A clarification
First of all, thanks to everyone for their input on this. As someone earlier in the thread mentioned, the "cutbacks" are tied to the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act. The most significant "cut" has to do with the provision of federal matching funds for incentive payments, which previously have been awarded based on state child support enforcement agencies' ability to meet or surpass benchmark performance indicators. This change is not scheduled to go into effect until this October, but for some agencies, it could mean a loss of funds amounting to more than 20 percent of their annual budgets. I'm not coming to this with an agenda, or with any preconceived notions. (And no, I didn't go to J school.) This article is policy analysis, and the sources that I've interviewed so far have been academics, legislators, and state child support officers. I've gathered a lot of statistics about typical child support payments, collection rates, and the relationship between child support and TANF benefits. The reason I posted my question on this forum is not to fish for ways to promote some theoretical agenda, but to try to cast what these statistics mean in terms of actual people's experiences with the system. I'm certainly aware that anecdotes do not equal data, which is part of the reason why I'm looking for a variety of experiences. However, since this article is not about child support per se, but rather about the amount of funding available to child support enforcement agencies, I'm looking for sources that can speak to their experience using state/county child support enforcement to collect payment from non-custodial parents. I hope you understand that I'm not dismissing the concerns and experiences of non- custodial parents with this; those concerns are just tangential to the purposes of this particular article. So if you'd like to go on the record to share your experience as a custodial parent with the system, send me an email at . Thanks so much for your help! Nadia Berenstein |
A clarification
wrote in message ups.com... First of all, thanks to everyone for their input on this. As someone earlier in the thread mentioned, the "cutbacks" are tied to the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act. The most significant "cut" has to do with the provision of federal matching funds for incentive payments, which previously have been awarded based on state child support enforcement agencies' ability to meet or surpass benchmark performance indicators. This change is not scheduled to go into effect until this October, but for some agencies, it could mean a loss of funds amounting to more than 20 percent of their annual budgets. I'm not coming to this with an agenda, or with any preconceived notions. (And no, I didn't go to J school.) This article is policy analysis, and the sources that I've interviewed so far have been academics, legislators, and state child support officers. I've gathered a lot of statistics about typical child support payments, collection rates, and the relationship between child support and TANF benefits. The reason I posted my question on this forum is not to fish for ways to promote some theoretical agenda, but to try to cast what these statistics mean in terms of actual people's experiences with the system. I'm certainly aware that anecdotes do not equal data, which is part of the reason why I'm looking for a variety of experiences. However, since this article is not about child support per se, but rather about the amount of funding available to child support enforcement agencies, I'm looking for sources that can speak to their experience using state/county child support enforcement to collect payment from non-custodial parents. I hope you understand that I'm not dismissing the concerns and experiences of non- custodial parents with this; those concerns are just tangential to the purposes of this particular article. chuckle And this article is supposed to accomplish exactly what? You only want to analyze th policy based on how it will affect custodial parents and CSE employees? Perhaps the change will also have an effect on noncustodial parents. I can tell you about one "oh-oh--here it comes. Let's-get-this-money-quick,-while-we-can still-get-bonuses-for-it" effect that has already hit my family hard! But you go ahead and follow your "policy analysis" idea, without digging deeper and seeing what is really happening in the system. So if you'd like to go on the record to share your experience as a custodial parent with the system, send me an email at . Thanks so much for your help! Nadia Berenstein |
A clarification
wrote in message ups.com... First of all, thanks to everyone for their input on this. As someone earlier in the thread mentioned, the "cutbacks" are tied to the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act. The most significant "cut" has to do with the provision of federal matching funds for incentive payments, which previously have been awarded based on state child support enforcement agencies' ability to meet or surpass benchmark performance indicators. This change is not scheduled to go into effect until this October, but for some agencies, it could mean a loss of funds amounting to more than 20 percent of their annual budgets. I'm not coming to this with an agenda, or with any preconceived notions. (And no, I didn't go to J school.) This article is policy analysis, and the sources that I've interviewed so far have been academics, legislators, and state child support officers. I've gathered a lot of statistics about typical child support payments, collection rates, and the relationship between child support and TANF benefits. The reason I posted my question on this forum is not to fish for ways to promote some theoretical agenda, but to try to cast what these statistics mean in terms of actual people's experiences with the system. I'm certainly aware that anecdotes do not equal data, which is part of the reason why I'm looking for a variety of experiences. However, since this article is not about child support per se, but rather about the amount of funding available to child support enforcement agencies, I'm looking for sources that can speak to their experience using state/county child support enforcement to collect payment from non-custodial parents. I hope you understand that I'm not dismissing the concerns and experiences of non- custodial parents with this; those concerns are just tangential to the purposes of this particular article. The concept of asking people to comment on statistics is fair, but we need to know what statistics you want comments on to provide any feedback. You are getting challenges to your approach because you are coming at this issue from a limited point of view. In fact, your premise of looking at the budget changes from the custodial parents point of view flies in the face of how CS laws are set up to include interaction with both obligors and obligees. Here's a few comments: The CSE statistics regarding arrearages are suspect. Current arrearage amounts they claim to be trying to collect cover the 31 year period from 1975 through 2006. They collect on average 8% of the total arrearage amount each year. That means they more than likely overstate arrearage CS owed to make their mission sound much more important and in need of money to go after the other 92% which long ago became uncorrectable for any number of reasons. CSE statistics on caseloads are suspect. Federal law requires all new and modified CS order amounts to go through the state CS accounting units. This law causes an ever increasing number of cases to be managed. It creates a built-in mechanism to justify ever increasing budget requirements to cover the increased government workload. CSE statistics show the high-end orders are collected. It's the low-end orders they have trouble collecting. The high-end orders would be paid anyway without any government involvement. CSE is taking credit of collecting money, and receiving federal bonuses, for collecting CS money that is paid without any effort on their part. CSE statistics on amounts owed are suspect. At one point several years ago it was disclosed that Federal OCSE debt was more than just the total of orders they had to collect. It also included private agreements as well as estimates of additional amounts owed if all potential cases had a formal court order for CS payments. The government got caught inflating their workload to expand CSE's role in CS enforcement. The cutbacks in CSE funding have been needed for years. They are designed to rollback the previous budget increase amounts based on the false and misleading way the four areas noted above have been used to justify previous budget increases. The problem you have is no member of the legislature or employee of state CSE operations is going to own up to the fact they inflated their budgets based on erroneous statistics and now a downward adjustment is needed. |
A clarification
On May 19, 7:49 am, wrote:
First of all, thanks to everyone for their input on this. As someone earlier in the thread mentioned, the "cutbacks" are tied to the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act. The most significant "cut" has to do with the provision of federal matching funds for incentive payments, which previously have been awarded based on state child support enforcement agencies' ability to meet or surpass benchmark performance indicators. This change is not scheduled to go into effect until this October, but for some agencies, it could mean a loss of funds amounting to more than 20 percent of their annual budgets. I'm not coming to this with an agenda, or with any preconceived notions. (And no, I didn't go to J school.) This article is policy analysis, and the sources that I've interviewed so far have been academics, legislators, and state child support officers. I've gathered a lot of statistics about typical child support payments, collection rates, and the relationship between child support and TANF benefits. The reason I posted my question on this forum is not to fish for ways to promote some theoretical agenda, but to try to cast what these statistics mean in terms of actual people's experiences with the system. I'm certainly aware that anecdotes do not equal data, which is part of the reason why I'm looking for a variety of experiences. However, since this article is not about child support per se, but rather about the amount of funding available to child support enforcement agencies, I'm looking for sources that can speak to their experience using state/county child support enforcement to collect payment from non-custodial parents. I hope you understand that I'm not dismissing the concerns and experiences of non- custodial parents with this; those concerns are just tangential to the purposes of this particular article. So if you'd like to go on the record to share your experience as a custodial parent with the system, send me an email at . Thanks so much for your help! Nadia Berenstein Nadia Maybe you could further investigate the impact, by researching "how" the states claim to have met these "benchmark performance indicators"... You see, what the state of Texas, which I've heard is one of the ones who receives the most funding as the Atty General claims to do so well in collecting money is the following: (and yes, I can assure you there are many in the same position) They go after a non-custodial parent who has been paying child support directly to the custodial parent. Then they send them a letter telling them that because they have NO records of the child support being paid directly to the custodial parent, the non-custodial parent is "assumed" to be in "arrears". In our case, to the tune of 29K...Then, after they damage your credit, put liens on your property, etc...they allow you a court date to contest it. If the court finds that you indeed paid the money directly to the mother, here's what they do to RAISE their "score" and meet or surpass that benchmark the feds set... "They give you a letter stating the "arrears" are paid in full...The letter does NOT say, that the arrears were NEVER OWED...they say ONLY, the arrears are paid in full". What does this do? Well, when they show their numbers to the feds, they "exceed those benchmarks" because they've MADE UP arrears, then show them to the federal government, credit bureaus, etc...as PAID, and everyone, including the stupid federal government think "the state of Texas has actually COLLECTED this amount..." When in fact, they've done NO SUCH thing...They go after every person who has divorced in the state of Texas, because they don't want the custodial parent receiving money directly...not because they custodial parent would not receive it, but because the lousy state could not increase their numbers and therefore, would not receive as much from the federal government. With that said, well, then there's the poor loser who changes jobs, moves every other month...I can tell you of one specifically that I'm fully aware has 2 liens on his property for CS cases in Texas, where I personally called the state of Texas CSE, gave them his cell, his home address, his parent's address where he moves to every other month, his place of work, the account number of his new mortgage and his new wives current CS case with them, and her place of work, cell number, etc...Do you know what the state of Texas has done? NOT A DARN thing! Nope...they called once...couldn't find him, he quit his job, they stopped chasing him... period...You see, they only truly only go after the non-custodial parents who are stable, have paid with or without the involvement of the courts...those are the only ones who pay in the state of Texas...the rest? So, as you do your research on the cuts and it's effect...make sure you investigate the morons in Texas. I'm sure the only effects it will have is that maybe the CSE idiots will now have to actually WORK for a living, as they're running out of responsible parents who have always paid to scam...They might actually have to "find" the others...but, with that said, I'm sure they'll just begin making up more arrears so that their numbers increase and they get their money anyway. |
A clarification
wrote in message ups.com... I'm not coming to this with an agenda, or with any preconceived notions. (And no, I didn't go to J school.) This article is policy analysis, and the sources that I've interviewed so far have been academics, legislators, and state child support officers. But Nadia you introduced yourself to this group as being a "Journalist" seeking input. Now you are admitting you never went to J-School. People here don't like liars. You came to the wrong place to advance your agenda. |
A clarification
wrote in message This article is policy analysis, and the sources that I've interviewed so far have been academics, legislators, and state child support officers. SO in reality you ask the slave traders how the slave policy is working for them? |
A clarification
Nadia appears to be a pro-feminist, pro-abortion advocate in the guise
of a journalist. One needs to simply google "Nadia Berenstein". On May 21, 12:05 am, "Bob Whiteside" wrote: wrote in message ups.com... I'm not coming to this with an agenda, or with any preconceived notions. (And no, I didn't go to J school.) This article is policy analysis, and the sources that I've interviewed so far have been academics, legislators, and state child support officers. But Nadia you introduced yourself to this group as being a "Journalist" seeking input. Now you are admitting you never went to J-School. People here don't like liars. You came to the wrong place to advance your agenda. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ParentingBanter.com