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

Well, maybe we all SHOULD. I think mostly what you'll get is the
attitude that the cutbacks are a good thing, as that Federal money is
one of the carrots leading some of the worst abuses of men by the family
courts. I doubt that anyone could point to it specifically as messing
with their case -- hey, wait, *I* could. Although I couldn't prove it,
exactly.

Certainly is my opinion though.

- Ron ^*^