Introduction

Parents gauge their success by the success of their children. And communities often judge themselves on the collective care and attention afforded their youngest citizens. It is difficult to envision principles more essential to a sustainable society.

The Little Hoover Commission has developed a tradition of examining public policies intended to serve California's children. The Commission has reviewed programs for abused and neglected children, homeless children and latchkey children. The Commission has conducted several reviews of educational and juvenile justice policies. In this report, the Commission looks at a state program that involves more California children than any other public program besides education.

The size and scope of the Child Support Enforcement Program is the product of a rapidly growing number of single-parent families, an evolving public assistance program, and perpetual compassion for children who -- because of circumstances beyond their control -- grow up in poverty.

The Commission was drawn to the issue by the relationship between welfare reform and child support enforcement. It wanted to examine claims that the enforcement program could be more effective than it is today in recouping government expenses and providing financial help for families who will no longer be able to rely on public assistance as a permanent means of survival.

In conducting the study, the Commission empaneled a Child Support Advisory Committee composed of representatives of state and local agencies, parent and advocacy groups, researchers and the private bar. The Advisory Committee met four times to identify the hurdles that have prevented the enforcement program from becoming more effective and efficient, and to discuss potential reforms. (A list of Advisory Committee members is in Appendix A.)

The dynamics of the committee also revealed the antagonism and frustration that has come to characterize efforts to reform the Child Support Enforcement Program.

State officials believe the program is on the mend, that most of the criticism leveled against it is unwarranted, and that those criticisms that are justified will be cured by automation.

County officials, similarly, believe their programs operate as well as can be expected, given the social problems and public priorities. An excerpt from a letter to the editor by the Los Angeles County District Attorney and Family Support Bureau director captures the sentiment:

It is both inaccurate and misguided to blame child-support enforcement agencies for the poverty suffered by children who do not receive regular child-support payments. Primary responsibility for this growing social epidemic rests with parents who fail to meet their legal and moral obligations.

Divergently, parents and their advocates are much more willing to blame a program that they believe too often fails to perform as intended.

In addition to the Advisory Committee, the Little Hoover Commission conducted two public hearings, one in January 1996 and a second in October 1996. (A list of the witnesses is in Appendix B.) Among the witnesses was a representative of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the reshaped child support enforcement program became a model for the child support reforms in the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 1996.

The Little Hoover Commission also conducted an extensive literature review. That research was followed by interviews with experts and advocates in California and other states.

And finally, the Commission turned to the individual counties that have the day-to-day responsibility for enforcing support -- to develop a detailed understanding of how the systems operate, how the counties relate to the State and how practitioners define the program's problems and the potential solutions. The Commission conducted site visits at seven county Family Support Divisions and conducted in-depth interviews with the family support directors from another 17 counties. (A list of the counties visited is in Appendix C and a list of the county directors interviewed is in Appendix D.)

The Commission's conclusions are a product of this process and are documented in this report. Because of the urgency of this issue, the Commission has developed recommendations that it believes to be politically feasible and financially practical.

The report begins with a Transmittal Letter, an Executive Summary and this Introduction. The following sections include a Background and five chapters: Defining Vision, Creating Accountability, Maximizing Collections, Realistic Automation and Fair Process, and When Welfare Ends. The report closes with a Conclusion, Appendices and Endnotes.