Review of Statewide Uniform Child Support Guideline Child Support Directors Membership Meeting January 20, 2011 Michael Wright Child Support Program Manager.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
LAWA Living Wage Q & A Session OFFICE OF CONTRACT COMPLIANCE.
Advertisements

March 29, 2012 Improving Health Outcomes for Children in Foster Care: the Role of Electronic Information Exchange.
October 15, 2009 Solving the Dropout Crisis in California Russell W. Rumberger California Dropout Research Project UC Santa Barbara California Symposium.
Retirement Planning Fresno County Employees’ Retirement Association Location: 1111 H Street Fresno, CA Phone: (559) Stop Mail #: 40 Web Address:
Mental Health Data Workbook and Training Ann Arneill-Py, PhD, Executive Officer CA Mental Health Planning Council Stephanie Oprendek, PhD, Senior Associate.
Ontario Electricity Support Program
Overview and Children’s Advocates’ Response The Healthy Families Program Transition into Medi-Cal Kristen Golden Testa Director, CA Health Program The.
Income Shares – Getting Started Only one worksheet is needed to calculate support, regardless of the parenting situation(s) represented. Support.
1 HOBBS STRAUS DEAN & WALKER, LLP WASHINGTON, DC | PORTLAND, OR | OKLAHOMA CITY, OK | SACRAMENTO, CA To Insure or Not to Insure Opportunities for Tribes.
1 Georgia’s New Child Support Guidelines: Income Shares * Step by Step Process of Calculating Child Support * Effective Date is January 1, 2007.
Poverty: Facts, Causes and Consequences Hilary Hoynes University of California, Davis California Symposium on Poverty October 2009.
Employer-Sponsored Health Coverage Release Slides Tuesday, September 11, 2012 March 15, 2013.
Incarceration among Non-custodial Parents: Findings from Maryland Research Pamela C. Ovwigho, Ph.D. Family Welfare Research & Training Group University.
1 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REFORM PROPOSALS AND DEBATES National civil society consultation August 2008.
Reforming and Restructuring the Hospital Indigent Care Pool Methodology New York State Department of Health Commissioner Richard F. Daines, M.D. November.
1 Georgia’s New Child Support Guidelines* Income Shares *Effective Date is July 1, 2006.
Alternative Child Support Models Washington Child Support Group December 2007 Session II.
Let’s Be Realistic. Ability to Pay Kansas Practices/Outreach Establishment of OrdersModification of Orders Collection of Arrears Incentives Agenda.
Child Support Services Date. Purpose Child Support Services exists to establish and enforce court orders for paternity, child support and medical support.
Incarceration among Non-custodial Parents: Implications for Welfare & Child Support Programs Pamela Caudill Ovwigho, PhD Catherine E. Born, PhD Correne.
Research and Planning Administration National Insurance Institute National Insurance Institute Research & Planning Administration Herzliya Conference The.
1 Making Universal Health Care Work Jon Forman Alfred P. Murrah Professor of Law University of Oklahoma “The Future of Employer-Provided Benefits” John.
The Self-Sufficiency Standard and Calculator A Path to Economic Security.
Legislative Analyst’s Office Presented to: Ryan Woolsey, Fiscal and Policy Analyst CSDA/CWDA Policy Symposium March 4, 2015.
Bringing Asset-Building Services to Families Involved in the Child Support System CFED 2010 Assets Learning Conference Washington, D.C. September 22, 2010.
1 NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY Subcommittee on Quality Measures for Children's Healthcare in Medicaid and CHIP Overview.
Training Primer on the KYOVR Consumer Cost Participation Procedure.
CSDA Membership Meeting May Performance Incentives Modified in 1998 by Child Support Performance Incentive Act (CSPIA) Based on a State’s performance.
The 8 th Annual COMMUNITY FORUM on the Conditions of Children in Orange County WELCOME.
Employer Responsibility in Massachusetts: Recent Proposal Overview Audrey Morse Gasteier Deputy Director of Policy & Research ACA Interagency Task Force.
Effective Management and Compliance 1 ANA GRANTEE MEETING  FEBRUARY 5, 2015.
Prepared by American Humane Association and the California Administrative Office of the Courts.
National Study of Low Income Energy Programs Lessons for Connecticut January 29, 2008 David Carroll - APPRISE Roger Colton – Fisher, Sheehan, and Colton.
ESB From Health Care Reform This is only a brief summary that reflects our current understanding of select provisions of the law, often in.
Health Care Reform and its Impact on Michigan Janet Olszewski, Director Michigan Department of Community Health Senate Health Policy Committee May 5, 2010.
©2008 Office of Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley Community Benefits Guidelines Office of Attorney General Martha Coakley February 23, 2009.
TA Partnership SUSTAINABILITY: MEDICAID AND OTHER HEALTH INSURANCE MARY B. TIERNEY, M.D. September 25, 2003 MARY B. TIERNEY, M.D. September 25, 2003.
UllmanView Graph # 1 OVERVIEW Background and Basics of Cost-Sharing Designing Premiums Analysis of Impacts of Four States’ Premium Policies Implications.
Establishing Foster Care Minimum Adequate Rates for Children Julie FarberDiane DePanfilisKaren Jorgenson Director of PolicyDirectorExecutive Director Children’s.
Superintendent’s Panel on Excellence in Adult Education.
Child Support Schedule Workgroup Points of Consensus After November 14, 2008.
1 Presentation to Georgia Child Support Commission November 30, 2005 Jane C. Venohr, Ph.D. Policy Studies Inc Wynkoop St, Suite 300 Denver, CO
Quality and Utilization in Healthy Kids programs in California Michael R. Cousineau, Dr. PH. Gregory D. Stevens, Ph.D. Em Arpawong, MPH Kyoko Rice Trevor.
Arrears Management Two States, Two Ways
1 The Special Education Assessment and IEP Process EDPOWER Teacher Institute 2013.
UNDERSTANDING THE POLICY IMPACT OF SECTION 125 PLANS Lynn Quincy Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) July 18, 2008 Lynn Quincy Mathematica Policy Research,
Joint Task Force on Local Effort Assistance August 20, 2002 Bill Freund, Consultant To The Task Force.
1 SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES Amy C. O’Hara, Esq. Littman Krooks LLP
Indicators of Progress: Objective and Subjective Indicators Constructing Indicators of Progress/Well-being with Citizens/Communities Council of Europe-
UNIVERSITY BUDGET ADVISORY COUNCIL CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SAN BERNARDINO MEETING AGENDA OCTOBER 31, 2008.
DubayView Graph # 1 OVERVIEW What is Crowd-Out and Why Do We Care About it? What Do State Officials Need to Know About Crowd- Out? What Does the Literature.
Introduction to the Tribal Child Support Enforcement Program.
Child Support Guidelines Issues. Agenda Parenting Time Order v. Actual Overnights Adjustment for supporting other children (2009 CFSC) Multiple/simultaneous.
Overview New Federal Regulations and Guidance David Panush Director, Government Relations March 22, 2012 California Health Benefit Exchange Board Meeting.
Child Support How Much is Appropriate?
Department of Transportation City Council August 31, 2015 Annual Self Certification Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County.
1 Strategic Plan Review. 2 Process Planning and Evaluation Committee will be discussing 2 directions per meeting. October meeting- Finance and Governance.
October 2, 2012 RULES UPDATE DRAP CONFERENCE Oct. 2, 2012 Vivian Appel, Esq. Family Court Administrator Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas.
A Strategic Approach to Managing Existing Arrears Paula Roberts Center for Law and Social Policy October 4, 2006.
Child Support Directors Association of California in partnership with California Department of Child Support Services Guideline Calculator October 7, 2010.
Child Support Directors Association of California in partnership with California Department of Child Support Services Medical Support Regulations: Changing.
Analysis of the Egyptian Labour Market with a Special Focus on MDG Employment Indicators Dr. Magued Osman.
MAKE OUR WORK COUNT October 20, CSDA Annual Child Support Training Conference and Expo Presenter: David Garcia, Butte County Department of Child.
Fair Pay for Northern California Nonprofits: The 2016 Compensation & Benefits Survey HIGHLIGHTS AND TRENDS May 12, 2016 Sponsored by CompassPoint Nonprofit.
1 Presentation to Georgia Child Support Commission September 9, 2005 Jane C. Venohr, Ph.D. Policy Studies Inc Wynkoop St, Suite 300 Denver, CO
Federal Performance Measures New Directors Orientation Child Support Directors Association.
CASBO 2016 Conference “Will New LCFF Base Revenues be Sufficient to Fund Your District's New Annual Costs?” Increasing Costs for New and Ongoing State.
National Study of Low Income Energy Programs Lessons for Connecticut
An act relating to child support awards….
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AB 1600 UPDATE
Presentation transcript:

Review of Statewide Uniform Child Support Guideline Child Support Directors Membership Meeting January 20, 2011 Michael Wright Child Support Program Manager Judicial Council Administrative Office of the Courts

Legislative Mandate CA Family Code section 4054: Judicial Council to review every four years Federal regulations (45 C.F.R. § ): States to review every four years

Legislative Mandate Ensure that guideline results in the determination of appropriate child support award amounts Assess economic data on child-rearing costs Review case data to analyze application of guideline and to ensure deviations are limited

Study Components Research on the cost of raising children Case file review data analysis Literature review on special topics (low- income adjustment and medical support) Focus groups (case file review findings and fairness, appropriateness, and comprehensibility of guideline)

Sampling and Data Collection Cases w/ filings and orders in calendar year counties (5 large, 3 mid- sized, and 3 small) Target sample: 1,000 cases

Case File Review Counties Large-sized counties Los Angeles Alameda Fresno Santa Clara San Diego Medium-sized counties San Luis Obispo Solano Tulare Small and very small counties Amador Siskiyou Tehama Sum of sampled counties

Guideline Deviations

Reasons for Deviations

Order Entry Method Exhibit Order Entry Method in IV-D and Non-IV-D Cases (Percentages of Cases) IV-D CasesNon-IV-D Cases Default*68%22% Contested*15%31% Stipulations*18%47% Number *The difference between the groups is significant at <.05.

Low-Income Adjustment Exhibit Eligibility for and Application of the Low-Income Adjustment in the 2010 and 2005 Reviews (Percentages of Cases) 2010 Review 2005 Review Percentage of obligors not eligible for the LIA 86%85% Percentage of obligors eligible for the LIA 1415 Of those eligible for the LIA: LIA applied5952 LIA not applied4048 Unknown10

Focus Groups Child support commissioners Broad cross-section of advocacy groups representing CPs, NCPs, and children

Focus Groups Feedback on the fairness, appropriateness, and comprehensibility of the guideline Interpretation of case file review findings

Focus Groups Comprehension Interrelationship Fairness Application

Selected Conclusions The California guideline formula is generally within the range of measurements of child-rearing expenditures—but at the high end of the range of measurements of child-rearing expenditures.

Selected Conclusions Commissioners and advocates agreed that the current low- income adjustment is inadequate.

Selected Conclusions The percentage of orders entered through default, 46 percent, is back up. This is after a concerted effort several years ago to lower the number of orders entered by default in California.

Selected Conclusions The percentage of orders involving presumed income has increased since the last guideline review. The percentage of orders with income imputation, however, has not increased.

Selected Conclusions Health insurance is frequently ordered, and medical support is ordered in most IV-D cases.

Selected Conclusions California statute already provides that either or both parents can be ordered to provide insurance coverage for the children and that orders allocate the child’s uninsured health-care expenses between the parents.

Selected Conclusions Historically, many IV-D families and obligors have poverty or low incomes. The current high unemployment and underemployment rates likely contribute to even higher incidences of poverty and low income than were previously documented.

Selected Conclusions The California guideline amounts for low-income obligors are high relative to other states. The low-income adjustment under the California guideline is inadequate.

Selected Conclusions Focus group discussions among advocates reveal that parents frequently fail to comprehend what goes into the guideline calculation and need more education to improve their understanding.

Recommendation One Update and/or modify the low- income adjustment in the guideline

Recommendation Two Evaluate the current income attribution policies (presumed income)

Recommendation Three Educate stakeholders and equip them with information so they can make the current system work better Develop strategies to engage stakeholders and encourage active participation in the child support process

Recommendation Four Adopt necessary conforming changes so California can meet the 2008 federal medical support regulation

Recommendation Five Encourage better and more detailed information in the case file

Current approach to low-income parents Applies to incomes below $1000 net per month No change in threshold since established

Low-income Policy Considerations Balancing Competing Policy Consideration Best interest of the child standard Impact on the paying parent Impact on child support program

Best Interest of the Child High standard of living and high cost of raising children in California Importance of child support as source of support for low- income children

Impact on the Paying Parent Inability of paying parent to meet subsistence needs Reduction in incentive to work/underground economy Impact on parent/child involvement

Impact on the Child Support Program and Performance Nationally this factor rarely a primary policy consideration Compliance and accumulation of arrears Nonpayment and burden on agency

State Solutions to Low-Income Parents Income attribution policies (imputed and presumed income) Thresholds and formulas for applying low-income adjustments Self-Support Reserves Minimum orders

Income Attribution Policies Underlying policy concerns when income unknown Finding a balance between too low orders or too high orders Incentives to default if too low/disadvantages to children’s benefit Order amounts beyond payer's ability to pay & associated disincentives

Thresholds and Formulas for Applying Low-income Adjustments California’s approach—fixed threshold; no annual adjustment or indexing; no adjustment for number of supported children Other states approaches Full-time minimum wage presumption predominates Indexing for automatic adjustments in economy Adjustments for multiple children and gradual phase out

Self-Support Reserves 30 States use self-support reserves Typically % of federal poverty level for 1 (e.g. 100% 130% etc) Can index automatically annually to changes in poverty level

Minimum Orders 40 states impose minimum orders Most states with self-support reserves also use minimum orders Some use fixed minimum ($50) or range ($20 to $150 per month) Application of true “no ability” case ($0 orders for incarcerated or welfare cases)

Next Steps Report approval process Stakeholder workgroups to get consensus on specific recommended approaches for California Potential Legislation

Questions & Answers