Kenya N. Rahmaan
With the passing of The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), the government guaranteed child support payments collected on behalf of children enrolled in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid programs. A massive portion of child support money that the government retains is from TANF and Medicaid cases. On the other hand, minus any fees charged by the state, custodial parents who were not receiving welfare benefits were paid the collected child support. Now that the adults who were babies during the implementation are forcing case closures within the child support program, there is a need to find new parents to enroll in the child support system. And with any Ponzi scheme, the overseers of The Child Support Hustle must identify new ways to recruit participants into the child support system.
The pass-through guideline is imperative for the TANF and child support enforcement relationship. Pass-through occurs when a portion of collected child support is paid to the family receiving TANF benefits. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures or NCSL (2017), the pass-through money is disregarded when determining TANF assistance, meaning the amount would not be considered income for purposes of determining TANF eligibility. Currently, 27 jurisdictions refuse to pass through any child support collected to families receiving TANF benefits. All jurisdictions have the authority to pass through all child support collected; however, the remaining states choose to pass through $50 and $200 child support orders.
Two hundred dollars is the maximum amount paid when at least two children or more live within the household. It appears that Michigan will be the first state to use the pass-through regulation as a recruitment tool to increase the number of new child support applicants. On October 1, 2011, Michigan discontinued implementing its $50 pass-through and disregarded status due to budgetary constraints (NCSL). Michigan officials did not provide any further explanation identifying what budgets would be affected by the discontinuance of the pass-through policy. Nor was there any mention of how the new policy would affect the families relying on the pass-through money.
Even with the refusal to pass through child support collected, Michigan and every other state and jurisdiction receive block grants that are supposed to be used to assist low-income and poor families. As Michigan passed-through amounts dwindled from $300 in 2014 to $-2 in 2017, the state continued to receive money from the federal government in the form of a block grant. Based on the Topics of Legislative Interest released by John Maxwell on behalf of the Michigan government in the summer of 2016, the state annually receives $775.3 in a TANF block grant from the Federal government. However, block grants differ significantly from traditional grants paid to the state by the Federal government to assist the most vulnerable citizens. The change in how the grant is processed is how Michigan officials were permitted to collect TANF money and refuse to pass through any child support for those families receiving welfare benefits.
States are not required to use block grants on the TANF program or any other specific program, for that matter. To put this in perspective, consider that even though in 2017 Michigan reportedly spent about $1.2 billion in Federal and State funds under the TANF program, for every 100 poor families with children, only 12 received TANF cash assistance (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), 2019). For these states to continue receiving TANF block grants, they must meet specific criteria set by the Federal government. They must also increase the number of TANF applicants, increasing the child support caseload. Likewise, there must be some incentives offered to potential applicants to gain their cooperation.
Since the PRWORA limits the amount of time one can receive benefits and requirements are very stringent, states must offer other “perks” to persuade custodial parents to sign up for TANF benefits. The TANF program in Michigan was renamed the Family Independence Program or FIP. Recently, Governor Gretchen Whitmore has overturned the refusal to pass through child support collections when custodial parents enroll in FIP. According to Will Kriss (2019), the new state budget for 2020 contains a provision for $946,000 to support child support pass-through payments of up to $200 a month for qualifying households that receive assistance through FIP.
Although Michigan has only raised the TANF benefit by $33 once since 1996 (the total monthly benefit for a mother and two children is $492), the state will own the rights to all child support payments collected on behalf of those children for at least 18 years. The $200 is capped for families with two or more children, while families with one child may receive between $50 and $100 monthly. Additionally, families enrolled in FIP will receive the pass-through only if the parent who owes child support pays it (Kriss). In other words, the pass-through incentive sounds lovely on paper, but if the other parent pays nothing, the government or the other parent will receive nothing. Remember that child support cases filed through state agencies in exchange for welfare benefits are very easy to open but very difficult to close.
Research has proven early in implementing the child support system that NCPs owing the most debt report low or no income. This means that the chances of child support going unpaid or being paid late and in full are far greater than if the non-custodial parent has a steady income. Income withholding is regularly deducted from paychecks. When a parent pays less than $100, the family will only receive the amount they pay (Kriss). It is clear that the recruitment of new applicants for TANF benefits is much more beneficial to the state of Michigan than for the low-income and poor children and families enrolled in the TANF and other social programs.
Another source of new revenue that the government may use is the requirement that custodial parents applying for other public benefits besides TANF face the exact child support cooperation requirement in exchange for help. Currently, programs such as subsidies for child care and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are left to the states’ discretion. However, that may soon change as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) released a memo in 2019 encouraging states to implement the cooperation with child support enforcement mandate. The memo recommends that states deny Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to both parents refusing to cooperate with child support enforcement until they comply. USDA involvement initiates quite a different and significant impact for non-custodial parents in various ways.
First, unlike custodial parents, most low-income NCPs do not qualify for TANF and Medicaid benefits. They are required to work and pay child support, which can mean garnishing up to 65% (sometimes more) of their income. The significant deduction amount often leaves parents living in deep poverty, and as a last resort, they must apply for SNAP benefits to eat. However, the USDA asks parents to put themselves on child support or be denied benefits and go hungry.
The recommendation for fathers in Section 6(m) of the Food and Nutrition Act 7 U.S.C. (2008),
allows a state agency to determine a putative or identified non-custodial parent ineligible to participate in SNAP for refusal to cooperate in establishing paternity of a child (if the child is born out of wedlock) and providing support for the child.
Not only does this mandate almost guarantee an increase in the number of newly opened child support cases based on the 40 million people who face hunger in America, the increase will be the result of not just the custodial but both parents agreeing to open child support cases. This mandate can mean a new stream of billions of dollars in revenue per year for the government but not for the children and parents. It looks like State Representative Dottie Bailey (R) HD-110 of Missouri will be the first to introduce a bill mandating cooperation with child support enforcement in exchange for SNAP benefits for low-income parents/families. https://youtube.com/live/j4LStMGWCvo
House Bill 1597, according to Representative Bailey (2020), would mean that if a parent, caretaker relative, putative father, or identified non-custodial parent wants to qualify for food stamps, they must be willing to cooperate with Missouri’s child support program. Like the USDA, Bailey mentions the potential revenue that the state is missing by not mandating child support cooperation in exchange for SNAP. Bailey says that if child support cooperation were enacted in Missouri, there would be a more than $7 million increase in child support collections. The problem with this is that Missouri is one of the states refusing to pass through any child support collected to families receiving public benefits. Like the USDA, Bailey mentions the potential revenue that the state is missing by not mandating child support cooperation in exchange for SNAP. Bailey says that if child support cooperation were enacted in Missouri, there would be a more than $7 million increase in child support collections. The problem with this is that Missouri is one of the states refusing to pass through any child support collected to families receiving public benefits.
Finally, more child support agencies will advertise their services via social media. Why? Because child support arrears will continuously decrease as the number of child support and TANF cases close. According to Elaine Sorensen (2019), between 2008 and 2018, TANF arrears declined by 32%.
This decrease directly results from the decline in TANF applicants and recipients. Like with any hustle, scam, or Ponzi scheme, the hustler must recruit new victims to increase those numbers. And like any hustler, there must be a plan to gain the new victims’ trust. One of the ways that the Federal government is going about finding new parents is by providing grants to several jurisdictions around the country to help with the costs of advertising the child support program to parents.
One of the ways that the Federal government is going about finding new parents is by providing grants to several jurisdictions around the country to help with the costs of advertising the child support program to parents. Based on the Office of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF),
the Using Digital Marketing to Increase Participation in the Child Support Program (Digital Marketing) demonstration project tests digital marketing approaches and partnerships to reach parents that could benefit from child support services, and create or improve two-way digital communication and engagement with parents.
The $2.2 million awarded to 14 child support agencies will mainly target potential child support hustle victims through social media and will surely and conveniently ignore significant downfalls to the program. TANF cooperation mandates and pass-through guidelines will likely be missing from recruitment techniques as they were missing during the child support/TANF reform rollout in the late 1990s. Reportedly, most child support cases were opened by parents who have never received public assistance. However, the government needs public assistance cases to increase because the government owns all of their child support collected, whereas never assisted parents own all of the child support collected minus any fees.
Due to this, states like California, while experiencing increases in former assisted and never assisted cases, continue to experience decreases in their overall caseloads. Current assistance cases have dropped from 350,579 reported in 2014 to 252,182 in 2018 (OCSE, 2019). The California Department of Child Support Services shows that six counties will receive grant money for new client recruitment purposes. LA County sends mobile units to the local neighborhoods, hoping to recruit new parents and
will run a digital media campaign with Pandora and iHeart radio to reach the target population. The digital media method will allow OC CSS to intentionally target custodial parents with specific demographics and in geographical locations identified as particularly underserved using caseload and census data.
According to OCSE (2019), the Orange County Child Support Support Services (OC CSS), by working with particular media platforms, OC CSS hopes to benefit from the $170,000 grant and increase participation in the child support system. They will surely reach more significant amounts of potential applicants. Pandora guaranteed that the advertisement would run 35,143 times and reach 33,953 listeners (OC OSS). Advocates must be active in educating these recruiting techniques to potential new clients and victims to be made aware of everything that can occur when participating in the state-operated child support system.
One of the most important lessons should be that participation is voluntary. If parents can reach a support agreement without government interference, that should be their first and only choice. Although the government’s emphasis will almost always focus on welfare and child support program relationships, states are highly interested in recruiting non-Title IV-D cases. Non-Title IV-D cases are permitted to charge fees when child support is collected through the state.
The mandatory fee for processing child support through the state is currently $35 annually per child support case. Public law (PL) 115-123 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 amended the Social Security Act concerning child support enforcement fees, increasing the minimum amount of collections to authorize the collection amount from $500 per year to $550. The $35 price is essential considering recruitment plans when grant recipients target non-TANF parents to hold support programs. While non-assistance case amounts are currently higher than assistance cases, these cases are also declining.
Washington state has experienced a decrease from 118,3441 in 2014 to 116,499 in 2018 (OCSE). To best spend its grant money, Washington child support officials have chosen to target non-TANF-receiving custodial parents. The state according to OCSE (2019),
When putting these objectives into dollar signs and based on the 100,000 plus open non-assistance cases reported in 2018, the state stands to generate over $4 million in child support enforcement fees alone. Of course, this amount excludes the 12% interest charged on late payments, court costs, and all other fees that the state decides to charge the parents once they have been convinced to participate in the Ponzi scheme disguised as child support. As with every scheme taking money from unsuspecting victims, when the numbers of the hustled decline or when the scam is exposed, the hustler must find new victims. The Child Support Hustle is no different.
To all parents, whether you have new babies or are new to raising your children in the roles of custodial and non-custodial parents, remember that you have choices in how you provide for your children. Even though the child support system advertises as a program that operates in the ‘best interest of children,’ that is not and has never been its actual mission. The fundamental mission of this system is to generate revenue for the government by preying on unmarried parents and children born out of wedlock. Since the enrollment numbers are dropping, the government has started looking for new ways to recover lost revenue. Know your rights so that you and your children do not become victims of the Ponzi scheme known as The Child Support Hustle.
References:
Administration for Children & Families. (2018, September 28). $2.2 million awarded to explore the link between digital marketing and child support payments. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/media/press/2018-22-million-awarded-to-explore-link-between-digital-marketing-and-child-support-payments
Bailey, D. (2020, January 31). Opinion: Supporting children’s futures with child support cooperation. Retrieved from https://themissouritimes.com/opinion-supporting-childrens-futures-with-child-support-cooperation/?fbclid=IwAR2vtZ0Wj2QvWhiPCHdACB1re78YrOGF8kh43oyRKBIojFRJ3H_mLHtHC4M
California Department of Child Support Services. (n.d.). Digital marketing campaigns to improve awareness to underserved populations. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/ca_orange_county_dm.pdf
Kriss, W. (2019, December 22). MDHHS announces additional funds for family independence program (FIP). Retrieved January 12, 2020, from https://wkzo.com/news/articles/2019/dec/22/mdhhs-announces-additional-funds-for-family-independence-program-fip/968851/
Maxwell, J. (2016). Michigan’s state budget and temporary assistance for needy families: Fiscal year 2008-09 through fiscal year 2016-17. Retrieved from https://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/publications/notes/2016notes/notessum16jm.pdf
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2017, July 18). Child support pass-through and disregard policies for public assistance recipients. Retrieved from https://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/state-policy-pass-through-disregard-child-support.aspx
Office of Child Support Enforcement. (2019, June 13). FY 2018 annual report to congress. Retrieved January 19, 2020, from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/fy_2018_preliminary_data_report.pdf
Social Security Administration. (2018, February 22). P.L. 88-525P.L. Retrieved January 21, 2020, from https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/comp2/F088-525.html
Sorensen, E. (2019, October 18). TANF arrears continue to decline. Retrieved January 19, 2020, from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/ocsedatablog/2019/10/tanf-arrears-continue-to-decline
State fact sheets: How states have spent funds under the TANF block grant. (2019, May 29). Retrieved from https://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/state-fact-sheets-how-states-have-spent-funds-under-the-tanf-block
Washington State Division of Child Support. (n.d.). Using digital marketing to increase participation in the child support program. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/washington_dm.pdf
