The latest census figures show that "deadbeat" dads owe more than $5 billion in child support to 2.3 million custodial mothers and their children.
As a part of its welfare reform legislation. Congress therefore proposes to increase child- support enforcement. Some of the provisions of the bill would deny means-tested benefits such as food stamps and Medicaid to noncustodial fathers who are more than two months behind in their child support.
On the face of it, this appears to he a good policy. Congress wants to send a message to nonpaying parents that the government doesn't condone their behavior. The more fundamental goal-to augment child support collections-is also of course, worthy. But the costs of this legislation would exceed its benefits. The perverse effect would be not to increase child support collections significantly but to plunge more children further into poverty and alienate noncustodial fathers from the child support system.
To understand the effects of this provision, it is important to know whom it targets. Based on Urban Institute estimates from U.S. census data, as many as 700.000 noncustodial fathers could he affected. either because they have a child-support order but don't pay up or because they don't have a child-support order. Fathers not yet in the formal child support system will ask themselves why they should cooperate with authorities if doing so could jeopardize their benefits.
This bill is aimed at a group of fathers whose ability to pay child support is already quite limited. The median personal income of these fathers was $430 a month in 1990 (the poverty line for a single individual that year was $567 a month). Almost two-thirds of these fathers were not working at the time of the census survey. Nearly 40 percent of the noncustodial fathers potentially affected by this legislation are receiving supplemental security income (SSI) or Medicaid, which means they are disabled and unable to work or are medically needy. About half are receiving food stamps or are in public housing. The feast 10 percent of nonpaying fathers who are receiving public assistance are collecting Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Although these fathers. have children living - elsewhere, it is also worth noting that about 60 percent of them are living with children. This legislation would push one group of children further into poverty in an effort to improve the economic circumstances of another - group of children, which would not achieve our ultimate goal of reducing child poverty. Poor fathers should be expected to pay child support; But their child support orders should be `set at levels commensurate with their ability to pay. The proposed legislation adds a layer of: unfairness to the child-support system, which is- already unfair to this population. Fathers who. perceive gross inequities in the child support system will turn their backs on it and choose not to comply. taking with them potential sources of increased child support.
How is the current system unfair to lower income fathers? In most cases, their child support orders are in excess of their ability to pay. Noncustodial fathers who become unemployed. or disabled cannot simply walk into a support enforcement office and have their orders adjusted downward as the result of their change in status. The process for adjusting orders is quite bureaucratic-information must he verified, forms reviewed, and in man states a judge must approve the modification. This takes time and, often, money.
There also is a reluctance to reduce child support orders on the assumption that incomes will eventually improve. But in the meantime arrearages accumulate. According to U.S. census data. only 4 percent of noncustodial fathers who were paying child support under an order received downward adjustment when their earnings felt by more than 15 percent between one year and the next.
Until this aspect of the child support system is improved, government should begin to think of more positive ways to enable these fathers to pay their child support obligations. One suggestion is to offer a safety net to poor fathers daring hard times as long as they cooperate in establishing a repayment plan for past due child support. Such repayment plans should reflect noncustodial fathers current income in accordance with the child support guidelines in the relevant state.
The child-support system needs to be more flexible regarding changes in the economic 6w- circumstances of noncustodial fathers. Some of, them have experienced a hardship and have become eligible for means-tested benefits. of Offering flexibility to these' fathers will increase the chance that they will pay child support later when they are better able to do so.
The writer is a senior research associate at the Urban Institute.