May 13, 1997
	The Honorable Pete Wilson Governor of California
	The Honorable Bill Lockyer President Pro Tempore of the Senate     and Members of the Senate		The Honorable Rob Hurtt Senate Republican Floor Leader
	The Honorable Cruz M. Bustamante Speaker of the Assembly     and Members of the Assembly		The Honorable Curt Pringle Assembly Republican Leader

Dear Governor and Members of the Legislature: In the crush of public business, policy makers often do not have the opportunity to ask two important questions of existing government programs: Are the programs performing to commonly held expectations? And, are those expectations aligned with evolving community needs and public policies? After reviewing California's Child Support Enforcement Program, the Little Hoover Commission has concluded that the program is falling far short of its traditional expectations. Of equal importance, given welfare reform and concerns over the financial health of the State's poorest families, the program is ill-prepared to take on a larger role in helping single-parent families meet basic human needs. Moreover, significant improvements in the enforcement program cannot be achieved until the State resolves the immediate problem of the malfunctioning Statewide Automated Child Support System. The massive investment of time and money into a computer network that has so far done more harm than good to the child support effort raises serious questions about the State's oversight procedures for procuring and implementing large automation projects. Historically, the Child Support Enforcement Program was created as an adjunct of the Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program -- tracking down missing parents in welfare cases and requiring them to reimburse the government for its expenses. A second purpose was later added: securing support for families who without regular child support payments also might fall onto the welfare rolls. Limits on welfare benefits will transform child support into one of the primary means of financial survival for many single-parent families. In other words, the Child Support Enforcement Program in the future will not be about keeping single-parent families off of welfare or reimbursing the government for welfare benefits. It will be about supporting children. One of the inexcusable shortcomings of the existing effort is the lack of reliable and comparable performance data. But the best numbers available show that fewer than one in eight children who are entitled to financial help from an absent parent receives that support. While that may have been tolerable when the poorest of those children received AFDC, it is unconscionable if those children become wholly dependent on custodial parents finding jobs and noncustodial parents paying support. Every child counts and California has been committed to enforcing child support since the days when cases were rare and the numbers few. But circumstances have elevated that public commitment to a public imperative. Today, one in three children in California are born out of wedlock. Four in 10 children are not living with both of their biological parents. By one estimate, 3.5 million children in California require child support services. California's program directors and policy makers in recent years have created new enforcement tools such as the Franchise Tax Board's delinquent collections program. But much more needs to be done for the program to ensure that more support is paid to more children. The Little Hoover Commission's report, which is being transmitted to the State's top policy makers with this letter, includes findings and recommendations in five areas: Vision. Child support efforts in California will only be successful when the management of the program is improved and the critical mass of political support is brought to bear -- on businesses and the bureaucracy -- to make child support an inescapable obligation on the part of non-custodial parents. Accountability. In California, day-to-day functions of the enforcement program are delegated to the counties. But the current system of gathering and reporting performance data -- along with performance evaluation and incentive systems -- is so weak that the State is rewarding excuses rather than results. Division of labor. Child support officials have defended aggressively the current division of responsibilities between the State and the counties. But federal mandates, technological advances and successes at the state level require the division of labor to be re-examined, and for policy makers to fashion a system that encourages continuous improvement. Automation and process. The State's centralized automation system is overdue, over budget and will only perform as anticipated if the State takes the leadership responsibility to pull together the best talent available to evaluate its options. As automation is achieved steps must be taken to protect the rights of, and provide accurate information to, custodial and non-custodial parents. Welfare reform. Finally, in order to meet the challenges presented by welfare reform, the State must assess the potential for child support to meet the needs of poor families. It must develop innovative strategies for reaching those non-custodial parents and it must document the costs and benefits of such programs to allow for informed policy making. An additional controversy that has preoccupied the public agenda concerns the guidelines used by judges to set the award paid by non-custodial parents. The debate, which is described in the background section of the report, focuses on raising or lowering the award levels. Without quantitative data, the debate has been dominated by dueling anecdotes. Fortunately, the Judicial Council is studying the issue and is expected later this year to provide the kind of information that would allow for thoughtful consideration of potential amendments. For that reason, the Commission did not reach any conclusions concerning the guidelines. Moreover, the time and resources that policy makers have to spend on this issue in the near term should be allocated toward making the enforcement program effective. Most of the child support cases in California do not have orders in place -- and in those cases, where the greatest difference can be made in the lives of the youngest Californians -- the guidelines are not yet the defining issue. The Little Hoover Commission stands ready to work with the Legislature and the Governor to make these reforms a reality.

	Sincerely, Richard R. Terzian Chairman