Background
The practice of collecting child support payments from parents whose children are placed in foster care has been occurring for almost 40 years since Congress amended the Social Security Act in 1984. The revised law included provisions for states to recoup some of the costs of foster care through the assignment of child support owed to parents. Until recently, federal guidance required child welfare agencies to refer Title IV-E eligible parents “where appropriate” and under conditions that support the “best interests of the child.” (1) Child welfare agencies were also allowed to refer non-Title-IV-E- eligible parents. The original guidance gave states flexibility to define “appropriate” and discouraged state foster care agencies from referring cases for child support services if payment of child support would create a barrier to reunification. Child welfare staff were required to review cases individually to determine whether exemptions might apply, but the imposition of child support obligations was considered a common practice across the states.
When a child support agency receives a referral from the child welfare agency, child support staff are responsible for collections in coordination with the courts. Child support may be required of the birth mother and/or the birth father, though research shows that a substantial percentage of birth fathers have previous child support orders already in place. (2) If there is an existing order, child support funds previously directed to the custodial parent are instead directed to the state. New guidance from the federal Children’s Bureau and the Office of Child Support Services, if followed by the states, has the potential to dramatically reduce the number of child welfare-involved parents referred to child support services and is based on significant evidence showing the negative effects of this practice on families. Available research indicates that child support enforcement for parents whose children are in foster care is cost ineffective, it reduces the likelihood or significantly delays reunification, it increases family financial precarity, it may impact kinship caregivers’ willingness to serve as foster parents, and it has disproportionately negative impacts on Black families.
A brief review of the research evidence
Child support enforcement is cost ineffective.
● Cost-benefit analyses from four states show that the administrative costs associated with child support collections from foster care cases far outweigh the benefits by a ratio of at least 3:1. (3)
● Because foster care cases are typically more complex than non-foster care cases, child support staff expend at least 50% more time on collections efforts. (4)
● Cost-benefit analyses have only been calculated for child support-related enforcement activities. Rigorous analyses of child welfare costs have not been conducted, but significantly increased lengths of stay for children suggest considerable expenses for public child welfare agencies. Out-of-home care costs estimated in one state (exclusive of court, social worker and administration costs) range from approximately $14,000 - $82,000 per year, per child.
Child support enforcement increases length of stay in foster care.
● Rigorous research shows that when mothers are ordered to pay just $100 per month toward their child support obligation, the likelihood of reunifying with their child declines by almost one-fifth. Further, children whose parents are ordered to make child support payments stay in care an average of 6.6 months longer than children whose parents are not obliged to make these payments. (5)
● The effects for Black families are especially pronounced. Compared to white mothers, Black mothers who make $100 monthly child support payments see their children remain in care an additional four-and-a-half months longer. (6)
● Children who experience extended stays in foster care are more likely to see their parents’ legal rights terminated.
Child support enforcement increases family financial instability and reduces children’s safety.
● Child support enforcement increases family poverty among some of the poorest families in our communities. Parents unable to pay their child support obligation fall into debt to the state, further eroding their financial stability.
● Parents in arrears see their debt grow rapidly. Many states impose significant interest rates on child support arrears, rapidly ballooning the size of parents’ debt to the state. (7)
● Research evidence consistently shows that family poverty increases the risk of child maltreatment (8) and therefore may increase the likelihood of re-entry to foster care.
Child support enforcement may reduce states’ efforts to promote kinship care.
● Some evidence suggests that relatives are aware of the rules associated with child support obligations and recognize that their engagement with the foster care system may trigger a child support notice. As a result, some kin may decline a child
placement in an effort to protect their relative from the financial cost associated with child support – a decision that thwarts public policy directives to privilege kinship foster care. (9)
The practice of collecting child support payments from parents whose children are placed in foster care has been occurring for almost 40 years since Congress amended the Social Security Act in 1984. The revised law included provisions for states to recoup some of the costs of foster care through the assignment of child support owed to parents. Until recently, federal guidance required child welfare agencies to refer Title IV-E eligible parents “where appropriate” and under conditions that support the “best interests of the child.” (1) Child welfare agencies were also allowed to refer non-Title-IV-E- eligible parents. The original guidance gave states flexibility to define “appropriate” and discouraged state foster care agencies from referring cases for child support services if payment of child support would create a barrier to reunification. Child welfare staff were required to review cases individually to determine whether exemptions might apply, but the imposition of child support obligations was considered a common practice across the states.
When a child support agency receives a referral from the child welfare agency, child support staff are responsible for collections in coordination with the courts. Child support may be required of the birth mother and/or the birth father, though research shows that a substantial percentage of birth fathers have previous child support orders already in place. (2) If there is an existing order, child support funds previously directed to the custodial parent are instead directed to the state. New guidance from the federal Children’s Bureau and the Office of Child Support Services, if followed by the states, has the potential to dramatically reduce the number of child welfare-involved parents referred to child support services and is based on significant evidence showing the negative effects of this practice on families. Available research indicates that child support enforcement for parents whose children are in foster care is cost ineffective, it reduces the likelihood or significantly delays reunification, it increases family financial precarity, it may impact kinship caregivers’ willingness to serve as foster parents, and it has disproportionately negative impacts on Black families.
A brief review of the research evidence
Child support enforcement is cost ineffective.
● Cost-benefit analyses from four states show that the administrative costs associated with child support collections from foster care cases far outweigh the benefits by a ratio of at least 3:1. (3)
● Because foster care cases are typically more complex than non-foster care cases, child support staff expend at least 50% more time on collections efforts. (4)
● Cost-benefit analyses have only been calculated for child support-related enforcement activities. Rigorous analyses of child welfare costs have not been conducted, but significantly increased lengths of stay for children suggest considerable expenses for public child welfare agencies. Out-of-home care costs estimated in one state (exclusive of court, social worker and administration costs) range from approximately $14,000 - $82,000 per year, per child.
Child support enforcement increases length of stay in foster care.
● Rigorous research shows that when mothers are ordered to pay just $100 per month toward their child support obligation, the likelihood of reunifying with their child declines by almost one-fifth. Further, children whose parents are ordered to make child support payments stay in care an average of 6.6 months longer than children whose parents are not obliged to make these payments. (5)
● The effects for Black families are especially pronounced. Compared to white mothers, Black mothers who make $100 monthly child support payments see their children remain in care an additional four-and-a-half months longer. (6)
● Children who experience extended stays in foster care are more likely to see their parents’ legal rights terminated.
Child support enforcement increases family financial instability and reduces children’s safety.
● Child support enforcement increases family poverty among some of the poorest families in our communities. Parents unable to pay their child support obligation fall into debt to the state, further eroding their financial stability.
● Parents in arrears see their debt grow rapidly. Many states impose significant interest rates on child support arrears, rapidly ballooning the size of parents’ debt to the state. (7)
● Research evidence consistently shows that family poverty increases the risk of child maltreatment (8) and therefore may increase the likelihood of re-entry to foster care.
Child support enforcement may reduce states’ efforts to promote kinship care.
● Some evidence suggests that relatives are aware of the rules associated with child support obligations and recognize that their engagement with the foster care system may trigger a child support notice. As a result, some kin may decline a child
placement in an effort to protect their relative from the financial cost associated with child support – a decision that thwarts public policy directives to privilege kinship foster care. (9)
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (US DHHS). (2012). Child Welfare Policy Manual. Available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cwpm/programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/cwpm/policy_dsp.j sp?citID=170
2. Cancian, M., Cook, S.T., Seki, M., & Wimer, L. (2017). Making parents pay: The unintended consequences of charging parents for foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 72, 100-110.
3. Chellew, C., Noyes, J.L., & Selekman, R. (2012). Child support referrals for out-of-home placements: A review of policy and practice. Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty; Orange County Department of Child Support Services (OCDCSS). (2019). Child support and foster care; Skophammer, T. (2017). Child support collections to offset out of home placement costs: A study of cost effectiveness [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Hamline University; Washington Department of Social and Health Services, Economic Services Administration, Division of Child Support. (2019). Washington’s Cost Effectiveness for Foster Care Child Support Cases.
4. Orange County Department of Child Support Services (OCDCSS). (2019). Child support and foster care.
5. Cancian, M., Cook, S.T., Seki, M., & Wimer, L. (2017). Making parents pay: The unintended consequences of charging parents for foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 72, 100-110.
6. Cancian, M., Cook, S.T., Seki, M., & Wimer, L. (2017). Making parents pay: The unintended consequences of charging parents for foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 72, 100-110.
7. National Conference of State Legislatures (2023). Interest on child support arrears. https://www.ncsl.org/human-services/interest-on-child-support-arrears
8. For a review, see: Drake, B., & Jonson-Reid, M. (2014). Poverty and child maltreatment. In J.E. Korbin & R.D. Krugman (Eds.) Handbook of child maltreatment (pp. 131-148). Springer, Dordrecht.
9. Hatcher, D.L. (2009). Collateral children: Consequence and illegality at the intersection of foster care and child support. Brooklyn Law Review, 74 (4), 1333-1380.
2. Cancian, M., Cook, S.T., Seki, M., & Wimer, L. (2017). Making parents pay: The unintended consequences of charging parents for foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 72, 100-110.
3. Chellew, C., Noyes, J.L., & Selekman, R. (2012). Child support referrals for out-of-home placements: A review of policy and practice. Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty; Orange County Department of Child Support Services (OCDCSS). (2019). Child support and foster care; Skophammer, T. (2017). Child support collections to offset out of home placement costs: A study of cost effectiveness [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Hamline University; Washington Department of Social and Health Services, Economic Services Administration, Division of Child Support. (2019). Washington’s Cost Effectiveness for Foster Care Child Support Cases.
4. Orange County Department of Child Support Services (OCDCSS). (2019). Child support and foster care.
5. Cancian, M., Cook, S.T., Seki, M., & Wimer, L. (2017). Making parents pay: The unintended consequences of charging parents for foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 72, 100-110.
6. Cancian, M., Cook, S.T., Seki, M., & Wimer, L. (2017). Making parents pay: The unintended consequences of charging parents for foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 72, 100-110.
7. National Conference of State Legislatures (2023). Interest on child support arrears. https://www.ncsl.org/human-services/interest-on-child-support-arrears
8. For a review, see: Drake, B., & Jonson-Reid, M. (2014). Poverty and child maltreatment. In J.E. Korbin & R.D. Krugman (Eds.) Handbook of child maltreatment (pp. 131-148). Springer, Dordrecht.
9. Hatcher, D.L. (2009). Collateral children: Consequence and illegality at the intersection of foster care and child support. Brooklyn Law Review, 74 (4), 1333-1380.