The Missouri Division of Child Support/PAPA first Statewide Parenthood Conference, held June 17 - 19;

Two father-friendly brochures, designed, written, printed, and distributed by PAPA: "For Dad's Who Don't Live with Their Kids," and "Fathers Figure."

Public Service Announcements on statewide television depicting the importance of father involvement in kids' lives-produced with the National Center on Fathering, the Department of Mental Health, and with the assistance of inmates at the Jefferson City Correctional Facility of Missouri's Department of Corrections; and

Parenting classes for incarcerated fathers who are soon-to-be released and for fathers on probation-with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the National Parents as Teachers, the Department of Corrections, and the Division of Probation and Parole.

Missouri Association for Community Action

Missouri Association of Local Public Health Agencies

Missouri Department of Corrections

Missouri Hospital Association

Missouri Primary Health Care Coalition

AFL/CIO State Labor Council

Consortium on Survivability of the Afro-American Male

Department of Health and Mental Health

Federal Administration for Children and Families (Region VII)

Head Start

Nurses for Newborns

Planned Parenthood

Pam Schantz Rich is Program Manager of Missouri's Division of Child Support Enforcement. Patricial Cullen is Children and Families Program Specialist in ACF's Regional Office in Kansas City.

Action Transmittals

An Action Transmittal (AT) has its basis in federal law and regulation and, as the name im-plies, instructs state child support enforcement programs on the actions they must take to comply with new and amended federal laws. To date, seven ATs have been released in 1997. These are: For copies of ATs call OCSE's National Reference Center at (202) 401-9382.

Procedures Regarding State Plans

On April 28, 1997, OCSE issued Action Transmittal OCSE-AT-97-05, "Procedures for Determining That A State IV-D Plan Is Disapproved." This program instruction, an update to procedures originally issued in 1986 (OCSE-AT-96-21), details the steps which OCSE will take if a state fails to enact conforming legislation implementing the new state plan requirements contained in Title III of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (welfare reform).

If a state fails to submit conforming state plan amendments by the required effective date, OCSE will have to determine that the state does not have an approvable state plan. Such a determination will result in immediate suspension of all federal payments for the state's child support enforcement program, and such payments will continue to be withheld until the state IV-D plan can be approved.

Child Support and Economic Well-Being Following an Exit from AFDC

By Daniel Meyer and Maria Cancian

Part II: Child Support Under Welfare Reform In May, CSR reported Meyer and Cancian concluding that, for young women, child support has had a limited effect on economic self-sufficiency following an exit from AFDC. They suggested, however, that the role of child support in achieving self-sufficiency may be larger under welfare reform, depending partly on choices states make.

Several factors suggest that the overall current role of child support in achieving self-sufficiency maybe larger under welfare reform.

Our data examined welfare use and later economic well-being only among young women. Child support may be more important as an income source following welfare among a group of middle-aged women. In 1991, custodial mothers aged 18 - 29 who received child support received an average of $1,816, compared to $3,127 among mothers in their 30s who received child support.

Several factors suggest that the overall current role of child support in achieving self-sufficiency may be larger under welfare reform.

In our study, we examined welfare use and later economic well-being among a national sample of young women who exited AFDC between 1979 and 1987. Substantial reforms have occurred within the child support system since this time. Because most of these changes have been designed to increase the amount of child support collected, an examination of the current importance of child support may show a larger effect.

Welfare reform changes the treatment of child support within the welfare system and gives states the option of determining the relationship of child support and welfare. Under AFDC, women receiving child support and AFDC retained only the first $50/month paid (with any amounts over $50/month going to offset AFDC costs). Some ethnographic research has suggested that these child support rules discouraged some custodial mothers from cooperating with the child support system.

Welfare reform ended federal sharing in the cost of the pass-through, leaving it to state discretion whether or not to pass through any amount of child support collected and if so, how to treat the income to the family in the new program. Wisconsin has announced a plan to pass through the entire amount of child support to custodial mothers. To the extent that the old system discouraged cooperation, this reform may increase cooperation, encouraging individuals to work through the formal system, which may then result in child support having larger and more lasting effects on their economic well-being. On the other hand, if a state were to eliminate the pass-through altogether, cooperation could decrease and lead to child support having a limited effect on later economic well-being.

The limited effects found in this study, and reported in last month's CSR, of child support on economic well-being after leaving AFDC, then, do not necessarily mean that, under welfare reform, child support will be unimportant to the economic well-being of women in similar circumstances.

Daniel R. Meyer is an Associate Professor of Social Work and an Affiliate of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin - Madison. Maria Cancian is an Assistant Professor of Public Affairs and Social Work and an Affiliate of the Institute for Research on Poverty and the Center for Demography and Ecology, also at Wisconsin-Madison.

Fathers and the Payment of Child Support

By Ross A. Thompson

Fathers who do not visit with their children are less likely to pay child support, but this may bebecause fathers who refuse to pay child support lack the commitment to visit regularly with offspring or because fathers who encounter obstacles to visitation feel less fidelity to child support orders.

It is also true that fathers who cannot maintain child support payments are likely to otherwise disappear from their children's lives, either because they wish to avoid detection, or because they are denied access by the children's mother, or because they cannot justify visiting offspring whom they cannot help support.

When mothers remarry, fathers sometimes feel excluded from their children's lives and may believe there is less need for child support payments now that a stepfather is in the picture. Or the father's own remarriage may diminish his interest in visitation and his perception of his capacity to pay child support. The geographic relocation of either parent can have similar consequences.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, although unfortunately, fathers too often show inconsistent and faltering fidelity to child support orders in a manner similar to their declining visitation with offspring. What factors can account for whether fathers will maintain fidelity to their child support obligations? One set of explanations focuses on child support in the context of the maintenance of other parenting responsibilities toward children: fathers are more likely to provide reliable child support when they have other meaningful roles in the child's life.

Judith Seltzer and her colleagues have argued that, just as fathers in intact homes expect to spend time with children, provide for their material needs, and exercise authority over them, so also divorced fathers define their parenting roles in terms of these three responsibilities. Thus, a father's fidelity to child support obligations should be regarded within the context of the other commitments and responsibilities that define a father's post-divorce parenting role.

A father's maintenance of child support is also affected by the geographic distance between fathers and offspring (child support is more forthcoming when the father and children live in close proximity), and the quality of the relationship between the ex-spouses.

Custody arrangements may also be pertinent to a father's capacity to maintain a sense of involvement with offspring. A higher proportion of fathers in joint custody maintain their child support obligations than fathers in other custody arrangements, and they are also more likely to provide children with other benefits not included in support payments.

Thus, if Seltzer is correct, child support is part of an overall constellation of obligations to children that noncustodial fathers either feel committed to or tend to default on. Visitation and custody arrangements that foster fathers' perception of a meaningful parenting role are likely to enhance their fidelity to child support obligations.

The father's financial capacity to provide reliable child support is another factor. More than 60 percent of the women due child support, but not receiving regular payments, cite the father's inability to pay as the cause. Although many fathers who default on child support obligations are fully capable of making regular payments, a number of studies indicate that one of the best predictors of the amount of child support provided by fathers is their income and employment status.

Lower-income fathers have fewer resources for satisfying their support obligations, but also their child support payments typically constitute a higher proportion of their income, they have fewer ancillary resources on which to draw if they should fall behind in their support payments, and they are more aggressively prosecuted for failing in their support obligations (partly because they are already involved with social service agencies and can less easily frustrate child support enforcement efforts).

Taken together, these factors suggest that support compliance can best be predicted by general financial circumstances and/or the kind of parenting role fathers achieve in their post-divorce lives.

Even when they refuse or cannot comply with their support obligations, however, most fathers accept their general responsibility for doing so and affirm the legitimacy of their children's post-divorce economic needs. As Haskins, who has studied these fathers, has commented, "I find no support in the empirical literature for either the claim that fathers believe child support to be unjustified or that they accept the validity of various reasons often cited as justifications for not paying child support. Fathers know they have an obligation to pay child support and that this obligation cannot easily be broken."

A number of studies indicate that one of the best predictors of the amount of child support provided by fathers is their income and employment status.

The dilemma of fathers and divorce centers on the challenges inherent in contemporary paternity: a status whose defining characteristics have become blurred by changes in men's and women's roles in our society and whose redefinition is still to come. As a consequence, paternity has become unfortunately (but perhaps inevitably) defined in popular forums by what is lacking: the assumption of responsibility for children, an equal sharing with women of domestic responsibilities, and a willingness to invest relationally as well as economically.

At the same time, contemporary portrayals of fatherhood, including those associated with divorce, continue to emphasize their economic support obligations and their alleged disinterest in-and inadequacy for-child care. It is in this context of conflicting and largely denigrating cultural images that men seek to redefine fathehood for themselves, both in marriage and in post-marital life.

From The Future of Children, a publication of the Center for the Future of Children, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Abstracted, with permission, from Ross Thompson's article, "The Role of the Father After Divorce," published in The Future of Children, Volume 4, Number 1, Spring, 1994.

Ross A. Thompson, Ph.D., is professor of psychology and associate director of the Center on Children, Families, and the Law at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

NFL Fatherhood Campaign Update

The number of National Football League (NFL)teams working with state child support enforcement (CSE) agencies on the CSE Fatherhood Campaign continues to grow. The initial teams included: the Detroit Lions (see February '96 CSR), Jacksonville Jaguars, Miami Dolphins, New England Patriots, New York Giants, Oakland Raiders, and Tampa Bay Buccaneers. (Major League Baseball also is showing interest. The Chicago Cubs have a Fatherhood Campaign-see January '97 CSR.)

Based upon a recent presentation to the NFL public relations/community relations directors, other NFL teams are expected to join the campaign. The nation's child support community was praised at the NFL meeting for developing the idea and for its energy and commitment to the campaign. As more teams join, CSR will keep you informed.

CSE Joins Partners with Law Enforcement in Washington State

By Melanie Watters

As a Support Enforcement Officer (SEO) in Washington State's Division of Child Support(DCS), I deal occasionally with cases in which the seizure of drug money is involved. I recently developed a program related to this type of case. It started with a routine case in which a noncustodial parent was arrested on drug charges. In making the arrest, drug task force officials seized a large sum of money, in addition to drugs.

Subsequently, however, the task force's search warrant was ruled invalid, which meant that the money would have to be returned to the noncustodial parent. I contacted task force officials and documented that DCS had properly liened all of the noncustodial parent's real and personal property, whereupon they agreed to turn the money over to DCS. This initial cooperative effort resulted in a payment of $2,424 to the custodial parent. Since then, two other cases have yielded payments of $3,932 and $4,605. Each of the nine DCS field offices now has one liaison to work these cases. The liaison is responsible for taking calls from law enforcement, cross-referencing names by Social Security Number, and reviewing the child support case to determine if a lien has been properly filed. A garnishment is then issued to the appropriate law enforcement agency.

This program provides opportunities for DCS to work in cooperation with various branches of law enforcement. Law enforcement officers are encouraged to work with SEO officers to identify individuals who have child support cases and who have been involved in an incident which resulted in the seizure of drug money.

If for any reason the monies taken as part of the seizure must be returned to the owner, the law enforcement agency is asked to contact DCS for cross- referencing the name of the individual. If a match is found, and the individual owes child support, the money is diverted to DCS to apply to the individual's case.

This program provides opportunities for DCS to work in cooperation with various branches of law enforcement.

Law enforcement officials are enthusiastic about the program and have been quick to expand the idea to include other areas, such as money posted for bail.

If you would like to learn more about this program, contact Melanie Watters at (360) 438-7890.

Melanie Watters is a Support Enforcement Officer in the Olympia, Washington, Office of the Division of Child Support.

If you have an interesting idea or program that's getting results, we'd like to share it with our readers. Send a note about it, or call the editor, Phil Sharman, at (202) 401-4626.

Drivers License Suspensions in Maryland

By John Clark and Kay Cullen

Under welfare reform, states have the authority to withhold, suspend, or restrict the use of drivers licenses, professional and occupational licenses, and recreational licenses of individuals owing past-due support, or failing to comply with subpoenas or warrants relating to paternity or child support proceedings.

The drivers license suspension program in Maryland became effective October 1, 1996, and has proven to be a powerful enforcement tool. The program has brought in $7 million in child support collections-at a total advertising expenditure of $144,184--a return of $48.55 on every ad dollar invested.

On the day before the program became effective, the line of delinquent payors waiting to pay their support in order to avoid license suspension stretched out of the building and down the sidewalks. This response was the result of a very effective multi-media advertising campaign, with the theme: If you don't want to lose your drivers license, pay your child support. The campaign began well before the effective date of the program, with Maryland's Child Support Enforcement Administration (CSEA) and Motor Vehicle Administration holding a joint press conference. This was followed by a press release from the Governor's Office. Advance notices were mailed to all delinquent payors in the State, advising them of the law's effective date and urging them to take advantage of the opportunity to bring their accounts into compliance.

Brochures, billboards, posters, and transit advertising were employed statewide. As the effective date drew near, over 400 radio and television ads aired statewide, including ads on Monday Night Football.

Once the program got underway, advertising focused on the February 3, 1997, target date for first suspensions. Full page ads were taken in newspapers, and posters were placed in all the stores of a major food chain in the State.

Clifford Layman, Executive Director of Maryland's CSEA, praised "the tremendous collaborative effort among State agencies that helped to insure the success of the program." Noting that 2,000 drivers licenses have been suspended, Layman continued, "While these suspensions are necessary, our goal is not to suspend drivers licenses. Our goal is the collection of the support due the children of Maryland."

Maryland officials say that in preparing to implement license suspension programs, a state should mount an advertising campaign to create public awareness and support. This is critical to success. Automated systems specialists need to be included in the development phase, since system capabilities and limitations must be considered in designing the program.

In addition, coordination and constant communication with all partners in the program is required for effective implementation. Drivers license suspension efforts involve personnel from child support enforcement, systems, motor vehicles, administrative hearings, and the media. Finally, the program should be phased in gradually before going statewide.

For more information about the drivers license suspension program, contact Pat Chappell at (410) 767-7455. For information about the advertising campaign, contact Kay Cullen at (410) 767-7126.

John Clark is a Program Analyst for OCSE in Philadelphia Regional Office; Kay Cullen is Public Affairs Officer in Maryland's Child Support Enforcement Administration

New UIFSA Forms

Revised interstate forms, required because of the shift from URESA to UIFSA in the welfare reform legislation, were approved by the Federal Office of Management and Budget on April 30, 1997. OCSE distributed these forms on May 2, 1997, via AT 97-06.

States are now required to use these new interstate forms. A majority of states have already implemented UIFSA, which welfare reform mandates that all states enact by January 1, 1998. During the remaining months of transition from URESA to UIFSA, the forms will have a field, in their header section, where each state will indicate its existing interstate statutory scheme (UIFSA or URESA).

In addition to providing the forms in hard copy, OCSE has contracted with a vendor to develop the software necessary to enable the states' automated systems to automatically generate these forms. OCSE anticipates that this software will be available for distribution by the fall of this year.

If you would like further information about the forms, call OCSE's Steve Cesar at (202) 401-5436.

Facts About Fathers

In 1992, 74 percent of all children were living with their father or step-father (CPR).

Living with both biological parents reduces the risk of dropping out of high school, teen pregnancy, and unemployment (MS).

In two parent households, both parents' characteristics contribute to the overall success and well-being of children, but each parent also adds value over and above the contribution of the other parent: fathers' effect is shown more on education, psychological distress, and self-esteem; mothers' on kinship ties and friendships (Amoto).

Of all single parent families, 14 percent were maintained by fathers in 1992 (CPR).

About 40 percent of noncustodial fathers report paying child support. The average amount: $3,400 per year--an average of about 15 percent of the paying noncustodial father's income. Poor fathers who pay support pay an average of 28 percent of their income; nonpoor fathers an average of 10 percent (ES).

Child support payments and contact are highly correlated. Fathers who pay support are more likely to have contact with their children, and fathers who have contact are more likely to pay support (ZN).