[ Home]---[Search]---[Email]---[Access Page]---[Child Support]
The Father Of Today s Child Support Public Policy
THE FATHER OF TODAY S CHILD SUPPORT PUBLIC POLICY, HIS
PERSONAL EXPLOITATION OF THE SYSTEM, AND THE FALLACY OF HIS "INCOME SHARES" MODEL
by
James R. Johnston*
(August 1998)
INTRODUCTION
Part 1 presents an overview of Dr. Robert Williams
influence over the development of the child support system across the United States, and his concurrent start up
and operation of a company while a key consultant with the government working exclusively in the creation of public
policy. A chronology of activity during this time (1983-1990) is included. Williams has been and continues to consult
with States regarding child support policy and enforcement.
Part 2 focuses on the "Income Shares" model
originated by Williams in the 1980 s, and the underlying national economic data sources that he uses to feed it.
As of this writing at least 31 states use this model and the underlying economics. Many of the presumptions used
in states using other models come philosophically from the same thinking advocated by him. This section will discuss
the fundamental flaws of the model, as well as the failure of the underlying economics that ultimately lead to
support obligation numbers.
As you will see, Williams clearly drove the elements of today s child support system, concurrently
creating a company that could exploit the very programs he was helping to establish. The company, Policy Studies,
Incorporated of Denver, essentially brags about this in their company promotional material. His model and the underlying economics fall far short in trying to result in equitable
and reasonable child support for our nation s children. Financial considerations are given total weight based on
a flawed process, while emotional child support is ignored. The latter is not a "free good", and by ignoring
the reality that there are two parents now in two households, our children suffer.
I want to thank Roger Gay and Greg Palumbo for their contributions and advice on the content
of this paper.
*Jim Johnston is a joint custodial parent of two children in Wichita, Kansas. He s the
Chair of a local group called KIDSVIEW, working to maximize dual parent involvement in their children s lives outside
the intact family. They are working hard at changing legislation in Kansas regarding custody and support, and nationally
by lobbying their Congressional delegation on the need for gender neutrality in legislation dealing with children.
In February of this year Johnston was appointed by the Chief Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court to serve on the
Child Support Guidelines Advisory Committee. He can
be contacted at (316) 685-6297, or via e-mail at jjohns1043@aol.com.
PART 1: DR. ROBERT WILLIAMS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON TODAY S CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM. A QUESTION
OF ETHICS?
As anyone familiar with domestic law would know, child support in the United States is a
growing multi-billion dollar public policy issue. Much controversy surrounds it, from determination of the amounts
owed and by whom, as well as the punitive enforcement measures being undertaken at local, state, and federal levels.
Below I detail information about one man s efforts at influencing, establishing, and ultimately exploiting this
lucrative "industry". Dr. Robert Williams, founder and primary owner of a privately held business in
Denver, Policy Studies, Inc., has cleverly manipulated and in effect, set up the child support mechanisms throughout
the US, working within the federal and various state governments, creating a market from which he has been and
continues to profit. He clearly is the "father" of current US child support public policy. His efforts
have cost federal and state taxpayers billions of dollars, without appreciably improving the lot of children in
spite of the rhetoric to the contrary. In fact, many would argue that in the process, he is harming children through
establishment of an overall approach that is out of control, disables noncustodial parents from meaningful involvement
with their children, and overall, misses the reality of what child support should truly be.
It is clear that Williams has not only influenced policy through his involvement with the
agency responsible for child support enforcement, but with his inside knowledge has developed a consulting business
and collection agency targeting privatization opportunities with those he has consulted. In 1996, his company had
the greatest number of child support enforcement contracts, covering numerous counties in seven States, of any
of the private companies that held State contracts. Reimbursement to his company for child support enforcement
ranges from 10-32% of what the company collects according to the General Accounting Office (HEHS97-4). And according
to company promotional literature, they currently operate 31 privatized service locations in 15 states. The conflict
of interest between Williams consulting to raise child support guidelines and his company s private Child Support
Enforcement activities should be apparent. It should also be apparent that any raises in the child support guideline
he obtains in any State can be used as leverage for raising the child support guidelines in another State where
he has private child support contracts today, or where he may have them tomorrow. He has continued acting as the
pied piper for raising child support guidelines nationally, where he and his company profits.
Adding insult to injury, while the "father" of today s child support public policy
continues to profit from his past unique opportunity of influence, the basis of his consulting utilized in most
of the Country is statistically, economically, and intellectually flawed. The end result is a much costlier approach
to child support enforcement to US taxpayers, but more importantly, it continues to drive an ever-widening wedge
between children and the parent obligated to paying financial child support. This will be discussed in substantial
detail in Part 2.
A CHRONOLOGY OF WILLIAMS EFFORTS ALONG WITH COINCIDENT AND SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL POLICY
CHANGE DURING HIS CONSULTING TENURE WITH HHS (1983-1990):
- Collecting spousal support as well where
both are due in a case;
- Establishment of State Commissions to study
the operation of the State s child support system and report findings to the State s Governor;
- Formulate guidelines for determining child
support obligation amounts and distribute the guidelines to judges and other individuals who possess authority
to establish obligation amounts
PART 2: A REVIEW OF THE WILLIAMS-INSPIRED "INCOME SHARES" MODEL, AND PROBLEMS
INHERENT IN THE UNDERLYING ECONOMICS
My state of residence is Kansas, which is a joint custody preference state by statute (meaning
legal decision making, not necessarily shared physical custody). Well over 80% of the cases result in joint custody
awards. It is only logical that the most significant reason a judge would order joint custody, or short of that,
some degree of visitation, would be a recognition that both parents are going to maintain some degree of involvement
with their child post-separation/divorce. In those situations, legislatures and/or courts are stating that it is
in the child s best interests to have such involvement with both parents. Yet as will be described below, the financial
child support schedules of most state guidelines are derived from data collected from overall expenditures made
by intact family households throughout the country, with minimal state-specific participation. According to federal
law, all relevant costs of raising the child in that state are to be taken into account by the state model used
to develop the support obligation schedules, creating a rebuttable presumption. Without including direct costs
incurred by the second involved parent specifically in the guideline economics, such costs have not been considered.
(They are in fact, left totally to the discretion of the court, with little guidance on how to consider them in
determining an appropriate and just child support award.)
When one fully grasps the economic methodology used in today s guideline development, there
becomes a recognition that it is impossible to really know what guideline numbers are appropriate or what assumptions
are used to determine state-specific child support obligations. Only through getting at just those things would
states be consistent with the tone of the 1996 report from the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) where
they said,
"Surprisingly,
few States reviewed their core guideline model or methodology. Rather, guideline reviews focused on issues relating
to income, adjustments to income, adjustments to the guideline amount, and deviations from the guideline amount."
What is needed is to get outside the paradigm that existing models (using the same "economic
studies") are the only way of determining appropriate and just child support awards in each state. The reality
is that the base economic studies used in child support schedule development were not planned for nor conducted
with child support considerations in mind. Rather, they were designed for significantly different purposes, never
intended to be specifically applied to individual situations such as child support. Highlighting this fact is that
none of the studies measure what federal law says we need to do in each state, and that is to fully understand
the impact on both parents ability to continue to provide for their children in two separate households, fully
considering the involved second parent s expenses. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics which gathers
the base expenditure data used in the "Income-Shares" model espoused by Williams,
actually cautions against the use of such generalized data to apply to any individual situation, exactly what is
done in the vast majority of the states, including Kansas. Most states have also been reviewing the logic of their
child support guidelines based entirely within the bounds of the guideline logic itself. Over time, it is likely
in each state that one can t tell for certain what assumptions have truly been included in the model or not, each
of which directly affects the child support schedule values. Often, the state review committee has simply gone
back to see if the modified guidelines still conform to the original developer s personal preferences. In the 14
years since the federal government mandated development of statewide child support guidelines, additional research
has been conducted, including new scientific approaches that solve many of the problems both in the baseline data
used in state child support models, as well as in the models themselves. The flaws inherent in the current child
support estimate methodologies are being addressed in this research. These should be fully explored consistent
with what the OCSE urges be done regarding methodology review.
THE FLAWED INCOME SHARES MODEL
The "Income Shares" model is currently used for child support guidelines development
in at least 31 states as of this writing. Additionally, most of the other states utilize the same underlying economics
used in this model for their particular state guidelines. This model was developed in 1987 by Williams, and was
introduced in his report, "Development of Guidelines for Child Support Orders:
Advisory Panel Recommendations and Final Report." for the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, where as noted previously, he was a paid consultant
driving the development of uniform guidelines throughout the country. The next year, Congress passed The Family
Support Act of 1988 (Pub. L. No. 100-485) which mandated that states implement presumptive, rather than advisory,
child support guidelines, giving the states only one year to do so. Virtually all states met the congressional
deadline with such guidelines in place by October 1989. It appears obvious that due to the short deadline required
of the states to comply with this new law, most conveniently opted for the very model being espoused by the agency
overlooking the whole program, the Income Shares model.
Williams describes his model in the Health and Human Services publication, "Child Support Guidelines: The Next Generation", published in April
1994:
"The Income Shares model is based on the concept that the
child should receive the same proportion of parental income that he or she would have received if the parents lived
together. A basic child support obligation is computed based on the combined income of the parents (REPLICATING
TOTAL INCOME IN AN INTACT HOUSEHOLD) {emphasis added}.
This basic obligation comes from a
table which is derived from economic estimates of child-rearing expenditures, minus average
amounts for health insurance, child care, and child s extraordinary medical expenses. The basic child support obligation
is divided between the parents in proportion to their relative incomes. Pro-rated shares of child care and extraordinary
medical expenses are added to each parent s basic obligation. IF ONE PARENT HAS CUSTODY, THE AMOUNT CALCULATED
FOR THAT PARENT IS PRESUMED TO BE SPENT DIRECTLY ON THE CHILD. FOR THE NONCUSTODIAL PARENT, THE CALCULATED AMOUNT
ESTABLISHES THE LEVEL OF CHILD SUPPORT {emphasis added}."
He continues, "The Income Shares model was developed by
the staff of the Child Support Guidelines Project, which was funded by the U.S. Office of Child Support Enforcement
and administered by the National Center for State Courts. It utilizes several concepts from the earlier Washington
(State) Uniform Child Support Guidelines, but diverges in basing its numerical parameters explicitly on a different
and more recent body of economic analysis."
The reader is urged to keep in mind a few key points from Williams description of his Income
Shares model as they will be addressed in the balance of this paper.