The
Father of
Today's Child Support Public Policy
THE FATHER OF TODAY’S CHILD SUPPORT PUBLIC POLICY, HIS PERSONAL EXPLOITATION OF THE
SYSTEM, AND THE FALLACY OF HIS "INCOME SHARES" MODEL
by
James R. Johnston*
(August 1998)
INTRODUCTION
Part 1 presents an overview of Dr. Robert Williams’ influence over the development of the child support system across
the United States, and his concurrent start up and operation of a company while a key consultant with the government
working exclusively in the creation of public policy. A chronology of activity during this time (1983-1990) is included.
Williams has been and continues to consult with States regarding child support policy and enforcement.
Part 2 focuses on the "Income Shares" model originated by Williams in the 1980’s, and the underlying national
economic data sources that he uses to feed it. As of this writing at least 31 states use this model and the underlying
economics. Many of the presumptions used in states using other models come philosophically from the same thinking
advocated by him. This section will discuss the fundamental flaws of the model, as well as the failure of the underlying
economics that ultimately lead to support obligation numbers.
As you will see, Williams clearly drove the elements of today’s child support system, concurrently creating a company
that could exploit the very programs he was helping to establish. The company, Policy Studies, Incorporated of Denver,
essentially brags about this in their company promotional material. His model and the underlying economics fall far
short in trying to result in equitable and reasonable child support for our nation’s children. Financial considerations are
given total weight based on a flawed process, while emotional child support is ignored. The latter is not a "free good",
and by ignoring the reality that there are two parents now in two households, our children suffer.
I want to thank Roger Gay and Greg Palumbo for their contributions and advice on the content of this paper.
*Jim Johnston is a joint custodial parent of two children in Wichita, Kansas. He’s the Chair of a local group called
KIDSVIEW, working to maximize dual parent involvement in their children’s lives outside the intact family. They are
working hard at changing legislation in Kansas regarding custody and support, and nationally by lobbying their
Congressional delegation on the need for gender neutrality in legislation dealing with children. In February of this year
Johnston was appointed by the Chief Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court to serve on the Child Support Guidelines
Advisory Committee. He can be contacted at (316) 685-6297, or via e-mail at jjohns1043@aol.com.
PART 1: DR. ROBERT WILLIAMS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON TODAY’S CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM. A
QUESTION OF ETHICS?
As anyone familiar with domestic law would know, child support in the United States is a growing multi-billion dollar
public policy issue. Much controversy surrounds it, from determination of the amounts owed and by whom, as well as
the punitive enforcement measures being undertaken at local, state, and federal levels. Below I detail information about
one man’s efforts at influencing, establishing, and ultimately exploiting this lucrative "industry". Dr. Robert Williams,
founder and primary owner of a privately held business in Denver, Policy Studies, Inc., has cleverly manipulated and in
effect, set up the child support mechanisms throughout the US, working within the federal and various state
governments, creating a market from which he has been and continues to profit. He clearly is the "father" of current US
child support public policy. His efforts have cost federal and state taxpayers billions of dollars, without appreciably
improving the lot of children in spite of the rhetoric to the contrary. In fact, many would argue that in the process, he is
harming children through establishment of an overall approach that is out of control, disables noncustodial parents
from meaningful involvement with their children, and overall, misses the reality of what child support should truly be.
1.Williams consulted with the US Health and Human Services (HHS) agency’s Office of Child Support
Enforcement from 1983-1990, directing research and technical assistance for the federally funded Child Support
Guidelines Project. During this time, a federally-driven approach was developed in Washington that has lead to
significantly increased child support obligations owed. (Dramatic new legislation was passed in Washington in
1984 and in 1988 that he clearly influenced). He consulted with many States as well, and continues to do so
today.
2.In 1984, one year after establishing his influence with the government, Williams started Policy Studies, Incorporated in Denver with 3 employees.
3.In 1987, for use in consulting with HHS and the various States, Williams developed and introduced a model for child support guidelines called "Income Shares", now used in some form in at least 31 states. It has lead to significantly increased child support obligations (using extremely flawed expenditure data gathered from intact families - SEE PART 2) while providing no built in consideration for "credits" for the expenses related to a child’s time spent with their involved other (noncustodial) parent.
4.Policy Studies’ two biggest lines of business is in general guidelines development consulting with States based upon the Williams model, and the other is to provide child support collections. In mid-1997, his company had some 500 employees, with over $21 million in revenues. While consulting he urges adoption of a model (costing large consulting fees in the process,
5.reimbursed at least 67% by federal tax dollars to the state per US public policy) that leads to dramatically
increased child support with little or no credits, thereby creating a hardship on noncustodial parents struggling to
remain involved with their children. This results in an increased pool of potential child support obligation owed,
and increased arrearage for his collection division to exploit.
It is clear that Williams has not only influenced policy through his involvement with the agency responsible for child
support enforcement, but with his inside knowledge has developed a consulting business and collection agency
targeting privatization opportunities with those he has consulted. In 1996, his company had the greatest number of
child support enforcement contracts, covering numerous counties in seven States, of any of the private companies
that held State contracts. Reimbursement to his company for child support enforcement ranges from 10-32% of what
the company collects according to the General Accounting Office (HEHS97-4). And according to company promotional
literature, they currently operate 31 privatized service locations in 15 states. The conflict of interest between Williams’
consulting to raise child support guidelines and his company’s private Child Support Enforcement activities should be
apparent. It should also be apparent that any raises in the child support guideline he obtains in any State can be used
as leverage for raising the child support guidelines in another State where he has private child support contracts today,
or where he may have them tomorrow. He has continued acting as the pied piper for raising child support guidelines
nationally, where he and his company profits.
Adding insult to injury, while the "father" of today’s child support public policy continues to profit from his past unique
opportunity of influence, the basis of his consulting utilized in most of the Country is statistically, economically, and
intellectually flawed. The end result is a much costlier approach to child support enforcement to US taxpayers, but
more importantly, it continues to drive an ever-widening wedge between children and the parent obligated to paying
financial child support. This will be discussed in substantial detail in Part 2.
A CHRONOLOGY OF WILLIAMS’ EFFORTS ALONG WITH COINCIDENT AND SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL
POLICY CHANGE DURING HIS CONSULTING TENURE WITH HHS (1983-1990):
1983-1990: Williams is hired and retained as a consultant by Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C. in
order to drive establishment of uniform child support guidelines for the states (federal Child Support Guidelines
Project).
1984: Williams starts "Policy Studies, Incorporated", in Denver, Colorado.
1984: The Child Support Enforcement amendments of 1984 (Public Law 98-378) extended the research and
demonstration authority in section 1115 of
the Social Security Act to the Child Support Enforcement Program. It featured provisions that required
improvements in State/local CS Enforcement Programs in 4 major areas:
1.Mandatory Enforcement Practices
2.Improved Interstate Enforcement
3.Equal Services for Welfare and Non-AFDC Families
4.Other Provisions for the States including:
- Collecting spousal support as well where both are due in a case;
- Establishment of State Commissions to study the operation of the
State’s child support system and report findings to the State’s
Governor;
- Formulate guidelines for determining child support obligation
amounts and distribute the guidelines to judges and other individuals
who possess authority to establish obligation amounts
1986: The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 passed (Public Law 99-509). It included a child support
enforcement amendment prohibiting the retroactive modification of child support awards.
1987: The Williams’ "Income Shares" Model is developed and promoted to various States. It was introduced in his report, "Development of Guidelines for Child Support Orders: Advisory Panel Recommendations and Final Report." for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement. According to this report, the intent was to increase "child support" awards dramatically above what existed according to established state child support laws.
1988: The Family Support Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-485) passed. It emphasized the duties of parents to work
and support their children and in particular, emphasized child support enforcement as the first line of defense
against welfare dependence. The key child support provisions include:
1.Guidelines for Child Support Awards - Judges and other officials are required to use state guidelines for
child support unless they rebut the guidelines by a written finding that applying them would be unjust or
inappropriate in a particular case. States must review the guidelines for awards every four years.
2.Establishment of Paternity - Federal standards are established by formula. The Federal matching rate for
laboratory testing to establish paternity is set at 90%.
3.Requirement for Automated Tracking and Monitoring System - Each State is required to have a fully
operative statewide system in place by October 1, 1995, and states had 90% matching by the Federal
government.
4.Interstate Enforcement - A Commission on Interstate Child Support was created to hold national
conferences by October 1, 1990 to make improvement recommendations.
PART 2: A REVIEW OF THE WILLIAMS-INSPIRED "INCOME SHARES" MODEL, AND PROBLEMS INHERENT
IN THE UNDERLYING ECONOMICS
My state of residence is Kansas, which is a joint custody preference state by statute (meaning legal decision making,
not necessarily shared physical custody). Well over 80% of the cases result in joint custody awards. It is only logical
that the most significant reason a judge would order joint custody, or short of that, some degree of visitation, would be
a recognition that both parents are going to maintain some degree of involvement with their child
post-separation/divorce. In those situations, legislatures and/or courts are stating that it is in the child’s best interests to
have such involvement with both parents. Yet as will be described below, the financial child support schedules of most
state guidelines are derived from data collected from overall expenditures made by intact family households throughout
the country, with minimal state-specific participation. According to federal law, all relevant costs of raising the child in
that state are to be taken into account by the state model used to develop the support obligation schedules, creating a
rebuttable presumption. Without including direct costs incurred by the second involved parent specifically in the
guideline economics, such costs have not been considered. (They are in fact, left totally to the discretion of the court,
with little guidance on how to consider them in determining an appropriate and just child support award.)
When one fully grasps the economic methodology used in today’s guideline development, there becomes a recognition
that it is impossible to really know what guideline numbers are appropriate or what assumptions are used to determine
state-specific child support obligations. Only through getting at just those things would states be consistent with the
tone of the 1996 report from the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) where they said, "Surprisingly, few States reviewed their core guideline model or methodology. Rather,
guideline reviews focused on issues relating to income, adjustments to income, adjustments
to the guideline amount, and deviations from the guideline amount."
What is needed is to get outside the paradigm that existing models (using the same "economic studies") are the only
way of determining appropriate and just child support awards in each state. The reality is that the base economic
studies used in child support schedule development were not planned for nor conducted with child support
considerations in mind. Rather, they were designed for significantly different purposes, never intended to be specifically
applied to individual situations such as child support. Highlighting this fact is that none of the studies measure what
federal law says we need to do in each state, and that is to fully understand the impact on both parents’ ability to
continue to provide for their children in two separate households, fully considering the involved second parent’s
expenses. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics which gathers the base expenditure data used in the "Income-Shares" model espoused by Williams, actually cautions against the use
of such generalized data to apply to any individual situation, exactly what is done in the vast majority of the states,
including Kansas. Most states have also been reviewing the logic of their child support guidelines based entirely within
the bounds of the guideline logic itself. Over time, it is likely in each state that one can’t tell for certain what
assumptions have truly been included in the model or not, each of which directly affects the child
support schedule
values. Often, the state review committee has simply gone back to see if the modified guidelines still conform to the
original developer’s personal preferences. In the 14 years since the federal government mandated development of
statewide child support guidelines, additional research has been conducted, including new scientific approaches that
solve many of the problems both in the baseline data used in state child support models, as well as in the models
themselves. The flaws inherent in the current child support estimate methodologies are being addressed in this
research. These should be fully explored consistent with what the OCSE urges be done regarding methodology
review.
THE FLAWED INCOME SHARES MODEL
The "Income Shares" model is currently used for child support guidelines development in at least 31 states as of this
writing. Additionally, most of the other states utilize the same underlying economics used in this model for their
particular state guidelines. This model was developed in 1987 by Williams, and was introduced in his report,
"Development of Guidelines for Child Support Orders: Advisory Panel Recommendations and Final Report." for the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, where as noted previously, he
was a paid consultant driving the development of uniform guidelines throughout the country. The next year, Congress
passed The Family Support Act of 1988 (Pub. L. No. 100-485) which mandated that states implement
presumptive,
rather than advisory, child support guidelines, giving the states only one year to do so. Virtually all states met the
congressional deadline with such guidelines in place by October 1989. It appears obvious that due to the short deadline
required of the states to comply with this new law, most conveniently opted for the very model being espoused by the
agency overlooking the whole program, the Income Shares model.
Williams describes his model in the Health and Human Services publication, "Child Support
Guidelines: The Next
Generation", published in April 1994:
"The Income Shares model is based on the concept that the child should receive the same proportion of parental
income that he or she would have received if the parents lived together. A basic child support obligation is computed
based on the combined income of the parents (REPLICATING TOTAL INCOME IN AN INTACT HOUSEHOLD)
{emphasis added}. This basic obligation comes from a table which is derived from economic estimates of child-rearing expenditures, minus average amounts for health
insurance, child care, and child’s extraordinary medical expenses. The basic child support obligation is divided
between the parents in proportion to their relative incomes. Pro-rated shares of child care and extraordinary medical
expenses are added to each parent’s basic obligation. IF ONE PARENT HAS CUSTODY, THE AMOUNT
CALCULATED FOR THAT PARENT IS PRESUMED TO BE SPENT DIRECTLY ON THE CHILD. FOR THE
NONCUSTODIAL PARENT, THE CALCULATED AMOUNT ESTABLISHES THE LEVEL OF CHILD SUPPORT
{emphasis added}."
He continues, "The Income Shares model was developed by the staff of the Child Support Guidelines Project, which
was funded by the U.S. Office of Child Support Enforcement and administered by the National Center for State Courts.
It utilizes several concepts from the earlier Washington (State) Uniform Child Support Guidelines, but diverges in
basing its numerical parameters explicitly on a different and more recent body of economic analysis."
The reader is urged to keep in mind a few key points from Williams’ description of his Income Shares model as they
will be addressed in the balance of this paper.
1.The "model is based on the concept that the child should receive the same proportion of parental income
that he or she would have "theoretically" received if the parents lived together. It is designed to
"theoretically replicate total income in an intact household".
2.No consideration is provided for the reality of additional expenses that occurs in an involved second
parent’s household, which is necessitated by the simple and obvious fact that the parents no longer live
together. Only one household matters.
3.Health insurance, child care, and extraordinary medical expenses are typically added on to the obligation
after the basic amount is calculated.
4.The one parent with sole custody, or the one parent with primary residency in states with joint custody,
receives the child support payment, and it is "presumed" that the money is spent directly on the child. No
accountability, something that occurs in virtually all other financial "trust" situations which child support
certainly is, is required of the receiving parent. The full weight of local, state, and federal law however,
ensures the accountability of the obligor to pay the recipient.
REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION
Federal law requires that awards determined by the application of child support
guidelines be rebuttable. It specifies:
"A written finding or specific finding on the record that the application of the guidelines would be
unjust or inappropriate in a particular case as determined under criteria established by the
State, shall be sufficient to rebut the presumption in that case."
It further specifies that guidelines:
"shall be reviewed at least once every 4 years to ensure that their application results in the
determination of appropriate child support award amounts."
In other words, the table values established within the guidelines are "presumed" to accurately reflect the situation of
parents and their children at the various income levels. In theory at least, federal law enables parents the possibility of
pointing out to the court why the guideline numbers should not apply in their particular case (rebutting the presumption).
Practice and theory though, are very different.
Economic studies used in the Income Shares model are based on total family expenditures in intact families. These
are estimates of spending that might occur if the parents were living together, sharing all the expenses of a single
household. Spending on children in split households has a random relationship to the combined income of the parents.
The income of both parents can be appropriately considered in the award decision only if that consideration is
consistent with the fact that the parents do not live together and therefore do not use their income jointly. Joint income,
and table values related to joint income, have no relationship at all to family economic circumstances in the context of a
child support award decision. In a particular state, even assuming that the sample of data is appropriate (and that is
dubious as I will show below), individual case circumstances (those which deviate from the
circumstances presumed
in developing the guideline, such as separate households and continued dual parent involvement), cannot be
adequately considered unless the numeric table is categorically divided (food, clothing, shelter, transportation,
entertainment, etc.). Without an explicit and clear conceptual basis for the award, a parent attempting to rebut the
presumptive amount on the basis that it is unjust or inappropriate must do so without knowing what just and
appropriate means.
The only way to properly apply mathematical decision models within the context of Constitutional justice is to fully
disclose the nature of the mathematics, the underlying reasoning, and the assumptions in such a way as to make their
review practical in comparison with the circumstances of each case. Currently state committees reviewing the models
and the underlying data, the judges making awards using the resultant support schedules, and attorneys and parents
living with the results of them, are not able to directly tie the schedule to specific cases. It literally is impossible! Federal law (and the Constitution) requires a just and appropriate award in each case,
and the goal for states is to construct guidelines that are sufficient to do so in every circumstance to which they are
applied. It is also required that judges can identify inappropriate and unjust results and that attorneys and parents can
argue for deviation when a formula fails. My state of residence, Kansas, is a joint custody preference state by statute,
which logically entails some degree of joint parental involvement. Even those states without such a preference
generally apply some minimal level of parenting time (visitation). Separation/divorce inherently means separate
households. Therefore, use of the existing guidelines based on intact family expenditures without inclusion of involved
noncustodial parent expenditures on children, is inappropriate in all such cases. Guidelines have continued to fail to
take the reality of parenting expenditures of an involved second parent into account.
BASE DATA USED IN THE "INCOME SHARES" MODEL LEADING TO CHILD SUPPORT SCHEDULES
Upon joining the State of Kansas Child Support Guidelines Advisory Committee in early 1998, I was advised by a long
term member of the Committee to be sure and understand the economics involved in our state’s guidelines. Therefore,
in an effort to understand our methodology, I researched the data base that feeds the model here to establish the
various schedules. I was astounded at what I discovered and shared the information with the rest of the Committee. To
my surprise, most of what I shared about the economic methodology used had not been discussed to any degree with
the Committee previously. This is probably common in most states. Most state guidelines utilize expenditure data developed from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) annual Consumer
Expenditure Survey (CES) in the development of the child support obligation schedules. It consists of 5,000 household
surveys conducted each quarter, totaling 20,000 surveys/year. (The BLS said that the 5,000 surveyed is a staggered
pool concept. The whole annual sample is the same 5,000 households for 3 quarters, and a new 5,000 for a 4th
quarter.)
Recognizing that each state is to have guidelines appropriate to that specific state, I called the regional BLS office in
Kansas City, as well as their main office in Washington, and asked how many of the sample actually came from
Kansas. All they could tell me was that it was "somewhat less than 100 surveys" (with all but a few out of the Kansas
City Metro area, and the remaining coming from Lawrence, KS. None came from any other cities in the state, including
Wichita which has the largest population in Kansas). Therefore, this state’s guidelines, to specifically apply to its child
support cases, are based upon generalized data, virtually all of which comes from out of state, and again which are
derived from intact family expenditures. With this small national sample size, this has to be the case in each state. The
bigger problem however, is the sample data itself.
The BLS publishes a list of "Frequently Asked Questions" regarding the CES. Number 15 specifically asks and
answers:
"What are some of the Limitations of the Data?"
"The Interview and Diary Surveys are sample surveys and are subject to two types of errors,
nonsampling and sampling. Nonsampling errors can be attributed to many sources, such as
differences in the interpretation of questions, inability or unwillingness of the respondent to
provide correct information, mistakes in recording or coding the data obtained, and other
errors of collection, response, processing, coverage, and estimation for missing data. THE
FULL EXTENT OF NONSAMPLING ERROR IS UNKNOWN. (All caps added for emphasis)
Sampling errors occur because the survey data are collected from a sample and not from the
entire population. Tables with coefficients of variation and other reliability statistics are
available on request. However, because the statistics are shown at the detailed item level, the
tables are extensive."
"CAUTION SHOULD BE USED IN INTERPRETING THE EXPENDITURE DATA,
ESPECIALLY WHEN RELATING AVERAGES TO INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES. (All
caps added for emphasis) The data shown in the published tables are averages for
demographic groups of consumer units. Expenditures by individual consumer units may differ
from the average even if the characteristics of the group are similar to the individual
consumer unit. Income, family size, age of family members, geographic location, and
individual tastes and preferences all influence expenditures."
Along these same lines, Kansas Guidelines review committee economist Dr. Walter Terrell admitted to me in a letter in
April 1998 in response to a request for a detailed break out of expenditure areas at various income levels, that:
"Given the same total level of spending due to children, the component parts will vary from
family to family. That is, families, say, with a focus on dental and health care might show
above average child spending on these items, and below average spending on children’s
clothing. This applies to the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) estimated
components as well, i.e., no measures of variation are presented for the component parts."
"In short, if the total amount of child support that is supposed to be spent due to children is in
fact spent for that purpose, then the component
parts are irrelevant. Further, about 75 to 80 per cent of expenditures on children involve jointly
consumed goods, e.g., home, auto, utilities, etc… This further complicates the question of
how much is spent (on average) for each spending class."
The application of this generalized data currently utilized in Kansas and most other states, both from the federal
government agency gathering the baseline data, as well as a committee’s economist, shows no direct relationship with
specific circumstances around individual child support scenarios in the state. The BLS explicitly discourages such
application of data potentially riddled with nonsampling errors, and an "expert" economist admits that such detail
necessary in order to potentially rebut, is not discernible from the model. What is also being pointed out is that there
are absolute limits to what can be derived from the CES. Most state guidelines currently in use, stake their entire logic
on inferences from the CES. But the CES itself has no way of telling us what the right redistribution of income actually
is. It is necessary to supplement the statistical work with what the OCSE report has pointed out is missing in state
reviews, the fundamental logic of the guidelines must also be further developed.
Continuing, the Income Shares model incorporates the CES data as repackaged by the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) in their report, "Expenditure of Children By Families" which is published each year. From the 5,000
household quarterly CES data, the USDA culls it down based on the following qualifiers:
1.One child of own, 17 years of age or younger in the household
2.Six or fewer children
3.No other related/unrelated people present in the household
4.Complete income reporters (earn taxable wages)
16,245 Total Survey-Households qualified for 1997 sample
(12,850 Husband and Wife households/3,395 Single-parent households)
Only intact husband/wife households are utilized due to sample size limitations
There is a two child assumption per Husband-Wife household.
The country is then divided into regions; West/Northeast/South/Midwest, and a general US Rural category. (Kansas for
instance, is part of their Midwest Region which also includes: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. According to the USDA, among the regions, the Midwest
is the lowest for child-rearing expenses)
The Expenditure Categories are: Housing; Food; Transportation; Clothing; Healthcare; Child care and education; and
Miscellaneous
The expenditures for Clothing, and Child care and education only apply to children and are divided equally
between
them, and exclude adult-related
expenses. Food expenditures are determined from the USDA Food Plans to allocate among the various family
members. Healthcare expenditures are derived from the National Medical Expenditure Survey, and allocated among
the family members by age, etc.
Expenditures for Housing, Transportation, and Miscellaneous goods and services however, are allocated on a per
capita basis (divided equally among the members). This has the effect of minimizing the costs to adult members, while
raising the level of expenditures on children. According to the USDA, this is done as they say there is no research base
for allocating these expenses, and they reject the marginal cost method as well for that reason. (The study itself
however, addresses the marginal cost basis in some detail in the report appendix, referring to actual studies that show
that use of the marginal cost basis can reduce Housing expenditures by 28-44%, and the Miscellaneous category by
28%.)
The per capita methodology employed for these categories also shows problems when reviewing what is specifically
included in these expenditures. For instance, Miscellaneous specifically includes such things as manicures,
make-up, hair styling, health club memberships, country club memberships, etc. Surely, many of the expensive costs
associated with maintaining adults should not be equally distributed amongst all family members including children
since they are not costs associated with raising children. The Transportation cost share as determined by the USDA
included vacation travel expenses as well as automobile transportation expenses that were calculated by subtracting
the costs associated with travel to work. That is they subtracted the mileage associated with getting to work from the
costs of the automobile, insurance, maintenance, etc., and then divided this amount by the number of members in a
family. For instance, a car costing $12,000 the day before a baby is added to an expectant family, is allocated at $6,000
for each parent. The next day, with baby arrived, the cost of the car attributed to the baby suddenly on the scene is
$4,000! Arguably, the mileage directly associated with transporting children would be more accurate than USDA
estimates, which seem to be grossly exaggerated. The same type of treatment occurs for Housing. Using the
expectant family example, the day before the baby’s arrival, the cost for housing is divided equally between the two
adults. Upon the baby’s arrival, the cost of housing is suddenly divided equally between the adults and the baby. The
child’s "portion" is then summed and used directly in the calculations for state child support guidelines. Are these
children supposed to be buying their own cars and living in their own apartments? Or are they living in a parent’s
residence and being transported sometimes, including family outings to places the parent would be going anyway? On
the face of it, it is obvious that such allocations are questionable. These points have not been so obvious in the past
because the estimates have not been separated to the point that anyone on any state review committee understood what the numbers in the
guideline mean. With today’s guidelines and their underlying data, how in the world can parents, attorneys, and judges
begin to understand them within the context of due process?
Regionalizing data creates problems as well for the figures used to calculate specific state child support schedules.
Tax rates differ in each state, along with differing costs of living. Although the survey says that the measure of
expenditures for items is after tax (arguing that it is therefore then held constant across the country), the reality is that
the level of income available based on after tax and cost of living differs across the country, let alone each region as
income available to spend varies as a result. (This also highlights an additional area of concern regarding available
income for expenditure on children in the noncustodial home, which as established earlier, remains unaccounted for
and unmeasured.)
As stated previously, to get to the schedules that have been developed in states using the Income Shares model (and
most others as well), the CES data has been utilized to feed the model. I have pointed out many of the
problems
inherent in that data being used to determine child support schedules. I have also addressed several flaws in the
Income Shares model itself. First off is that actual expenditures on children by families is not addressed. The
methodology used to identify family expenditures do not actually track all costs per person through a marginal cost
accounting basis, and thus do not reflect true costs. What is reported are total "intact" family expenditures, which are
then broadly allocated to children, and then which are entered into the state economic model based on the parameters
established by the modeler (certainly not any specific individual child support case at hand). Additionally, the model
also fails to account for costs incurred while the noncustodial parent exercises his/her parenting time. Lastly, the
model purports to accurately reflect what it costs to raise a child in a particular state (such as Kansas in my
experience, based on a household expenditure survey sample size consisting of "somewhat less than 100" Kansas
participants!). An argument may be made for instance, that since about 30% of Kansas cases involve interstate child
support orders, regional and national data is fine. However, orders under the jurisdiction of a particular state should be
based on what it costs to raise a child specifically in that state as the starting point.
SUMMARY
Dr. Robert Williams in my opinion is an absolute genius! He established himself as chief consultant to the agency
responsible for development of child support policy, and successfully manipulated his
personal approach to the
subject, his
efforts leading to the most significant federal laws dealing with child support today. While clearly a genius, one can
easily call into question his ethics, however. While in his unique and influential position in Washington, he early on
concurrently established a private company called Policy Studies, Incorporated. This company grew along with the
programs he helped push through in Washington, as well as across the country. He was able to "sell" his model
through his position to the states while they were under tremendous pressure to come up with an approach under
extreme time constraints to comply with federal mandates. This particular model led to significantly higher child
support obligations owed, allows for no consideration for involved second parents, and created an increasing pool of
potential parents falling into arrears. Coincidentally, his company is the leader in the child support "collections"
business, an industry that requires an increasing pool of potential dollars available to collect, and an increase in
potential "defaulters". In the meantime, his company continues to grow exponentially, as he continues to consult with
the states about implementing and reestablishing his model, one laden with flaws and inappropriate for use in individual
child support cases. And as enforcement continues to be subsidized by federal tax dollars, his collections and
involvement in state child support efforts continue to soar.
Nationwide, we must aggressively pursue looking at additional methodologies and economic data gathering that will
assure appropriate and just child support awards in each state. Further, states must fully review the fundamental logic
leading to child support awards. From there, a full review of available research will better enable them to put forth a full
recommendation on what their state-specific guidelines should look like, ultimately allowing each of the parties to a
child support case to be better able to exercise their full due process.
Some believe that it might be too costly to conduct state-specific studies, to include data collection. Their inclination
would be to continue on using the same flawed methodology and data, falling back on the false belief that what we
have today is the best we can do. However, this cost is arguably quite negligible compared to the impact of our current
approach. To simply continue doing the same old thing would be ignoring our responsibility to be thorough in guideline
development and review. Opening our minds to alternative approaches of child support determinations could prove to
be less costly than might be believed.
Lastly, I have not mentioned the impact that today’s approach to child support guidelines and enforcement have on our
country’s children. Focusing solely on "financial" child support while failing to emphasize "emotional" child support is
destroying our children’s lives by depriving them of someone that they desperately need to have involved in their lives,
their other parent. All credible research shows that for the vast majority of children, the best parent to children
of separation and divorce is quite simply both parents. Instead of seeking out ways of facilitating dual parent
involvement, our current public policy has established economic and legal roadblocks, merely because it is easy to
"garnish" income. The end result in this crazy social experiment is increased juvenile suicide, teenage pregnancy,
juvenile delinquency, and teenage drug abuse, among many other childhood pathologies, all sharing a common
variable in most of these instances, an absent parent. Continued parental involvement of the second parent (the one
currently not included in the studies of the true ongoing costs of parenting), does indeed cost money. Such involvement
is not a free good. This country is beginning to awaken to the damaging effects of having frustrated dual parent
involvement for so many years. Reforming the child support enforcement public policy from the ground up needs to
occur. Only then will we begin to turn the corner in the direction of our country’s most important assets, our
children.
MISCELLANEOUS QUOTES
FROM POLICY STUDIES, INCORPORATED PROMOTIONAL LITERATURE OBTAINED IN JUNE 1998
"PSI’S CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES EXPERIENCE"
"Policy Studies, Inc.—PSI—is a national leader in the child support enforcement world, having
developed an
impressive portfolio of projects spanning technical assistance, privatization, and information technology. Since our
inception in 1984 we have expanded both in staff and resources, and we now operate 31 privatized service locations
throughout the country.
Our experience with child support guidelines began with the federal Child Support Guidelines Project. Since that time,
we have consulted with over 40 states, the Navajo Nation, Australia, and Canada on child support guidelines projects."
…"Our company president, Dr. Robert G. Williams, is recognized as the leading national (and
international) expert on
child support guidelines. He was the Principal Researcher for the federal guidelines project which developed the
Income Shares model now used by two-thirds of the states, including Arizona. Not only has he provided expert
guidance to states using the Income Shares model, but has provided expertise to non-Income Shares states such as
Tennessee, Georgia, Delaware, and Hawaii."
FROM "CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES: THE NEXT GENERATION" PUBLISHED BY THE US DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, April 1994, page 1.
"Robert G. Williams is President of Policy Studies Inc. in Denver, CO. He directed research and technical assistance
for the federally funded Child Support Guidelines Project from 1983-1990. Dr. Williams has provided technical
assistance to more than 40 states in the development and updating of support guidelines."
FROM DENVER BUSINESS JOURNAL, JUNE 27, 1997 V48 N42
"REFORMS MIGHT BENEFIT CHILD-SUPPORT COMPANY."
"A Denver company that grew by leaps and bounds because of the national crackdown on "deadbeat dads" stands to
profit even more from the welfare-reform legislation approved by Congress and the President last October.
Founded in 1984, Policy Studies Inc has grown from three employees to more than 400, on the heals of child-support
enforcement laws. Last year, PSI reported revenues of $21 million. The company helps government agencies
modernize child-enforcement computer systems that find fathers with delinquent child-support payments."
"Because about one-third of the welfare reform act pertains to child support, PSI president and CEO Bob Williams
estimates at least one-quarter of all states will privatize their child support functions - a prediction that bodes well for
the company and others like it."
Back
to Top