024 CSQ

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?