Effective child support policy for low‐income families: evidence from street level research

Abstract

Since 1984, policymakers have increasingly turned their attention to reforming the child support system. Despite this attention, the child support system has often failed to increase the economic security of single-parent families. This article analyzes findings from recent qualitative studies to explain why the child support system breaks down for so many low-income families. This research suggests that parents often prefer informal arrangements of support and do not comply with child support regulations they perceive to be unfair, counterproductive, or punitive. It also suggests that there is a mismatch between the premises and goals of child support policy and what low-income parents desire from the system. This mismatch impedes low-income parents' willingness and ability to comply with existing policy, even when they wish to do so, and will make reform difficult.

Surveillance and System Avoidance

“…Similarly, in Harris, Evans, and Beckett's (2010:1782) research on legal financial obligations stemming from involvement in the criminal justice system, some respondents reported "fear of being sanctioned for nonpayment led them to hide from authorities." After the U.S. Congress passed the Child Support Recovery Act in 1992, which administratively linked child support and public assistance records (Rich, Garfinkel, and Gao 2007;Wimberly 2000), research suggests the fear of detection led some men to withdraw from formal employment and increase underground work (Holzer, Offner, and Sorensen 2005;Waller and Plotnick 2001).…”

The Relationship Between Non-Resident Fathers’ Social Networks and Social Capital and the Establishment of Paternity

“…The characteristics include non-resident fathers' age, race and ethnicity, educational attainment, employment status, and income status. Numerous categorical variables addressing non-resident fathers' age, race and ethnicity, and educational, employment, and income status have been used considerably in the child support enforcement literature (Waller and Plotnick 2001).…”

Reducing child support debt and its consequences: Can forgiveness benefit all?

“…2 Other factors contributing to NCPs' inability to pay child support include poor job skills and employment opportunities, low levels of education, incarceration, unstable health, and a lack of assets to negotiate large, lump sum payments for conventional debt-forgiveness (Cancian & Meyer, 2004;Pate, 2002;Pukstas, Albrecht, Auten, Drew & Dabruzzi, 2004). Waller and Plotnick (2001) describe a -mismatch‖ between underlying assumptions of the child support system (e.g., that NCPs are divorced fathers working full-time) and the social and economic realities of many low-income NCPs (e.g., who often have never been married and face multiple barriers to stable employment) that diminishes these parents' willingness and ability to comply with existing policies.…”

“…Even if established orders are within the means of NCPs, subsequent changes in employment or health status, or periods of incarceration may call for order modification, which rarely occurs automatically and may be difficult for low-income parents to secure due to lack of information or legal representation (Pearson, 2004;Roberts, 2001;Turetsky, 2007). Retroactive modification of past due child support payments is generally prohibited (Waller & Plotnick, 2001). …”

“…In addition to the consequences triggered by reduced income, some hypothesize that non-payment of child support may also exacerbate conflict between custodial and noncustodial parents and reduce NCPs' contact with children (Bartfeld, 2003). For NCPs, debt may deter work, as the process of automatic wage withholding may encourage parents to go into the underground economy to avoid cooperating with the formal child support system (Waller & Plotnick, 2001). 4 NCPs with delinquent payments may also be subject to enforcement actions, including loss of driver's license, liens against vehicles or property, and incarceration that may depress their earning capacity and further exacerbate debt levels (Holzer, Offner & Sorensen, 2005;Pearson, 2004;Turetsky, 2007;Western 2002).…”