Policy & Practice | Winter 2024

APHSA INSIGHTS continued from page 5

Conclusion When child support practices are designed to consider the wants and needs of the whole family and provide tools that remove barriers for parents to play a meaningful role in the lives of their children, everyone wins. The his torically narrow view of the program as solely a collection and enforcement mechanism has hindered its ability to generate lasting social and economic impacts at the root level. On the other hand, states and counties are ready for change and eager to reimagine a whole family approach to child support that is fully integrated across the human services ecosystem. Federal policymakers in Congress and the Administration can capitalize on this moment by leading the way on family-centered policy reforms that align child support practices thought fully across benefits and services based on what the evidence shows works and what families tell us they need. Jess Maneely is the Assistant Director of Process Innovation at the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA). Khristian Monterroso is a Project Associate for Economic Mobility and Well-Being at APHSA. Reference Notes 1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement. (2023). 2023 Infographic National. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/ocse/2023_ infographic_national.pdf 2. American Public Human Services well-being. https://aphsa.org/wp-content/ uploads/2024/07/f9ba657d-5230-4a97 a47b-68cb5531bb9b.pdf 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2024). SNAP—state policy options related to custodial and non-custodial parent cooperation with CSAs. https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ state-policy-options-child-support 4. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2023). Child support pass-through and Association. (2024). Strengthening connections to support child & family

alignment—helping this new potential funding source realize its potential. Federal Policy Strategy 4: Support Redesign of Child Support Practices in the Child Welfare System Child support practices can have far reaching impacts on family well-being that go beyond their direct economic consequences. In the child welfare system, when a child is removed from their home, federal law requires that states, where appropriate, act to secure assignment of child support for a child receiving federal funding for foster care payments. This direc tion and practice in recent years has increasingly been called into question as to its effectiveness. Parents required to pay child support to offset the cost of their child’s foster care placement, according to new research, 9 have lower reunifica tion rates and higher termination of parental rights. Their children also experience longer stays in foster care. Further, evidence suggests 10 that collection efforts for child welfare involved–families actually cost states money, as the expenses to pursue col lections for this population exceed the collections received. In 2022, the Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) Children’s Bureau and Office of Child Support Services released joint guidance 11 adjusting federal direction in how states determine when the statutory definition of “appropriate” applies for assigning rights to child support. Since then, steady progress has been made reexamining child support practices within child welfare agencies in individual states and counties. However, deeper support from ACF in helping these agencies unwind decades of his torical practices could significantly accelerate this trend. Also, a broader review by Congress of the underlying statute governing federal policy around child support collections for children in foster care would enhance these efforts.

disregard policies for public assistance recipients. https://www.ncsl.org/human services/child-support-pass-through-and disregard-policies-for-public-assistance recipients 5. Urban Institute. (2019). Reducing child poverty in the US: Updated analysis of policies proposed by the children’s defense fund. https://www.urban.org/ research/publication/reducing-child poverty-us-updated-analysis-policies proposed-childrens-defense-fund 6. Lippold, K., Nichols, A., & Sorensen, E. (2010). Urban Institute. Evaluation of the $150 child support pass-through and disregard policy in the District of Columbia. https://www.urban.org/sites/ default/files/publication/23436/412779 Evaluation-of-the-Child-Support-Pass Through-and-Disregard-Policy-in-the District-of-Columbia.PDF 7. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Services. (2024). Child support-led employment programs by state. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/training technical-assistance/child-support-led employment-programs-state 8. Federal Register (2024). Employment and training services for noncustodial parents in the child support program. https://www.federalregister.gov/ documents/2024/05/31/2024-11842/ employment-and-training-services-for noncustodial-parents-in-the-child-support program 9. Berger, L.M., Cancian, M., Kim, H., Ko, A., & Pac, J. (2024). Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin– Madison. Child support and child welfare system interactions. https://www.irp.wisc. edu/resource/child-support-and-child welfare-system-interactions 10. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. (2019). Washington’s cost effectiveness for foster care child support cases collections. https://www. dshs.wa.gov/sites/default/files/ESA/dcs/ documents/Cost%20Effectiveness%20 -FC%20collections%20FINAL.pdf 11. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2022). Joint letter regarding the assignment of rights to child support for children in foster care.

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/cb/letter_regarding_ assignment_rights_child_support_for_ children_ foster_care.pdf

Policy & Practice Fall 2024 36