BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    






                           SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
                         Senator Joseph L. Dunn, Chair
                           2005-2006 Regular Session


          AJR 17                                                 A
          Assembly Member  Jones                                 J
          As Amended June 1, 2005                                R
          Hearing Date: June 7, 2005                             
          GMO:cjt                                                1
                                                                 7
                                                                 

                                     SUBJECT
                                         
                            Child Support Penalties


                                   DESCRIPTION  

          This resolution would request the U.S. Congress to enact  
          the Child Support Reinvestment Act of 2005, recently  
          introduced by Congresswoman Matsui, to allow states that  
          have been assessed federal penalties for failing to timely  
          implement an automated child support collection program, to  
          reinvest those penalties in child support program  
          improvements and automated system development and to use as  
          a base year for the calculation of those penalties the year  
          prior to when penalties were first imposed.

                                    BACKGROUND  

          In 1999, the Legislature dramatically enacted structural  
          reforms in the state's child support enforcement program.   
          It transferred state responsibility for the program from  
          the Department of Social Services (DSS) to a newly created  
          Department of Child Support Services (DCSS), transferred  
          local responsibility for the program from district  
          attorneys to local child support agencies which, except for  
          hiring decisions, were also placed under the control of  
          DCSS, and created a complaint resolution and fair hearing  
          process for resolving child support complaints.  [SB 542  
          (Burton/Schiff), Ch. 480, Stats. 1999; AB 196 (Kuehl), Ch.  
          478, Stats. 1999; AB 472 (Aroner), Ch. 803, Stats. 1999.]  
          The new DCSS was required to develop uniform forms,  
                                                                 
          (more)



          AJR 17 (Jones)
          Page 2



          policies and programs, and performance standards.  The  
          reformed program then was funded entirely through federal  
          and state funds.  If local agencies failed to meet required  
          performance standards, DCSS was to assist in program  
          operations and management.

          Title IV-D of the Social Security Act requires all states  
          with a welfare program to operate a child support program  
          which establishes and enforces child support obligations.  
          [P.L. 93-647 (H.R. 17045), 42 U.S.C.  651 et seq.]  The  
          Act was later amended to require that states implement a  
          statewide automated child support system for Title IV-D  
          cases by October 1, 1995 (extended to October 1, 1997).    
          The federal Child Support Performance and Incentive Act  
          (CSPIA) of 1998 established new federal performance  
          measures and an incentive and penalty structure to fund and  
          motivate states to improve their child support system  
          performance. The CSPIA established federal incentives for  
          states based on five performance measures:  (1) number of  
          paternities established; (2) number of support orders  
          established; (3) current support collected; (4) arrears  
          collected; and (5) cost-effectiveness of the program.  In  
          order to obtain incentive payments and to avoid penalties,  
          the state's performance data must be deemed by the federal  
          government to be complete and reliable.  

          The money in the incentive pool, which the states must  
          share, is capped at $446 million for the federal fiscal  
          year 2005, $458 million in 2006, and $471 million in 2007.   
          In addition each $1 received from the pool is matched with  
          $2 of federal matching dollars.

          Because many states were not able to complete their child  
          support automation systems by the deadline, CSPIA provided  
          an alternative penalty scheme: failure to complete the  
          automation system would result in a loss of federal  
          administrative funding of the child support program,  
          beginning at 4 percent the first year and rising to 30  
          percent by the fifth and subsequent years until the  
          automation system is certified as complete.  The penalty is  
          reduced by 90% in any year that a state successfully  
          completes its automation system.

          In March 2005 the Assembly Committee on Judiciary conducted  
          an informational hearing on the status of the state's  
                                                                       




          AJR 17 (Jones)
          Page 3



          implementation of the federally required certified  
          statewide child support automation system, and the  
          penalties imposed on the state by its failure to timely  
          implement such a program.  According to the report prepared  
          by that committee, the results of California's child  
          support performance efforts since 2000 are positive: the  
          state has improved performance on three of the five federal  
          measures (paternities established, support orders  
          established and current support collections), held flat on  
          another (arrears collections), and lost ground on the last  
          (cost effectiveness).

          To date, California has paid the federal government over  
          $750 million in penalties.  This number is expected to  
          reach $1.2 billion by 2006, when California hopes to  
          complete the system.  The state has entered into contracts  
          with IBM and Bank of America to develop and implement the  
          system.  The first phase, which should end federal  
          penalties, is scheduled for completion on September 30,  
          2006.




                             CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
           
          This resolution states that California has been penalized  
          by the federal government since 1998 for failure to fully  
          implement a certified statewide child support automation  
          system and that these penalties have increased from 4  
          percent to 30 percent of the federal share of the  
          Department of Child Support Services program's  
          administrative costs and will continue at that high rate  
          until the state has a certified statewide automation system  
          in place.

          This resolution states that the state has incurred a total  
          penalty of $754 million through the 2004 federal fiscal  
          year, and that by 2006 these penalties will reach $1.2  
          billion.  The resolution states that California's child  
          support automated system is expected to be operational in  
          the 2006 federal fiscal year.

          The resolution declares that the federal penalties no  
          longer serve their purpose and that in fact, they penalize  
                                                                       




          AJR 17 (Jones)
          Page 4



          the state for increasing its spending on program  
          improvements and automation development and reduce the  
          ability of the program to continue collecting child support  
          payments for low-income families.

          This resolution further declares that the Legislature  
          favors changing the penalty structure to encourage  
          increased investment in the program and to impose penalties  
          based on the year prior to the year penalties were first  
          imposed rather than just the prior year.

          This resolution then memorializes the U.S. Congress and  
          each representative and senator from California to enact  
          the Child Support Reinvestment Act of 2005, recently  
          introduced by Congresswoman Matsui, to allow states that  
          have been assessed federal penalties to reinvest them in  
          child support program improvements and automation system  
          development.

                                     COMMENT
           
          1.    Proponents say flawed federal penalty structure calls  
            for congressional action

             According to proponents of this resolution, since 1997  
            California has been saddled with significant federal  
            penalties while it has procured, designed and developed a  
            new statewide child support automation system.  While the  
            penalties should end when the state completes its new  
            system and gets certification, the remaining unpaid  
            penalties represent a significant amount that can be used  
            to further improve the system that the state will have  
            put in place.  

            Proponents also state that the penalties accrued because  
            the state's focus on meeting the federal deadlines along  
            the way significantly and negatively influenced the  
            state's decisions.  For example, they point to the first  
            version of the Statewide Automated Child Support System,  
            which was hastily installed even though it failed user  
            acceptance testing.  "The rush to get the State out of  
            federal penalties as soon as possible poses the same risk  
            to the current project as the penalties mount." [Letter  
            from National Center for Youth Law, dated May 26, 2005.]

                                                                       




          AJR 17 (Jones)
          Page 5



            Another flaw of the federal penalty structure relates to  
            the manner by which the penalties are calculated.   
            Currently, since the federal penalties are based on the  
            program administrative costs of the prior federal fiscal  
            year, the penalties escalate as program spending  
            increases.  Thus the state pays more penalties as it  
            spends more money to complete and certify the project in  
            order to end the penalties.  This catch 22 is an absurd  
            result of the penalty structure, proponents state.

            This resolution would encourage Congress to enact the  
            Child Reinvestment Act of 2005 (H.R. 2409), to allow for  
            reinvestment of the penalty that would otherwise be  
            imposed on states into the child support collection  
            program and for restructuring the penalty calculation to  
            ensure increased investments in the program.  Passage of  
            H.R. 2509 would relieve the state of $128 million in  
            federal penalties, which "do little to advance the  
            progress of child support automation system development  
            and take crucial resources that could be more  
            beneficially directed to programs and services for  
            disadvantaged and vulnerable children."  

           
          Support: National Center for Youth Law

          Opposition: None Known

                                     HISTORY
           
          Source: Author

          Related Pending Legislation: None Known

          Prior Legislation: AJR 18 (Aroner, Res. Ch. 117, Stats.  
                       2001) was a similar resolution, when the state  
                       paid penalties only in the amount of  $163  
                       million.

          Prior Vote: Asm. Jud. (Ayes 9, Noes 0)
                    Asm. Flr. (Ayes 71, Noes 0)

          
                                 **************