U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

60–898 WASHINGTON : 1999

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 19, 1998

Serial No. 105–89

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

BILL ARCHER, Texas, Chairman

PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois

BILL THOMAS, California

E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida

NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

WALLY HERGER, California

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana

DAVE CAMP, Michigan

JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota

JIM NUSSLE, Iowa

SAM JOHNSON, Texas

JENNIFER DUNN, Washington

MAC COLLINS, George

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio

PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada

JON CHRISTENSEN, Nebraska

WES WATKINS, Oklahoma

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona

JERRY WELLER, Illinois

KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California

ROBERT T. MATSUI, California

BARBARA B. KENNELLY, Connecticut

WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington

GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts

MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York

WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee

XAVIER BECERRA, California

KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida

A.L. SINGLETON, Chief of Staff

JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida, Chairman

DAVE CAMP, Michigan

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana

MAC COLLINS, Georgia

PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona

WES WATKINS, Oklahoma

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California

ROBERT T. MATSUI, California

WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania

WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the rules of the House, public hearing records

of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published in electronic from. The printed

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process

is further refined.

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Advisory of May 12, 1998, announcing the hearing ............................................. 2

WITNESSES

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Donna Bonar, Director,

Program Operations Division, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families .................................................................... 7

Bacarisse, Charles, Harris County, TX .................................................................. 56

Broward County Support Enforcement Division, Judith Fink ............................ 63

Center for Policy Research, Jessica Pearson ......................................................... 75

Connecticut Department of Social Services, Diane M. Fray ................................ 19

CSE* Child Support Enforcement Co., Richard (Casey) Hoffman ....................... 40

Georgia Department of Human Resources, Jacqueline M. Jennings .................. 35

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, and Wisconsin Coalition

Against Domestic Violence, Kathleen Krenek ................................................... 90

New Jersey Division of Family Development, Alisa Griffin ................................. 27

Vermont Office of Child Support, Jeffrey Cohen .................................................. 13

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

American Payroll Association, Rita Zeidner, statement ....................................... 111

Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc., Toledo, OH, Geraldine Jensen, statement ........................................................................................ 115

California, State of, Department of Social Services, Eloise Anderson, statement ...................................................................................................................... 123

Child Support Network, Inc., Phoenix, AZ, Daniel N. Jacobson, letter and

attachments .......................................................................................................... 126

Children’s Rights Council, David L. Levy, statement and attachments ............. 133

Vermont, State of, Agency of Human Services, Cornelius D. Hogan, .................

(1)

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1998

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:06 p.m., in room

B–318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr.,

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]

2

3

4

5

Chairman SHAW. If everybody could find a seat, we will commence with today’s hearing.

Today we are continuing our series of oversight hearings on the

1996 Welfare Reform Law. Our hearing today spotlights the child

support enforcement program. We’re delighted to have three very

strong panels of witnesses. The first panel will present testimony

on two of the most important provisions of the 1996 child support

reforms, the New Hire Directory, and the requirements on paternity establishment. It would appear at this early stage that the implementation of New Hires is going smoothly and that many States

are having remarkable success in implementing the paternity establishment requirements.

I want to especially thank the Administration for allowing Donna

Bonar from the Department of Health and Human Services to testify today. More than anyone else, Ms. Bonar knows what is happening with the New Hire program around the country; but especially, she can tell us about the very important role that HHS plays

in advising the States and establishing and operating the national

directory.

I’d like to caution our members that Ms. Bonar is here to tell us

about the New Hire Directory, but is not expected to comment on

any aspect of Administration policy on child support or any other.

She is an expert witness on child support; not a political witness

here to defend the Administration’s policy.

The second panel will address what I believe will become an

issue of increasing importance. Believe it or not, the Federal-State

IV–D child support program is not the only game in town. There

are a select number of counties and cities around the country that

conduct their own child support programs outside of this system.

In addition, many private attorneys provide assistance to parents

owed child support, and there is an increasing number of privately

owned companies that are providing child support services, either

directly to custodial parents or under contract with local or State

government.

We hope to find out how effective these programs are and how

they are connected, if at all, with the IV–D program. We also hope

to explore in subsequent hearings whether it is appropriate for the

program to cooperate with these outside programs. And if so,

whether we need legislation to promote this cooperation.

I’m also pleased that these panels include a witness from Georgia

who will discuss a flaw that has long been obvious in the child support programs. Specifically, we treat certain veterans’ benefits differently than we treat other forms of income, thereby making it

possible for non-custodial parents who receive certain veterans’

benefits to protect some of their income from child support payments. I want to recognize the fine work of Mac Collins on this

issue. With Mac’s assistance, we hope to work with the Veterans’

Affairs Committee to address this problem.

Finally, during consideration of last year’s Labor-HHS-Education

appropriation bill, I promised our colleagues in the Senate that we

would examine the issue of domestic violence and how it impacts

women participating in the child support and TANF programs. We

are very pleased to have Dr. Jessica Pearson here from Denver to

provide us with research information on the number of women apVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:16 Jun 07, 2000 Jkt 063429 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\60898 pfrm07 PsN: 60898
6

plying for child support who have been abused, and whether the

abused mothers wanted to be exempt from the State child support

programs because of the threat of abuse. We will also hear from

Kathleen Krenek, who directs the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence, about State programs designed to help victims of

domestic violence, including victims who are enrolled in public programs.

So we have a full day ahead, and Sandy, do you have any opening remarks at this time?

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The 1996 Welfare Reform

Law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, reinforced how important child support is to the economic well being of children. In the law, we instituted a number

of innovations to improve the way the child support system works,

enabling us to improve collections and get money to families struggling to become and remain economically self-sufficient.

We have recently revisited the child support program and enjoyed broad bipartisan support on a bill that seeks to enhance performance through meaningful incentives, and to further emphasize

the importance of establishing statewide automated information

systems in the program. These developments have fostered a series

of continuous improvement in the child support system.

Today, in that same spirit, we’ll hear about efforts to improve paternity establishment and the innovative national Directory of New

Hires are impacting the program. We recognize that the system

can be considered truly successful only if it works for those in the

most difficult circumstance.

Senator Murray from Washington has been instrumental in making us aware of the plight of families that are victimized by domestic violence. We have invited experts from the field of domestic violence to tell us about the challenges faced by those in violent family

situations and the way that the child support system can both assist and protect them.

Finally, we’ll turn our attention to a relatively new topic, local

child support collection efforts outside of the Federal and State,

Title IV–D, child support program. We look forward to hearing

about developments in this area, so that we can explore how the

system is working as a whole. We have a strong interest in continuing to pursue innovations in the child support field, but we

must proceed with some caution, to be sure that the best interests

of children remain at the heart—at the very heart—of all of our efforts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHAW. Thank you.

Our first witnesses—if they would come to the table—Donna

Bonar is the Director of the Program Operations Division, Office of

Child Support Enforcement, of the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services; Jeffrey Cohen is the Director, Office of Child Support, in Waterbury, Vermont; Diane Fray, IV–D Administrator, the

Department of Social Services, Child Support Program, Hartford,

Connecticut; Alisha Griffin, who’s the Acting Assistant Director

from New Jersey Division of Family Development, in Trenton, New

Jersey; and, Jacqueline M. Jennings, Manager, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Department of Human Resources, Columbus,

Georgia.

7

Because of members being out, we are starting late today. I’m

going to try to enforce the five minute rule. That means I’ll bring

the gavel down at the end of five minutes, and I will tell each of

you that your full statements have been given to the committee

and will appear in the record. I would invite you to summarize in

any way you might be comfortable. Ms. Bonar.

STATEMENT OF DONNA BONAR, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM OPERATIONS DIVISION, OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Ms. BONAR. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name

is Donna Bonar, and I’m the Director of the Division of Program

Operations in the Office of Child Support Enforcement. Thank you

for giving me the opportunity to testify today on the role of the National Directory of New Hires in strengthening the child support

enforcement program.

I’m very pleased to report that we have met the October 1, 1997

statutory deadline for implementing the National Directory of New

Hires, and that all 50 States are providing data to the directory.

As of May 1998, the National Directory of New Hires has 23 million new hire records, 159 million quarterly wage records, and 9

million unemployment insurance claim records. In addition, over

100 Federal agencies have transmitted over 350,000 new hire

records and roughly 5 million quarterly wage records. These reports represent 96 percent of all Federal employees.

The real benefit of the National Directory of New Hires is that

our Nation’s children are receiving increased child support collections. Case workers are receiving up-to-date employment information available on absent parents, in order to be able to locate parents, establish paternity, and to enforce child support orders.

Welfare reform expanded the Federal parent locator service by

requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop

the National Directory of New Hires. The directory is a database

of information for all newly hired employees, quarterly wage reports, and unemployment insurance claims, to assist States in locating child support obligors who are working other States.

I’m glad to report that we are also on target to meet the implementation date for the Federal Case Registry, October 1, 1998.

Federal law requires that the Secretary of Health and Human

Services develop a national database of all child support orders. As

we did in establishing the National Directory of New Hires, we are

using a collaborative model to develop the Federal Case Registry

and look forward to reporting on it’s success later this year.

I would like to turn my attention to our early results of the National Directory of New Hires and to answer the question, ‘‘so what

does this mean for children?’’ Beginning October 1, 1997, we started matching State locate requests against the National Directory

of New Hires. Since then, we have matched 700,000 interstate locate requests against individuals in the National Directory. When

States receive matched information from the National Directory of

New Hires, they are able to quickly establish an interstate case or

enforce an existing order.

8

It is very important to remember that this success represents

only the first step in getting more support for children. Once the

Federal Case Registry is operational on October 1, 1998, new data

in the National Directory of New Hires will be matched proactively

to child support cases and order information in the Federal Case

Registry. States will no longer have to submit individual locate requests. Instead, States will automatically receive current employment information on child support obligors any time that individual takes a new job. States will also receive information on obligors quarterly wage and unemployment insurance claims. We believe that the simultaneous establishment of these two databases

will revolutionize States’ ability to process child support cases

across State line.

Since the program’s inception, the implementation strategy has

been a cooperative model, rather than one of dictating systems requirements to the States. As a consequence, the entire development

of the system evolved to better meet the users’ needs.

The National Directory of New Hires is maintained by the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement and is housed at the Social Security Administration’s national computer center. Our collaboration with the Social Security Administration has been instrumental in the expeditious implementation of the National Directory

of New Hires. Housing the database at Social Security’s computer

center provides that the database is maintained in a world class

computer center with state-of-the-art security standards. Due to

this partnership, we have been able to assemble the National Directory of New Hires in less time and at a lower cost than if we

had reproduced the existing Social Security Administration infrastructure.

Finally, technical assistance played a critical role in implementation. The Office of Child Support Enforcement provided technical

assistance to every State and territory through the design and implementation stages, covering issues from employee training to systems support. Technical assistance also included information on

our web site, videos, guides to implementation and data submission, brochures and information packets, and a variety of printed

material for States to use to train their own employees and to conduct outreach to employers and employer groups.

In conclusion, we are pleased to report that our efforts to implement the Congressional legislation, creating a National Directory of

New Hires, has been a success. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished

members of the subcommittee, thank you for your invitation to testify today.

[The prepared statement follows:]

9

10

11

12

13

Chairman SHAW. Thank you.

Mr. Cohen.

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY COHEN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

CHILD SUPPORT, WATERBURY, VT

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify

today about Vermont’s child support program, particularly about

our efforts to establish parentage.

As the committee probably knows, establishing parentage is prerequisite to everything else we do. You can’t have a child support

obligation without having parentage established. You can’t establish medical support without parentage. And, kids won’t even know

both parents without establishing parentage.

Like the rest of the country, Vermont has experienced rising out

of wedlock birth rates. In our State, one out of four kids is born

out of wedlock. In the rest of the country—some jurisdictions—have

over 70 percent of their children born out of wedlock.

It probably is no surprise also that a disproportionate number of

the children in the welfare program under TANF are also kids who

are born out of wedlock. In our State, the portion of our TANF

caseload born out of wedlock is more than double the general population. What this means for the child support agencies is that they

have a disproportionate share of these difficult cases to work in the

first place, compared to the rest of the population.

We’ve come a long way in our program. We started out with

criminal actions in 1982—when kids were called bastards—and establishing parentage was a criminal action. We did very few cases

back then. We’ve since bypassed the stage of paternity, which tends

to characterize fathers as obligors, and we’ve moved to the concept

of parentage, which focuses on all the rights of the kids, including

child support, custody, and visitation.

We’ve had, I’m pleased to say, considerable success since the

1980’s. In 1988, only 42 percent of our out of wedlock cases had

parentage established. By 1996, we were up to 82 percent, and

that’s using the cases in our IV–D caseload, as opposed to the entire population.

While it’s encouraging to know that we’re only 6 percent away

from Congress’ goal of 90 percent, I must say that, even using the

Statewide measure, that’s doing fairly well. I believe the next 6

percent are going to be more and more difficult to address. The

cases are harder and harder.

We’ve also had some other outcomes that coincide. We’ve had reductions in teen births during this period of 40 percent reduction

to births to teens between the ages of 15 and 17, during the same

period.

People may ask how we did it. I wish I could say there was a

single magic bullet. The only single thing I can say is it takes a

lot of hard work. It would be nice if parentage establishment were

as simple as applying for a driver’s license. But unfortunately, in

our caseload, we have many cases where the only information we

get is that it was a one-night stand, a first name, and maybe a tattoo. And from there, the child support agency has to figure out who

the father is. So this takes a lot of time and effort and we’ve made

14

a lot of effort to do that. In fact, our case workers have prioritized

those cases.

Also, we have relied on automated systems, which we’ve had in

place in our State as an integrated system since 1981. It’s been tied

into our welfare agency. What that meant is we’ve been able to

start cases within a matter of weeks of application for public assistance. In the old days, I used to bring cases where kids were 15

years old. Now, we’re doing it when the kids are six months old.

It makes a big, big difference. Of course, that only works if you

have a sufficient number of case workers to respond to the automated system.

Also, we have a tight integration with our welfare agency. In

cases where the custodial parent is unable to cooperate or refuses

to, our welfare agency has been very good about applying sanctions

to gain their cooperation.

Also, genetic testing has played a big role in our improvements over the years. The cost of the tests are about $300 for the mother,

the father, and the child. But, it has enabled us to be sure who the

parents are, has eliminated all doubts, and I believe in many cases,

has avoided court cases because there’s no question about who the

parents are.

We have not relied yet on the voluntary acknowledgments of parentage that Congress required in PRWORA—not to the extent that

other States have. That’s because, in our State, the acknowledgments did not have a legal presumptive basis. But we anticipate

that that will improve in time. Our acknowledgments do include information about visitation and custody as well. I understand from

the Children’s Rights Council that this is a unique feature.

There are still some barriers to establishing parentage and perhaps Congress can help in a few of these areas. First, helping to

locate parents is very important and Congress should do whatever

they can to support ways to prevent people from avoiding the system. I believe the National New Hire Reporting process will accomplish that and will have an impact far beyond just wage withholding, but will also help find people who need to have parentage

established.

Also, Congress should continue to support the automated systems efforts, which are really critical to tracking down parents.

And as laws change, we need to keep changing those systems.

Congress can also support the effort by enhanced funding for genetic testing. As I said, if a question is ever raised, simply doing

the test, can avoid a court hearing.

And finally, I would hope that Congress would consider looking

at ways to prevent out of wedlock births in the first place. Thank

you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

15

16

17

18

19

Chairman SHAW. Thank you, Mr. Cohen.

Ms. Fray.

STATEMENT OF DIANE FRAY, IV–D ADMINISTRATOR, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM,

HARTFORD, CT

Ms. FRAY. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, it is a

pleasure to be here today to talk about new hire reporting. It has

been too often the case that those with the moral and legal obligation to support their children, fail in this fundamental responsibility of parenthood. I view new hire reporting as an opportunity

to get all children what they need—the financial support of their

parents.

One of the main challenges in the child support arena is the ability to obtain timely data regarding employment of noncustodial

parents. Prior to the implementation of new hire reporting, the

only financial data available was obtained from the IRS when the

noncustodial parent filed his Federal tax return or from the quarterly wage data obtained from the Department of Labor.

The usefulness of this data was limited, because it was anywhere

from three months to one year old. By the time the data was received, and the child support worker sent out the appropriate forms

to place an income withholding, the noncustodial parent had often

already terminated employment. Child support professionals felt

that they were always one step behind the noncustodial parent and

could not obtain the necessary child support for the children of this

Nation.

Effective January 1995, Connecticut established a new hire reporting system. All employers maintaining an office or transacting

business in Connecticut, were subject to this law and were required

to report new employees within 35 days.

Connecticut feels strongly that new hire reporting is a critical

tool to the effective establishment and enforcement of child support. While we have mandated compliance by all employers, we

provide the necessary vehicles to assist employers in meeting these

requirements: toll-free fax lines, electronic reporting, use of Connecticut W–4 form, and a hot line for employer questions.

One of the keys to our success has been this close relationship

with the employer community. Through a coordinated effort of the

Connecticut State agencies, employers are informed of their legal

responsibilities through yearly mailings and an employer guide.

IV–D staff from the New England States attend a yearly conference

of the American Payroll Association, to provide information regarding both income withholding and new hire reporting. Presentations

are also given to various employer and payroll organizations. Due

to this continued association, the usable data has increased to 97

percent in March 1998. Employers will cooperate because they

want to do their part in ensuring all kids receive support.

I believe that I have a reason to be excited about this resource.

During calendar year 1997, over 30,600 noncustodial parents were

matched through the new hire process. 24,000 of these parents had

an existing child support order. For these matches, our staff were

able to place more than 3,300 new income withholdings and transfer an additional 5,000 to new employers. From 1995 to the

20

present, collections due to new hire reporting, have increased 13-

fold, from $540,000 in 1995 to $7.3 million in 1997, and a projection of $9.6 million or more for 1998.

Additionally, under the new law, this data can now be used to

establish child support orders. During 1997, over 10,200 noncustodial parents without child support orders were matched, and new

support orders were established for more than 5,500 families.

Several States, including Iowa and Massachusetts, have expanded new hire reporting to include payments to independent contractors. This change was made because many noncustodial parents who were formally classified as employees are now becoming

self-employed, and many employers are outsourcing tasks that used

to be done in-house. Massachusetts has also expanded new hire reporting to include employees who retire and begin to collect a pension, and those who are injured and collect worker’s compensation.

These are some issues that we also need to look at in the near future.

In conclusion, I cannot stress strongly enough the value of new

hire reporting to the task of establishing and collecting child support. I’ve been a child support professional for more than 21 years

and I believe that the combination of new hire reporting and the

issuance of wage withholding is one of the most significant improvements in the way we do business.

Mr. Chairman, this does conclude my prepared statement, and I

would be pleased to answer any questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Chairman SHAW. Thank you very much.

Ms. Griffin.

STATEMENT OF ALISHA GRIFFIN, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF FAMILY DEVELOPMENT,

TRENTON, NJ

Ms. GRIFFIN. Thank you. I want to begin by thanking Chairman

Shaw and members of the committee for the opportunity to speak

about New Jersey’s Paternity Opportunity Program, called POP.

For New Jersey, the POP program has been a tremendous success. We believe that POP results can be duplicated by other

States. The success depends upon the investment of time, money,

resources, building partnerships, and implementing new technologies. The increased investment does, and can, pay off.

In New Jersey, POP approaches paternity establishment more

broadly as a social issue, not just as a welfare issue. In our outreach to parents, health care workers, and the community, POP

emphasizes the benefits for children when paternity is established,

not just solely focusing on the financial enforcement of the obligations.

We provide through POP multiple opportunities for assigning of

a certificate of acknowledgment of paternity. Paternity can be acknowledged at the hospital, at local registrars, and at county child

care agencies.

We began our POP program in November of 1995. In calendar

year 1996, there were 109,884 births in New Jersey. Of these

births, 32,126 or 29.2 percent were out of wedlock births. In that

same year, the first full year of POP’s operation, 71 percent of

those out of wedlock births in New Jersey had paternity established through the POP program. Although 1997 figures have not

closed, our preliminary findings for the full second year are even

better than the first year. The third quarter of 1997 closed at 73.8

percent, up almost 3 percentage points from the previous year.

Since the inception of POP, more than 45,000 acknowledgments

have been obtained, and almost 4,000 children who came onto the

IV–D caseload have come on with paternity already established.

This makes POP one of the most successful voluntary acknowledgment programs in the country today.

The necessary elements for a successful voluntary acknowledgment program with broad appeal to the general public include

strong partnerships, support for those partnerships, the monitoring

of them, and the technology to enhance them. The keys players in

those partnerships are vital statistics, local registrars, hospitals,

health and social service providers serving pregnant women and

young families.

Vital statistics maintains and updates all the birth records in the

State. They supervise, direct, and are responsible for local registrars, who are critical links to a successful paternity program.

They have established relationships with the hospitals and with

birthing facilities. They’re also an important source for outreach

and marketing.

Hospital staff are the front line of communication with all unmarried parents, and are best able to convey to parents the importance of paternity establishment. Health and social service proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:16 Jun 07, 2000 Jkt 063429 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60898 pfrm07 PsN: 60898
28

viders have an opportunity to educate respective parents regarding

the paternity issues prior to the admission to the hospital. And informed parents are more likely to sign a certificate of parentage at

the time of birth. They can also educate parents who have children

for whom paternity has not yet been established. Health and social

service providers are a critical component in increasing our

postbirth paternity establishment rates.

One of the other key components to our POP program has been

the provision of support and monitoring to all of those partners. We

visit hospitals, marketing paternity establishment as a priority. We

provide technical assistance to all the players and all the partners

in the program, staff training and retraining, program brochures,

videos, and other materials that help educate both providers of

service and potential parents and parents in the program.

We refer legal and eligibility service questions that have traditionally gone unanswered directly to our IV–D attorneys and our

social case workers. We provide 24-hour, 7-day a week customer

service, and verify and follow-up on certificates that are problematic.

We provide program monitoring and immediate feedback to line

staff and supervisors throughout the program, and we evaluate

performance and create performance improvement plans.

In technology, we have utilized our technology at the hospital,

where demographic information is collected on all parents, and the

data is electronically transferred into the POP system, which then

interfaces with the automated child support system on a weekly

basis to match certificates of parentage with cases where paternity

has not been established. We’re also using document imaging to

capture certificates when they are received. The certificates can be

accessed and printed on line by county workers and used in courts,

which saves an inordinate amount of time.

The benefits are to all players in the system; to the child, to the

parent, to the State, and of course, to the taxpayer. It is a program

that benefits all of us. Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

29

30

31

32

Chairman SHAW. Thank you, Ms. Griffin.

Ms. Jennings, you have a fan on this committee who’s not here.

His plane has been delayed, and he has made a special request

that I hold you to the second panel. If that doesn’t inconvenience

you, I’d like to do that. Mac Collins has been delayed, but we’ve

gotten word that he’s on the way in, so we would appreciate your

waiting.

Mr. Camp.

Mr. CAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bonar, I just want to

congratulate you on the success that’s been made in getting the

New Hires Directory up and running. Because I think all of us believe that, if this is implemented successfully, we will increase

child support collections. I noticed in your testimony you mention

that all 50 States are providing data. I wondered, in addition to

those 50 States that are in compliance, are all the territories and

the District of Columbia providing the required information as

well?

Ms. BONAR. Actually, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia

are providing new hire data, however, we’re not receiving new hire

data from Guam or the Virgin Islands. There were some technical

problems there. In addition, Guam just passed their legislation. For

quarterly wage—we are not receiving quarterly wage data from

Guam or the Virgin Islands either.

Mr. CAMP. Obviously, the law requires the employers to report

this new hire data within 20 days. Is there any idea or any comments you can make about compliance by employers?

Ms. BONAR. I think it’s too early to tell about compliance. Also,

not all States have passed the legislation so that every employer

in the country needs to be reporting. We had anticipated that there

would be about 60 million new hires a year, and we have 23 million

now. So, we have a lot of reporting that needs to be done still.

Mr. CAMP. Any idea whether this is large firms, small firms,

where there are greater difficulties maybe with compliance? Do you

have any idea at this time?

Ms. BONAR. No, at this time, we don’t.

Mr. CAMP. I’ve heard from my State legislators about the sensitive personal information that is on these files. I realize social security number is optional, but in reality, I think that’s the number

that’s being used. Can you comment just on the privacy safeguards

and confidentiality concerns that will help keep the information

from being made public?

Ms. BONAR. Certainly. We take real seriously the confidentiality

and the security of this data that we’re entrusted with. The law’s

real explicit about who has access, who the authorized users are,

for what purposes this database can be used, and we ensure that

it’s only used for the authorized purposes. I think also the fact that

our database is housed at the Social Security Administration’s computer center, it is that state-of-the-art in security standards, and

we’re subject to those standards. The data is transmitted to us over

secured dedicated lines, so that there is no possibility for unauthorized access. With respect to social security numbers, the new hire

data that comes into us—the social security numbers on new hire

data—those are verified before they go on our National Directory.

Mr. CAMP. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

33

Chairman SHAW. Mr. Levin.

Mr. LEVIN. I’d like also to congratulate the Department. Timeliness has been a real problem in child support. Deadlines have been

urgently enacted and often, I won’t say flaunted, but have not been

met. And so it’s heartening the deadlines that have been set here

have been met. So, congratulations.

I gather from your testimony that all of you are fairly veteran

public servants, and proud of it. And I’d like to congratulate, if I

might, all of you on your work in this field. It often isn’t heralded,

but it’s critical to reform of our welfare system. And each of you

have indicated that the kind of, not only diligent, but imaginative

and committed, efforts that you have undertaken, and I hope you

have a real sense of pride.

So, I just have one question that may, if I understand the data,

may illustrate that we have a real challenge here.

Now, let me just ask you about the Connecticut data. On page

two, and I think it ties in to the testimony from Mr. Cohen, that

the journey ahead may not be easy and it means that we have to

really be totally dedicated if we’re going to meet the deadlines. In

calendar 1997, on page 2, Ms. Fray, through this system that

you’re rightfully excited about, you matched over 30,000 through

the new hire process—24,000 had an existing child support order—

and you were able to place more than 3,300 new income

withholdings and transfer an additional 5,000. So maybe this

doesn’t show how many of these 30,000, I guess—or 24,000—did

not have an income withholding, right? That doesn’t really appear

here?

Ms. FRAY. No, that’s correct.

Mr. LEVIN. But would that—in other words, after you’ve finished

with the successful 3,300 and then the transfer of 5,000, there still

was a considerable number where there wasn’t a withholding—

where there wasn’t withholding information, right?

Ms. FRAY. Right, that is correct. Sometimes, with the new hire

reporting, even though employers attempt to comply and give us

the data on time, even now sometimes the noncustodial parent may

either have left the job already or his wages may be so minimum

that we can not in fact place the income withholding.

In Connecticut, up until October 1, 1998, we are still under the

State law that allows our employers 35 days to report new employees. Because Connecticut was one of the States that had new hire

reporting prior to the passage of PRWORA, we were allowed to

wait until then to make our changes. Effective October 1, our employers in Connecticut will have to report within 20 days. And I believe that will also help narrow the gap that you see in my figures

here—that we will be catching up with the non-custodial parents

even more quickly than we are now.

Mr. LEVIN. Good. And the 20 day provision, do you think is feasible?

Ms. FRAY. Yes, I believe that there are many States——

Mr. LEVIN. It’s modern technology.

Ms. FRAY. There are many States that are already doing it, and

yes, with modern technology, I do believe that it is feasible.

Mr. LEVIN. And just one last question, you mention about the

self-employed. How considerable a problem is that?

34

Ms. FRAY. When I talked to Iowa this week because they had

passed their law quite awhile ago, and what they told me, was that

they estimated a match rate similar to the regular new hire reporting. So I would have to say that it appears that it is now, and will

in the future, increasingly be a larger problem.

Mr. LEVIN. Ms. Griffin, you were shaking your head. You agree?

Ms. GRIFFIN. We anticipate some of the same problems.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Cohen.

Mr. COHEN. Yes.

Mr. LEVIN. And we’ll finish with you, Ms. Bonar. Should we do

anything further in that regard?

Ms. BONAR. The definition now is the IRS definition for employer

and employee and that does not include independent contractors,

so I’ve heard from States that that is an issue.

Mr. LEVIN. And the independent contractors—there is a requirement to fill out a form. There is information that comes into the

Federal Government, right?

Ms. BONAR. There would be for the W–2 reporting.

Mr. LEVIN. Or it’s equivalent.

Ms. BONAR. Right.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, we may want to look at that as a further improvement on what this subcommittee has labored effectively to achieve. Thank you.

Chairman SHAW. Mr. Collins, do you want to hold your questions

for the next panel? We’ve held your witness.

I’d like to thank this panel for some very fine testimony. It’s

truly quite rewarding to see some of the things that we have been

cooperating on with the States and see them coming of age and actually working. And I think it shows the wisdom of the legislation.

Thank you very much, all of you.

And Ms. Jennings, you can just stay right there, while I introduce the next panel.

We have Richard Casey Hoffman, the President of CSE, the

Child Support Enforcement Company in Austin, Texas; Charles

Bacarisse, who is the Harris County District Clerk from Houston,

Texas, and from the great State of Florida, Judith Fink, who is the

director of the Broward County Support Enforcement Division in

that great city of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Welcome. As with the previous panel, we have your full statement which will be made a part of the record, and we would invite

you to summarize as you see fit.

Ms. Jennings, we will lead off with you, in that you are still with

us from the previous panel.

Mac, would you like to make any special remarks before we proceed?

Mr. COLLINS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate you

and Ms. Jennings working together to wait until I could arrive; my

first flight was canceled.

I just want to take the opportunity to welcome Ms. Jacqueline

Jennings from Columbus, Georgia. She’s manager of the Child Support Enforcement Office in Columbus with the Georgia Department

of Human Resources. She has 21 years of experience in this office.

In the Columbus area, she has jurisdiction over five counties. Fort

Benning, Georgia is located amongst them. She’s been a real leader

35

in the area of child support recovery. In the Welfare Reform bill we

had in the last Congress, Mr. Camp, Ms. Dunn and I worked very

closely together trying to come up with some new provisions on enforcement. Ms. Jennings played a major role in advising me back

in the District of some things that we needed to look at. In your

opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned another area that

I think Ms. Jennings could be very helpful to us in. We look forward to her testimony and welcome Ms. Jacqueline Jennings.

STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE JENNINGS, MANAGER, OFFICE

OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF

HUMAN RESOURCES, COLUMBUS, GA

Ms. JENNINGS. Thank you, Representative Collins. To Representative Shaw and the other members of the great body, it is indeed

a pleasure for me to be allowed this opportunity to talk about the

plight of some of America’s children who are being denied support

from their fathers. I currently serve as the office manager of the

Child Support Enforcement Office in Columbus, Georgia. We have

the unique distinction of being near one of the Army’s many training centers—Fort Benning—and the home of some 30,000 military

veterans and retirees. We’re near the Tuskegee VA Hospital and

Martin Army Hospital; therefore, we handle a large number of

child support cases where the non-custodial parent is a veteran.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996

provided the Office of Child Support Enforcement additional laws

and techniques to obtain support payments from more delinquent

parents to ensure that their children receive the financial support

and security that they’re entitled to have. Yet, children of thousands of veterans are being denied support that has been established through court orders because we’re unable to send the Veterans’ Administration Income Withholding Orders. The policy regarding veterans’ benefits needs to be reviewed to assure that no

child fails to receive support from their parents, even if their parent is a veteran.

I have two different cases handled by my office that I believe will

illustrate the need for additional changes in this policy. These

cases are only a fraction of the cases of parents who are veterans

who are not living up to their obligations in our caseloads in Georgia and throughout the Nation.

The first case involves the Office of Child Support Enforcement

and the Office of Child Support Enforcement in Washington working together to obtain support for a parent. The custodial parent

sought congressional assistance in this case, contacting the Washington courts and providing updated information regarding the

non-custodial parent’s income. Her efforts resulted in her being

awarded $41.00 a month from Veterans’ Administration. The noncustodial parent’s obligation is $300.00 per month, resulting in a

$259.00 deficit each month. Since the VA payments are the NCP’s

only income, the Washington courts acknowledged that they were

unable to secure support payments from the non-custodial parent

until he was employed. Washington Child Support Unit offered to

refer the non-custodial parent for employment services, but he refused. To date, he is behind in his support payments well over

$12,000.

36

The second case involves a non-custodial parent who had several

proceedings regarding his support payments. The non-custodial

parent continued to receive his VA benefits while in jail, but he

failed or refused to pay his child support for his child. This noncustodial parent has placed his child at risk by not being willing

to help provide for the child’s basic needs. Although we were able

to get payments on the arrears after the child turned age 18, the

tragedy of this situation was that the veteran’s son never benefitted from a parent who supported him. The support due on these

cases totaled over $20,000 and that’s just two cases in my office.

If you multiply this number throughout the United States, these

figures are staggering. All of these cases highlight the need for

changes to be made to allow veterans’ benefits to be shared with

their children. Child support workers throughout the country are

able to secure support payments from parents who receive disability income from Social Security. This does not include supplemental income but RSDI based on the non-custodial parent’s employment history. If the law allows for children of those parents to

receive—who receive Social Security disability to pay support, then

the children of veterans should have the same rights.

The right to receive child support should be afforded to all children. The need for these changes are increasing as many veterans

are obtaining benefits at an early age and are remarrying and becoming parents of additional children. We are aware that each

claim must be viewed on an individual basis—keeping in mind the

needs and conditions of the veteran who will be affected. The noncustodial veteran can request a review and adjustment of their

court orders to reflect a change of circumstances, but yet be still

allowed to pay support based on current income.

The VA has worked with numerous custodial parents to allow

some apportionment to be sent to families, but in most cases, it is

far less than the amount that is court-ordered and the children are

still suffering. Many of these children have working mothers who

need this money to improve their lives. Our staff in Georgia is committed to providing the highest level of service to all clients. We’re

utilizing all the techniques passed in the Personal Responsibility

Work Act of 1996 to provide assistance for our children. But we

really need and feel that this is important that the veterans’ children are looked at. Allowing access to VA benefits will provide millions of dollars of support to the children of the country who may

otherwise be unable to receive support through wages. While we

are proud of our veterans and their many sacrifices for our country,

we must also focus on their children who are our future.

A change in the Federal statute to allow VA benefits to be paid

for support will help ensure that veterans’ children have a better

chance of life. We must all remember that the children are who we

are working for in child support. Thank you for allowing me this

opportunity to bring this important issue to your attention.

[The prepared statement follows:]

37

38

39

40

Chairman SHAW. Thank you, Ms. Jennings.

Mr. Hoffman.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD ‘‘CASEY’’ HOFFMAN, PRESIDENT,

CSE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT COMPANY, AUSTIN, TX

Mr. HOFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee. My name is Casey Hoffman. I’m the president of the

oldest and largest attorney-led enforcement firm in the country

that’s headquartered in Austin, Texas. We have 85 people at CSE.

Seven of whom are attorneys. We have focused strictly on enforcing

court-ordered child support for private clients. It is important to

note that we do not receive Federal funds of any kind and are not

part of the Title IV–D program.

My training and experience give me a unique perspective in

working with child support professionals to solve this crisis. I have

been an Assistant District Attorney. I practiced family law for 18

years. I’ve co-authored a book and numerous articles on child support enforcement and I’ve served as a State Bar president. But

most importantly for five years, I ran the largest Title IV–D program in the country as a special Assistant Attorney General in

Austin, Texas.

Taking testimony from this panel is a historic occasion in your

dedicated efforts to solve the child support problem. This particular

panel is comprised of representatives who are not part of the Title

IV–D effort. As such, they do not get any Federal funds, but each

day help families across the country collect child support and distribute the child support check promptly. It is a most appropriate

time to focus on what non-Title IV–D agencies like these can do for

the families who do not and cannot get help from the federallyfunded Title IV–D program. Given the millions of families that go

without child support, there can be no competitive reason for supporting a Title IV–D solution over a non-Title IV–D solution.

From the taxpayer perspective and a Title IV–D perspective,

each case where we provide services is one less case for the overburdened Title IV–D worker. I believe it is clear to most—every experienced professional that we can no longer design a Title IV–D

program that assumes each and every case will be successfully

worked by the Title IV–D agencies in this country. We must, instead be inclusive and do what is needed to attract other armies

onto the battlefield to work—the caseload—that overwhelms our

IV–D agencies. Just as importantly, we must work the cases for the

millions of children who are not even in the Title IV–D program.

We must remember that there’s a huge caseload of families that

are not part of the Title IV–D agency and do not receive child support.

The latest Federal statistics for 1996 demonstrate the above presumptions clearly and unequivocally. The Title IV–D program

while improving dramatically in collecting an impressive $12 billion was able to collect on 52 percent of the current support owed

for that year and on 8 percent of the total arrearages. What this

means in total dollars not collected—not collected for 1996—in just

the Title IV–D caseloads, is $8 billion in current support went uncollected, while $36 billion in arrearages went uncollected. Said another way, the Title IV–D program fell behind another $4 billion

41

in collections. Therefore, our message today is focused on proposal

that supports putting more armies on the battlefield. That proposed is to provide non-Title IV–D agencies with the same tools

that you have given to the IV–D program and the information you

have given to the IV–D program so that they can help more families.

Title IV–D families cannot claim an exclusive right to providing

child support services, nor should they be given an exclusive right

to the tools and information you legislated for all children. If

there’s one thing that the Congress can claim all the credit for and

deserves to be praised for, it is giving the Title IV–D program some

of the best tools and information to serve their clients.

For example, where would we be without wage withholding—a

tool that has been widely used by the non-Title IV–D programs.

The issue becomes how can we give the non-Title IV–D programs

who are using attorneys the very tools that the Title IV–D program

has. A little over 90 percent of our clients who have come to us for

help are owed over four years worth of child support and have already been to the IV–D agency; they had not received child support

collected; and are now benefiting from our services. Families also

go to Judy Fink’s agency in Broward County and get help. She’s

a non-Title IV–D agency. They get services from Charles Bacarisse

in Houston, Texas and he’s a non-Title IV–D agency.

I feel very strongly about this proposal and describe it in detail

in my written testimony. I’ve set forth the tools that we need to

be giving to the non-Title IV–D programs that will help millions of

children in this country and help us win the child support war.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement follows:]

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

Chairman SHAW. Thank you, Mr. Hoffman.

Mr. Bacarisse.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES BACARISSE, HARRIS COUNTY

DISTRICT CLERK, HOUSTON, TX

Mr. BACARISSE. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the

committee, I come before you today to ask your support for legislation that would give non-Title IV–D enforcement agencies additional tools to be even more effective players in the field of child

support enforcement. My name is Charles Bacarisse and as the

District Clerk of Harris County, Texas, I oversee a child support

registry that moved more than $220 million in payments last year.

There’s simply no doubt in my mind that child support enforcement

has grown at such a rate that outside assistance is desperately

needed.

From my office in Houston, my staff processes over 5,000 trans- actions totalling more than $1 million a day. In fact, if Harris

County were a State, it would rank 26th nationally in terms of the

volume of child support payments processed. You may not be aware

of the more than 19 million cases currently in the nationwide IV–

D caseload, nearly 40 percent lack support orders. In those cases

having orders, collections could be made in only one of five because

of the difficulty inherent in that enforcement. At the same time,

the State IV–D agencies struggle to increase establishments in collections, their caseloads continue to grow by the hundreds of thousands and the backlogs in establishments and enforcement actions

continue to mount. While the problem is monstrous by any standard, the solution in my judgment is not. A successful full-scale attack on this worrisome problem requires the enlistment of all available resources including locally funded, non-Title IV–D government

enforcement entities and members of the private bar and responsible private firms specializing in support collection.

This attack also makes sense from a taxpayer’s standpoint. Title IV–D support enforcement services cost the taxpayer more than $3

billion annually. By contrast, locally funded support enforcement

agencies and private attorneys can offer services at zero cost to the

Federal Government. In this regard, Harris County custodial parents in need of support enforcement assistance are more fortunate

than those in some other areas, because Harris County operates its

own child support enforcement agency—the Harris County Domestic Relations Office.

The Harris County DRO is funded by fees paid by those who use

its support and visitation enforcement services. The user fees are

based on income and ability to pay. Unfortunately, Texas’ domestic

relations offices in similar non-IV–D public child support enforcement agencies in other States are presently unable to use some of

the enforcement tools available to the IV–D agencies. The result is

the custodial parents may be forced to go to the IV–D agency for

certain types of service adding to the number of cases to be handled by the IV–D agency.

As one who deals with this matter on a daily basis, my suggestion for involving capable non-Title IV–D enforcement entities must

come with Federal legislation to allow the following four enforcement tools: the equal use of income withholding for unemployment

57

benefits; the equal use of Federal and State tax refunds; the extension of data matches with non-Title IV–D entities; and the ability

to report child support delinquencies to credit bureaus. All of the

measures would, of course, come with the appropriate safeguards

on access to and the use of this confidential and sensitive information. The legislation should require that any non-IV–D entity or

private attorney seeking to use these specified tools and information register with the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

The use of the specified tools and resources would be solely for

child support enforcement purposes.

My view is that the more resources that can be applied to improving the collection of support, the better for the children owed

that support. I believe Federal legislation and policy should encourage participation in support enforcement by responsible public and

private agencies and attorneys. This subcommittee can begin that

process today by considering the recommendations I’ve just presented, as well as those of my co-panelists joining me here today.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I hope I’ve clearly

defined the gravity of this situation and left you with at least part

of the solution. Thank you for allowing me to testify before your

committee.

[The prepared statement follows:]

58

59

60

61

62

63

Chairman SHAW. Thank you. Not to be outdone by Mac Collins,

it’s now my pleasure to ask Judy Fink to testify before the committee—of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

STATEMENT OF JUDITH FINK, DIRECTOR, BROWARD COUNTY

SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, FT. LAUDERDALE, FL

Ms. FINK. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Good afternoon and thank you for the invitation to testify on the issue of child support enforcement in the non-IV–D

arena. My name is Judith Fink and I’m the director of the Broward

County Support Enforcement Division, an agency of county government in Broward County, Florida.

We are funded completely through the county’s property tax dollars. Through the local funding of a separate child support program

in Broward County, we are able to assist our IV–D counterparts,

thus reducing the need for additional Federal dollars. Due to the

diligence of Congress, and in particular the work of this subcommittee, very effective child support enforcement tools have been

created. A very notable example is wage withholding—also known

as income deduction. This process is one of the primary methods

by which child support is now collected. What is very significant is

that wage withholding was first enacted by Congress as an enforcement tool available only to IV–D agencies. States were then given

the option of whether to extend use of this tool to non-IV–D cases.

Eventually Congress required immediate wage withholding for

child support in all cases.

Congress should take this approach now and extend the use of

other child support enforcement tools initially given only IV–D

agencies to non-IV–D enforcement organizations. Our newest enforcement tool is the ability to revoke drivers’ licenses. Through

this program, we have been able to convince people to meet their

child support obligations that previously ignored all other enforcement attempts. In some States, non-IV–D enforcement agencies are

not able to utilize this enforcement tool. Congress should enact legislation making it clear that license revocation as an enforcement—

as an enforcement tool should also be available in non-IV–D cases.

These two examples illustrate the importance of Congressional action to create a level playing field by which the non-IV–D child support enforcement agencies are able to access important tools.

I’m here today to ask for your help in leveling the playing field—

that is child support enforcement. Our clients give up opportunities

for access to effective enforcement tools because they would rather

work with the local agencies that reports to the county government

and is more responsive to community needs. This choice should not

be necessary. In order to afford the non-IV–D client the same enforcement opportunities as those made available to IV–D residential parents, we are requesting that non-IV–D agencies be given access to the following enforcement tools.

Income withholding from unemployment insurance benefits: NonIV–D clients already benefit from the use of income withholding

through use of income deduction orders to the employers. A logical

extension of this very effective tool would be grant non-IV–D agencies the right to issue income deduction orders against unemployment insurance benefits. Without this right, child support payVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:16 Jun 07, 2000 Jkt 063429 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60898 pfrm07 PsN: 60898
64

ments come to a grinding halt when non-residential parents lose a

job. Conceivably six months to a year can go by without any child

support payments being sent to the residential parent.

The New Hire Directory: As stated earlier, the singular most effective enforcement tool is the income deduction order. New hire directory is a service that our clients frequently request and believe

that we are obligated to provide. If this service were to become an

automatic function of the non-IV–D agency, we could help some of

our neediest clients to collect their child support.

The Federal Case Registry: Under the Personal Responsibility

and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, all non-IV–D

cases established or modified on or after October 1, 1998 must be

maintained on a State and Federal case registry. Even though nonIV–D case information will be maintained, the non-IV–D client will

receive no tangible benefit. Information matched through the registry will be extremely valuable and helpful in our ongoing enforcement efforts.

Passport Revocation: The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 allows for passport sanctions when child support debt of more than $5,000 is

owed. We believe that much like the driver’s license revocation,

this would be an extraordinarily valuable tool. We would like to ensure that child support obligations are placed ahead of international travel on a delinquent parent’s list of priorities.

In addition to access to the previously-mentioned enforcement

tools already made available to and used by the IV–D agencies, we

would like to propose an amendment to current law.

Under existing law, when a residential parent files for bankruptcy there’s an automatic stay for child support enforcement.

While the child support enforcement obligations cannot be discharged as a result of bankruptcy until the bankruptcy issue is resolved, our hands were tied with regard to enforcement. We propose that child support enforcement be exempt from the automatic

stay.

As part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996, each State is required to establish a

central disbursement unit through which all income deduction

order payments shall be processed. While this may be more efficient for the employers, we have some serious concerns regarding

customer service to our clients. As a local depository, we also make

arrangements for the parent to come to our office to pick up the

check when they are in critical financial need. Once the central disbursement unit is established, this vital customer service will be

eliminated.

Together we have made great strides in improving child support

enforcement services. Collections are on the rise, however, we can

do more. We see ourselves as the unofficial partners to the IV–D

agencies in the war on child support. The truth is that the IV–D

agencies cannot do it all. We’re not asking for funding. We’re not

even asking for recognition for the wonderful work that we do each

day to help improve the lives of the children whose parents come

to us for help. All that we ask is to help us by leveling the playing

field that our clients may be the recipient of many of the remarkable enforcement methods that you’ve made available to those parents who choose to apply for these services.

65

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the invitation and the opportunity

to testify before this distinguished committee. The lives of the single parents of America are improved through the diligent efforts

and caring of this committee. Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

Chairman SHAW. Thank you, Ms. Fink. Mr. Collins.

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want

to refer to Ms. Jennings and a couple of questions pertaining to

veterans’ benefits. Ms. Jennings, you mentioned two particular

cases. But would you please walk the committee through the process when a custodial parent comes to you seeking child support

from a non-custodial parent that is currently receiving veterans’

benefits?

Ms. JENNINGS. A lot of times, the custodial parent may not know

that the parent is receiving benefits. What we do is we try to go

through all of the possible things that the non-custodial parent

may be receiving. One of the first questions we ask in Columbus

is, is the person a veteran? Did they serve in the military in any

way? For how long? So that we can start the process. Usually, we’ll

send the custodial parent to the VA ourselves to let her apply and

find—and get the information from them. A lot of times they will

bring us back the paperwork and we’ll help the client fill out the

paperwork, answering the questions and providing the information.

Sometimes she may or may not know it all—the information. So

we’re kind of the go-between between the client and the VA administration trying to get the information so the client can find out.

They’ll write back to us and to the client and notify us if the veteran is receiving benefits or is the parent able to get a apportionment out of the benefits at that time.

Mr. COLLINS. Is it a lengthy process?

Ms. JENNINGS. It is a lengthy process. They—a lot of times, VA,

they tended to be a little slow when they respond back to you. So

a lot of times we’ll have to go back in and ask them over and over

again. It’s a lot of paperwork. A lot of our clients don’t understand

what they’re asking about—about the service member injuries.

They ask a lot of times questions that the mother may not know.

So it is a lengthy process and it does take awhile for VA to answer

back to us.

Mr. COLLINS. Do you have an idea of your caseload? I believe

today you have about 13,000 cases. What percentage of your caseload is actually veterans?

Ms. JENNINGS. Probably about 45 percent in some ways.

Mr. COLLINS. Do you know of any other Federal paycheck or benefit check that cannot be processed for child support other than the

veteran?

Ms. JENNINGS. No. That’s the only one that we—and because we

at Ft. Benning deal with attachments to most military or Federal

pay—from civil service to retired pay—and that veteran’s check is

the only one that we know about that we have not been able to actually access.

Mr. COLLINS. You mentioned an apportionment benefit. Would

you explain in more detail what this actual apportionment benefit

is. Is it limited or not limited? Give us some kind of idea of just

exactly what you mean.

Ms. JENNINGS. Well, first, it’s going to be based upon the veteran’s disability and how much that veteran is allowed to receive.

Then the apportionment—in some cases, we’ve had where the VA

will tell us that the client, the mother and children are not able

to receive any amount of apportionment because the veteran needs

73

that money to support himself. The thing that strikes us about

these cases, that these are veterans who are walking around, who

are able to do odd jobs and have a second income that we may or

may not can find—but yet they’re saying that the money is needed

totally to take care of this veteran. Usually the apportionment is

a smaller amount of money and is far less than what is already obligated or already ordered by the courts. So there are some cases

where the mother will get an apportionment, but it’ll be a smaller

amount of money—like the $401 that this lady is currently receiving now.

Mr. COLLINS. Do you have any problem with VA obtaining the

actual information as to how much a veteran is drawing in benefits?

Ms. JENNINGS. That’s a challenge. Usually that’s why we usually

send the client there because it is very difficult to get any information from the Veterans’ Administration directly ourselves. So we

usually send the client there to get the information.

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. In the welfare reform measures that we included in the child support provision—including the Welfare Reform bill—it seems to have been a lot of things that have been very

helpful to you in order to help you recover payments more easily.

Can you give some ideas of——

Ms. JENNINGS. Well, the license suspension is very, very helpful.

That’s one of the things that we utilize quite a bit in my area. I’m

on the border State and so I border Alabama. I have a large, tremendously large, interstate caseload. The passage of the URISA

Act so that we can send court orders across the county/State line

makes it much more simpler and of course they can do it to the

employers there in Georgia. So those are just two things. We’re just

now starting to get into—going into bank accounts and some other

things that the law will allow for. But we think that this will help

increase our caseload all the way around.

Mr. COLLINS. Very good. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from a

constituent—I won’t read her name—that I would like to share

with the committee and have it entered into the record, please sir.

It says ‘‘Dear Mr. Collins, I have written in an attempt to gain

child support for my son since 1987. I’ve requested aid, written letters, sent in outlined budgets and constantly asked for medical,

educational and general support benefits to no avail from VA. I’ve

been denied access to my spouse’s records as to what percentage

of disability and total amount of his entitlement are from the VA.

My sons are now 16 and 14 and have been denied the opportunity

and right to benefit from the allotted monetary gain set by VA

standards no matter what the amount. I have not objected to inquiry into my type and mode of employment nor salary and lifestyle. Are we to live below the poverty level; be denied clothing,

shelter and whatever joys in my life that my salary cannot provide?

I work two jobs and attend graduate classes in order to provide. My

children have needs as well as any other. Does my salary and the

fact that I do work prevent their father from participating in their

welfare? I pray that the concerns of these children that are being

abandoned by the government—the VA—be voiced. That the VA

rethink the position that allows these deadbeat fathers to flagrantly flourish under the protection now set in the VA guidelines.

74

I await you reply with interest. Signed.’’ I’d like to enter that into

the record, please.

Chairman SHAW. I thank you for bringing this question to our attention. Mr. Hoffman, how do you answer the question as to the

rights of privacy that the IV–D for the agencies by law can overcome? I mean, there’s a certain amount of information that they

can receive that you cannot. I assume that you’re advocating that

you should be able to receive this information. How would you answer those people that are concerned about that?

Mr. HOFFMAN. Well first off, I think that’s one of the paramount

issues. The way we propose to resolve it in the written testimony

is very clear. The first point is that only a private attorney can

make the request to the agency. In an affidavit, that private attorney is going to have to swear that he is seeking that information

for one purpose only and on just that one particular case, and it

has to be for the purpose of child support enforcement. When the

IV–D agency gets that request—just as they do now with a FPLS—

request—we would get all of the information from FPLS. The information that we would be asking for under the State case registry

and under FPLS would be secure as that attorney would be very

concerned that he or she would lose their license to practice law if

the provision was violated. We would have them sign it under oath

and it would indicate that the penalty would be disbarment if used

for any purpose other than child support enforcement.

The second provision we put in the written testimony is that

there would be a registration process with the Federal agency

whereby you would be entitled to get this information only if you

were properly registered. If you violated the rule, then you would

of course be taken off the list and would not get this information

from the IV–D agency. We think that way, privacy will be protected in a way that’s no different from every child support worker

that handles that information right now. We have no guarantee

that every Title IV–D worker is going to handle that information

responsibly. We believe they do—we believe they do a good job, but

they’re also subject to losing their employment I would assume if

they violated the security promised the title IV–D agency.

We’ve put very specific provisions in our request for this committee to consider that kind of legislation. We think, quite frankly,

it’s necessary. We would not extend this to any agency beyond a

private attorney. Right now, I would like to see how that works.

I think that if a client is allowed to go in and ask for this information—get it from the Federal IV–D agency, why would you not let

an attorney who represents that client get the very same information. If the client is going to get it then the person who has a lawyer ought to get it.

Chairman SHAW. Ms. Fink, is that information available to you?

Ms. FINK. No, not currently. We do have access to the driver’s

license bureau record—on-line inquiry access. So that’s one area

where we’ve already opened the door a little so to speak. So we see

this as just an extension beyond some of the very confidential information that we’re already receiving. We found that the driver’s license has been very beneficial to us for some child support. We actually have an agreement with the driver’s license bureau that if

we—if anyone on my staff uses that information for anything other

75

than child support enforcement, then that access will be denied to

our entire agency.

Chairman SHAW. You brought something to my attention—even

though I practiced law for many, many years. I wasn’t aware that

child support was subject to an automatic hold during bankruptcy

proceeding. That I feel is outrageous.

Ms. FINK. We think so——

Chairman SHAW. We need desperately to address a bankruptcy

bill that’s beating around the House here. I don’t know whether it’s

going to get to the floor this week or not but there’s some things

in there I think that we may want to address. But this is something that we ought to take a look at and see if we can straighten

it out.

I want to thank you all very much for your very fine testimony.

Thanks for being with us, we appreciate it.

The next panel is made up of two people—Jessica Pearson, Ph.D.

and director of the Center for Policy Research, Denver, Colorado;

and Kathleen Krenek, the policy development coordinator, Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Madison, Wisconsin.

As with the other panels, we have your full testimony, which will

be made a part of the record.

I have to apologize to this panel. I’ve got a meeting with the

leadership that I have to attend at 4:30. Mr. Collins will chair the

hearing and I will try to get back in time for the questioning. We

appreciate this panel being here.

Mr. COLLINS [presiding]. Well, we’ll go ahead. Ms. Pearson?

Ms. PEARSON. Yes.

Mr. COLLINS. Welcome and we’ll receive your testimony. It will

be entered into the record and included in its entirety.

STATEMENT OF JESSICA PEARSON, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR

POLICY RESEARCH, DENVER, CO

Ms. PEARSON. Thank you. I’m Jessica Pearson. I’m the Director

of the Center for Policy Research which is an independent, nonprofit organization in Denver, Colorado engaged in research on

issues that pertain to children and families.

During the past 18 months, my colleagues and I have conducted

a study of applicants for public assistance in four social service

agencies in Colorado in both urban and rural settings. As part of

our study—intake workers in four public assistance and child support agencies in Colorado—asked 1,082 female applicants for public

assistance explicit questions about whether they had ever experienced domestic abuse. Those who disclosed domestic abuse were

asked more detailed questions about the perpetrator, the frequency

and the severity of the violence. They were also asked about whether they were interested in applying for the so-called Good Cause

Exemption which accords victims the right to apply for an exemption to the child support requirement for reasons of domestic abuse.

We analyzed the responses to these questions. We also reviewed

files maintained by these social service agencies to gauge the number and status of any good cause applications that they had filed.

This is what we found.

Finding 1: Many applicants for public assistance have experienced domestic violence. Like many other studies of women on welVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:16 Jun 07, 2000 Jkt 063429 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60898 pfrm07 PsN: 60898
76

fare, our screening efforts revealed that domestic violence is extremely common. Across the four office sites in our study, 40 percent of applicants disclosed current or past abuse. This is presented

in the first pie chart on your handout. Most of the abuse reported

by the women involved former partners, although a quarter are

currently involved in an abusive relationship. Three-quarters of

those reporting abuse said the abuser was the father of one or

more of their children making cooperation with the child support

agency and the pursuit of child support at least a potential danger.

Eighty-one percent of the women reported being hit or beat up; half

characterized the abuse as frequent; about one-third reported that

the abuse had occurred within the past two years.

Finding 2: Very few victims are interested in applying for good

cause. In our study, child support technicians explained that all

victims of domestic violence have the option of applying for a good

cause exemption. They asked each interviewed victim whether she

was interested in making such an application. Across the four offices we studied, only 6.7 percent of the women reporting violence

said that they would be interested in applying for the exemption;

while 93.3 percent declined. Looked at somewhat differently, only

2.7 percent of the 1,082 applicants for public assistance studied in

this project expressed an interest in applying for good cause. Those

figures are shown in the second and third pie charts on your handout.

Nearly all of those who declined to apply for good cause—93 percent—said that they wanted child support. The desire to obtain

child support was the main reason most victims gave for not pursuing the good cause option. Other common reasons given by many

victims of domestic violence for not applying were: the absent parent knows where I live; the abuse happened long ago; there’s no

current danger; and I already have a child support order for him.

Finding 3: Some women do fear that they will experience harm

if child support is pursued. Of the 1,082 women we interviewed, 2.7

percent—or 29 victims of domestic violence—said they were interested in applying for good cause. These women believe that the

abusive parent wanted to take or harm the children and/or harm

them. They worried that the pursuit of child support would stimulate the abuser to visit; learn her whereabouts; and/or take retaliatory actions. To avoid an abusive partner, 72 percent of these victims said they had changed residences; 55 percent had moved outof-state; and 34 percent had stayed at a shelter for battered

women.

Finding 4: Victims who applied for good cause may have trouble

producing official records needed to document a threat of harm.

One-third of those who applied for good cause were successful; twothirds had their applications denied—typically because they provided no documentary evidence or because the evidence provided

was deemed to be insufficient. Successful applicants provided at

least two types of documents such as police reports and restraining

orders. However, there was a fair amount of subjectivity in what

an agency considers to be accurate documentation.

What does this all mean? Our research shows that domestic violence is a common problem. At the same time, the vast majority of

these women do not request good cause from child support requireVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:16 Jun 07, 2000 Jkt 063429 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60898 pfrm07 PsN: 60898
77

ments. Like their non-abused counterparts, these women want

child support—they ask for no accommodation. Congress should

continue to encourage child support agencies to pursue child support for these women. A small proportion feel otherwise. In these

instances, Congress should encourage States to explore ways to

provide child support interventions that offer victims more confidentiality. Washington State’s Address Confidentiality Program is

one example of a State-funded program that offers the use of substitute addresses to victims.

Some women will only be safe if child support interventions are

suspended all together. In these instances, Congress should encourage States to review their procedures in public assistance and child

support agencies to ensure that those who need protection are

being identified or offered the opportunity to apply for exemption

in an understandable manner and are accorded reasonable and

sensitive treatment. The small number of victims who believe they

face a serious threat of harm and want good cause should not be

burdened by requirements to produce an array of official documents. Their sworn statements and those of their family and

friends should also be taken into account.

Finally, before considering changes to current requirements, Congress should await the results of research currently underway in

the States of Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Missouri on

the topic of domestic violence, cooperation and child support policies. Thank you for your attention.

[The prepared statement follows:]

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you. Ms.——

Ms. KRENEK. Krenek.

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN KRENEK, POLICY DEVELOPMENT

COORDINATOR, WISCONSIN COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC

VIOLENCE, MADISON, WI

Ms. KRENEK. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the

House Ways and Means Committee. Thank you for providing this

opportunity to testify before the committee on behalf of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence.

The NRC is one of four centers funded by the Department of

Health and Human Services to provide comprehensive information

and technical assistance to those involved in domestic violence,

intervention and prevention efforts. My name is Kathleen Krenek

and I’m the incoming director of the NRC. For the past nine years,

I’ve been the Policy Development Coordinator for the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

I think we share a common goal for low-income battered women

and their families. We want them to be both self-sufficient and

safe. Many battered women need some combination of temporary

financial assistance, access to job training, and educational activities, domestic abuse services and support, and child support. We

commend the committee for including the panel on domestic violence within the TANF child support oversight hearing.

In the area of child support, it is important to break out of the

enforced child support—don’t enforce child support paradigm—and

expand it with the concept of safely enforcing child support. Adding

this third strategy starts with a careful assessment of each family’s

risks and results in the individualized enforcement plan. The circumstances faced by battered women and their families are complex and diverse. A significant majority of battered women want

and need child support orders enforced as Jessica Pearson has just

noted. Some women, however, will be endangered or their children

will be endangered by child support efforts. The clearest example

is the woman whose abusive partner threatens to hurt her and her

children if she cooperates with child support, including paternity

establishment. These families may require alternative strategies

that address safety risk and the suspension of child support enforcement altogether, if needed.

Determining what child support enforcement strategies families

need requires close collaboration between advocates, TANF and

child support enforcement agencies and the families themselves. A

number of promising approaches already exist that balance safety

and self-sufficiency interests. As Congress intended these specialized responses are being created and implemented at a State level.

Some examples include: child support agencies informing custodial

parents every time an enforcement step is taken—such as service

of papers, seizures of bank accounts or other assets, withholdings,

suspension or revoking licenses, or attachment of wages—so that

the custodial parents are able to take precautionary steps to deal

with the potential backlash. Only requiring battered custodial parents to attend court orders when absolutely necessary and in those

cases providing them protection.

91

Establishing address confidentiality programs as you’ve heard

like Washington State protects the location of a battered woman’s

residence while giving her some sort of address that she can receive legal documents. As you may know, Wisconsin received a Federal waiver to allow most custodial parents receiving cash assistance, to keep all child support that is collected. This new system

allows many victims receiving their child support to maintain a

level of independence once only hoped for.

Importantly, the PRWOR Act also has strong language addressing the restriction of disclosure and use of the information—in the

Federal Parent Locator Service and other databases. However,

there are implementation issues to resolve, including the design of

computer information systems. This again will benefit from a collaborative process on both the Federal and State levels. Regarding

TANF and its impact on domestic violence victims, here again not

all battered women have the same needs. Only some battered

women—and we don’t yet know how many—will need exemptions

from time limits, work requirements or other program provisions.

The available research shows us that not all abused women coming

into contact with TANF and child support agencies will have problems with their ability to participate in job training, work or education programs and meet other program requirements.

However, some of abused women will have lingering safety concerns or trauma that will interfere with job training or employment. There are promising practices in this regard, as well. By

adopting a family violence option with similar provisions many

States have recognized that some battered women need temporary

exemption from work, child support cooperation or other requirements. Many States have developed an instituted training program

designed to increase TANF workers’ sensitivity and responsive to

domestic abuse issues. In some communities, partnerships that

combine the best local domestic violence advocate expertise where

agency researchers have the potential to provide the meaningful,

practical help battered women need.

Building a broader culture change initiative and the State flexibility provided by Congress, some TANF and child support enforcement offices have explored ways to coordinate their efforts and create an environment in which battered women can safely get the information and resources they need to comply with program requirements and work towards a greater economic independence.

We thank you again for placing domestic violence on today’s

hearing agenda. It’s somewhat of a historical feat for us. Without

the means of supporting themselves and their children, battered

women cannot be free from the violence and control of their abusive partners. The National Research Center and others will continue to advocate for victims in domestic violence as State implementation of TANF and child support enforcement programs proceed. We urge you to continue to support States and their efforts

to balance safety and self-sufficiency. Thank you for allowing us to

testify.

[The prepared statement follows:]

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

Mr. CAMP. Thank you very much. Ms. Pearson, I have a few

questions.

Ms. PEARSON. Sure.

Mr. CAMP. Two-thirds of the women who applied for the good

cause exception indicated that they were worried about the fear of

further abuse. However, their applications were denied because

they didn’t produce sufficient documentation of past abuse. Is this

documentation specifically required in Federal law or is it something State agencies have the power to change?

Ms. PEARSON. These are State agency requirements.

Mr. CAMP. Ms. Krenek, do you have any estimates of the number

of women who are actually harmed by cooperating with child support enforcement?

Ms. KRENEK. Not yet. No it’s a fairly new area for gathering statistics. There isn’t much research available.

Mr. CAMP. Do you know to the extent which States that are implementing some of the approaches? The extent to which they are

that you outlined in your testimony?

Ms. KRENEK. No. In fact, those are very new as well. I can speak

to the one in the State of Wisconsin, it began just in July of this

year—so it’s very hard for us to tell whether or not they’re going

to work. We do know in one county of Wisconsin, that very few battered women want the good cause exception because they have to

have child support in order to survive—they’re working minimum

wage jobs.

Mr. CAMP. I think I understood your testimony to say—you know

have some caution here and wait until the research is more complete.

Ms. PEARSON. Right.

Mr. CAMP. You named a number of States——

Ms. PEARSON. That’s right.

Mr. CAMP [continuing]. That are working on that in your written

testimony. Before we address this clause, there’s an exception issue

here—do you have any further detail on what some of the research

questions are in this——

Ms. PEARSON. Yes.

Mr. CAMP [continuing]. When we’re likely to see some information or results come back.

Ms. PEARSON. There were a number of awards made by the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement last September. They

were effective October 1. They’re three-year demonstration projects.

In several cases, for example—in Massachusetts, there’s an attempt to try and identify the incidence of—domestic violence

among applicants for public assistance. Levels of interest and exemptions and waivers for not only child support requirements but

other TANF requirements dealing with work requirements, time

limits are being studied. Experimentation with different methods of

identifying victims of domestic violence. Comparing direct screening, direct questioning versus notification procedures where written

documents—written notification about the ability or the opportunities to disclose are merely presented. I think that we’re really looking at the—numbers coming out in the next 18 months. Something

of that sort takes a while to do.

109

Minnesota is experimenting with types of issues. New York State

will be doing that too. They have just released an announcement

for an evaluation contractors to get involved with a study. So

they’re really in their infancy—their early stages. I think that was

the intent of the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement when

it announced these initiatives—the desire to get some good empirical information in this area. That’s why this Colorado study is, to

my knowledge, is the only one that we have.

Mr. CAMP. Do you think there’s enough flexibility in the current

welfare reform law to address the needs of victims of domestic violation?

Ms. PEARSON. At this point, I think there is, particularly with

the Wellstone-Murray which allow States to exempt victims of domestic violence and to take domestic violence into account. I think

there’s a tremendous amount of variation even within States—jurisdiction by jurisdiction—about how these women or how these

victims are identified and accorded treatment. For that reason, I

think the collaborations with domestic violence professionals and

public assistance agencies, and child support agencies are important so there is some mutual training and education and some of

the best methodology that will inspire sensitive treatments will be

used by an agency.

Mr. CAMP. Then one last question, Ms. Krenek. Can you describe

some of the ways that TANF and child support offices have collaborated to help battered women get the information they need? Are

you aware of those?

Ms. KRENEK. Yes. Well, I can give you one example of a project

that I coordinate in LaCrosse, Wisconsin as a federally-funded

project awarded by the Department of Health and Human Services.

We have an economic advocate who is hired by the battered women’s program and placed in the economic support division office.

Women are referred to her when domestic violence has been disclosed. LaCrosse Dept. of Social Services have been working with

us—they provide us free space, all of the copying and clerical work.

They’re working with us on different methods of voluntary disclosure to help battered women. Then we do case management with

them on what is the best course of action to take at this point.

They have been willing to allow us to critique their methods and

it has provided some interesting results in how battered women are

viewed within the system. Many women don’t disclose to economic

support workers but do disclose to economic advocates. We will be

following women for one year to find out what the obstacles are for

that group of women versus the women who either don’t disclose

or have not been abused. So it’s a really great effort and collaboration.

We also did a piece with the State Department of work force development which is the administering agency in Wisconsin. In that

we collaborated on the training manual on domestic violence that

all economic support workers in Wisconsin received. So we’ve done

some team training with them as well.

Mr. CAMP. Thank you. I believe that ends all of our questioning

today. I used to serve on my local council on domestic violence.

Ms. KRENEK. Oh really?

110

Mr. CAMP. So I appreciate your testimony here today. Thank you

for coming. It may have been mentioned your written comments

will be part of the record.

Ms. KRENEK. Thank you.

Mr. CAMP. This hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:43 p.m., the hearing adjourned subject to the

call of the Chair.]

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

Æ