Giving Noncustodial Parents Options:  Employment and Child Support Outcomes of the SHARE Program:

II. Participation in SHARE

[ Main page of Report | Contents of Report ]

Contents

1. Did SHARE Reach its Intended Targets?
2. How Successful Was SHARE in Reestablishing Support?
3. Summary

Endnote

Finding and engaging their intended participants is one challenge that programs aiming to serve NCPs and other unattached males commonly encounter. Therefore, before exploring the outcomes of SHARE, it is important to examine the extent to which this initiative was able to reach out to and engage its target population.

One feature that sets SHARE apart from other programs targeting NCPs is the strong role that child support enforcement and prosecuting attorneys play in this collaboration. In their review of 11 WtW programs targeting NCPs, Martinson et al. (2000) note that SHARE was the only program that relied entirely on child support enforcement agencies for identification and recruitment of WtW-eligible NCPs. SHARE also was the only program featuring mandatory participation in employment services — NCPs who indicated that they were unable to find work and pay support on their own were referred to WtW services under threat of incarceration if they did not participate. SHARE also had features that administrators viewed as important "carrots" to promote participation, including temporary modification of child support orders and the possibility of waiving arrearages.

In this chapter, we examine how effective SHARE was in reaching out to and engaging NCPs who were not meeting their child support obligations. First, we examine the flow of NCPs through the program — that is, the number of NCPs referred by DCS, the number appearing in court, the number referred for WtW services, and the number with bench warrants issued for their arrest. Second, we explore how long the process took to identify, establish contact with, and reach resolution of the referred NCP cases. We also examine how cases were resolved from YCPA's perspective and discuss common reasons for nonparticipation.

[Go To Contents]

A. Did SHARE Reach its Intended Targets?

DCS worked closely with YCPA to identify and engage NCPs with outstanding orders of support in the SHARE program. DCS was responsible for identifying NCPs potentially eligible for SHARE and for referring these cases to YCPA. To be eligible for SHARE, each case had to meet two basic criteria. First, the NCP had to have an outstanding order of child support. (A case was considered outstanding if no payments had been made in the past 60 days or longer. However, NCPs who owed only arrears were not eligible for SHARE.) Second, the dependent child had to be a TANF recipient.

The path that NCPs took through SHARE branched at several points, depending on their eligibility, YCPA's success in serving citations, the NCPs' attendance at or failure to attend the hearings, and the NCPs' appropriateness for WtW services (Figure II.1). After DCS referred a case, YCPA staff first confirmed the NCP's basic eligibility for the program, mainly by checking that the case still had outstanding child support payments. If SHARE eligibility was not confirmed, YCPA staff referred the case back to DCS without issuing a contempt citation. If SHARE eligibility was confirmed, YCPA issued a contempt citation notifying the parent that he must appear in court for a hearing and then attempted to serve the parent with the citation. If YCPA staff could not locate an NCP who had been issued a contempt citation, they cancelled the hearing and referred the case back to DCS, closing the case from the standpoint of the SHARE program. The staff presented three options to NCPs who were located, served their citations, and attended their hearing: (1) start making child support payments, (2) participate in WtW services, or (3) possibly go to jail. YCPA staff were expected to issue bench warrants for the arrest of any NCP who was served a contempt citation but failed to appear at a hearing.⁽¹²⁾ As we discuss later, this did not always happen, as many of the NCPs who failed to appear at their hearings could not be located.

DCS = Division of Child Support; NA = not available;
NCP = noncustodial parent; WtW = Welfare-to-Work; YCPA = Yakima County Prosecuting Attorney.

YCPA staff approached most referred cases. Between July 1998 and September 2001, DCS identified 574 NCPs as potential SHARE participants and referred their cases to YCPA (Table II.1). Most of these cases progressed to the issuance of a contempt citation. YCPA staff issued 567 contempt citations, which notified individuals that they were required to attend a court hearing to address their delinquent orders of child support. According to YCPA's records, seven cases were not issued contempt citations because YCPA staff quickly determined that the NCPs no longer had outstanding orders of child support, were ineligible for WtW services, or would otherwise be unable to participate in the program (for example, because the NCP was incarcerated).

About half of the NCPs issued citations appeared for their hearings, and almost two-thirds of those who appeared were referred to WtW. Of the 567 NCPs issued contempt citations, 280 eventually appeared for hearings with YCPA staff. According to YCPA records, the majority of these NCPs (172 parents or 61 percent of those appearing) were referred to a WtW provider for employment services. This finding suggests that the majority of the NCPs who appeared at hearings were people facing significant employment difficulties that made it hard for them to meet their child support obligations without help. As we discuss in more detail later, some of the NCPs who appeared at hearings and were not referred to WtW services — we estimate 24 NCPs — were determined ineligible for WtW services at such hearings. Hence, the majority of the NCPs who appeared but were not referred to WtW — 84 of 108 NCPs — seem to have opted to find employment and/or resume paying child support on their own.

Few arrest warrants were issued. Contempt citations stated clearly that a bench warrant would be issued if the NCP failed to appear for his scheduled hearing. Furthermore, NCPs who reported for their hearings were threatened with incarceration if they did not resume paying child support on their own or did not agree to participate in WtW services. However, few bench warrants were issued. Only 20 NCPs, or fewer than 10 percent of the 287 who failed to appear at a hearing, were issued a bench warrant (Table II.2), in large part, it appears, because YCPA could not locate many of these NCPs. Bench warrants also were issued for 29 NCPs who appeared for their hearings; 14 of the 29 had been referred to WtW services, and 15 had not. These NCPs seemed to be ones who initially appeared to cooperate with the SHARE process, but who later stopped cooperating. None of the NCPs appearing at their hearings seemed to opt explicitly for jail. Although few arrest warrants were issued, program administrators believed that the credible threat of incarceration was important in securing NCPs' cooperation.

[Go To Contents]

B. How Successful Was SHARE in reestablishing support?

Reestablishing child support payments, the main objective of SHARE, often required substantial effort. In this section, we use information from program records to examine how long YCPA staff were involved with referred cases, how often they were able to reestablish child support payments, and why they sometimes were unable to reestablish payments.

In many cases, referral to SHARE did not lead to reestablishment of child support payments. According to YCPA records, 449 (or 78 percent) of the 574 cases referred to them were closed and referred back to DCS when no further action by YCPA staff was deemed possible or warranted (Table II.3). In 111 of these 449 cases, the NCPs had resumed payments and were released from court supervision. In the remaining 338 cases closed, YCPA staff had been unable to reestablish child support. These overall statistics nevertheless mask important differences in the resolution of cases referred to SHARE and the paths that NCPs followed through the initiative.

The further the SHARE process went, the greater the likelihood of reestablishing child support payments. NCPs who never appeared at a hearing almost always had their cases closed without having resumed child support payments (Table II.3). However, when NCPs appeared for their hearings, YCPA staff achieved better results. NCPs who appeared for their hearings were about equally likely to have their cases closed with child support being paid as with child support not being paid. At first, the cases of NCPs who appeared at hearings seemed somewhat more likely to be closed with child support being paid if the NCP was referred for WtW services than otherwise (52 of 102 cases, compared to 40 of 85 cases — Table II.3). As we discuss later, however, some of the 85 closed NCP cases not referred to WtW were deemed ineligible for the program; among the remaining WtW-eligibles not referred, YCPA staff also seemed to achieve a positive child support outcome in most cases.

YCPA staff remained involved for about two years in the cases of NCPs who appeared for hearings. On average, almost five months elapsed from the date of referral by DCS to the NCP's appearance at a court hearing (Table II.4). YCPA staff usually remained involved with these cases for nearly two years, whether or not the NCP was referred to WtW services. This degree of involvement is not surprising — after the initial hearings, YCPA staff continued to conduct review hearings and monitor child support payments to ensure that the NCP was meeting his obligations. The prolonged involvement of YCPA staff may have been an important factor in the successful outcome of many of these cases.

The cases of NCPs who did not come to hearings were resolved quickly. YCPA staff continued to try to establish contact with NCPs who failed to appear at their hearings, in order to engage them in the program. However, these cases generally were closed (as far as the SHARE program was concerned) and referred back to DCS within an average of six months (Table II.4).

Many of the cases of NCPs who did not appear were closed without reestablishment of child support because YCPA staff could not locate the NCPs or could not engage them in SHARE. YCPA staff were unable to locate 128 (54 percent) of the 237 NCPs who failed to appear at hearings (Table II.5). Twenty-four other NCPs (10 percent) could not participate in SHARE because they were incarcerated. Another common reason for case closure among NCPs who had failed to appear at hearings was that the NCPs had moved out of YCPA's jurisdiction (22 NCPs, or 9 percent); people in this group included NCPs who had moved out of Yakima County, moved out of the state, or had been deported.

Even when NCPs appeared at their hearings, a variety of circumstances sometimes led to case closure without reestablishment of child support. Subsequent incarceration was the most common or second most common reason for a poor outcome among NCPs who appeared at their hearings, whether they were referred for WtW services (16 cases) or not referred for WtW services (9 cases). As mentioned earlier, some of the NCPs who appeared were determined ineligible for SHARE at their hearings (24 NCPs not referred to WtW, including 1 living outside of YCPA's jurisdiction and 6 receiving TANF) or after having been referred for WtW services (22 NCPs). In some of these cases, however, although child support payments were not reestablished, the reasons for case closure suggest somewhat equivalent outcomes. In 22 cases, either the dependent children were living with the NCP (11 cases), or the NCP and custodial parent had reconciled (another 11 cases).

The majority of SHARE-eligible NCPs who appeared had their cases closed with child support being paid, whether or not the NCP was referred for WtW services. Of the 280 NCPs who appeared for hearings, 172 were referred for WtW services (Table II.3). Of these 172 cases, 102 had been closed by YCPA staff by the time of our data extract, and just over half of these — 52 of the 102 cases — were closed with child support having been reestablished. Of the 108 cases of NCPs who appeared for hearings but were not referred for WtW services, 85 had been closed by the time of our data extract — 40 with child support being paid and 45 without (Table II.3). However, 24 of the 45 cases closed without child support being paid were for NCPs who were deemed ineligible for SHARE at their hearings (Table II.5). This suggests that the majority of closed cases among NCPs who appeared and opted to find employment or pay child support on their own — 40 of 61 closed cases — also had child support reestablished.

WtW eligibility criteria or difficulties with their application may have prevented some NCPs from participating in SHARE. In 45 cases, when the NCP first appeared at a hearing or during other contacts, YCPA staff found that the NCP was ineligible or no longer eligible to participate in SHARE (last column in Table II.5). In 24 of these cases, either the children for whom the support orders were issued were living with the NCP, or the parents had reconciled. In eight cases, because the dependent children were older than age 18, the NCP owed only arrears. These NCPs were ineligible for SHARE, as WtW regulations stipulated that the children who are owed child support must be minors. YCPA records indicated that the dependent children in another eight cases were not current TANF recipients. Under the revised WtW regulations, NCPs could qualify for services if their children had received TANF during the past year, or if the children simply were eligible for a variety of public assistance programs. However, many SHARE referrals occurred before the revised regulations took effect and, hence, YCPA staff generally determined NCPs as eligible for WtW only if they could confirm that the NCPs' dependent children were current TANF recipients. Difficulties in substantiating eligibility under the liberalized options may have also been a factor in eligibility decisions.

[Go To Contents]

C. Summary

The process of identifying eligible NCPs and engaging them in SHARE was lengthy and often unsuccessful. Overall, about half of the individuals referred to SHARE ever appeared at a court hearing at which the program was explained to them. However, two-thirds of those who did appear were referred for WtW services, suggesting that many of the targeted NCPs faced significant employment difficulties that made it hard for them to pay child support. Once referred to SHARE, it usually took several months for an individual to appear in court, and often more than two years elapsed before a case was resolved and referred back to DCS. Even so, the longer the SHARE process continued, the greater the likelihood of success in reestablishing child support payments. Referred cases were most likely to be resolved with the NCP paying child support if the NCP had appeared for a hearing with YCPA staff, and if he had been referred to WtW for employment services. However, YCPA staff also seemed to achieve success with NCPs who appeared for their hearings and opted to find employment and/or resume paying child support on their own.

Endnote

12.  The information from YCPA's SHARE database does not enable us to distinguish between SHARE-eligible NCPs whom YCPA was unable to serve a contempt citation and NCPs who were located and thus served but still failed to appear at their contempt hearing. Hence, for our analysis, we classify both groups of NCPs as individuals who never appeared at a contempt hearing.

Where to?

Top of Page | Contents

Main Page of Report | Contents of Report

Home Pages:
National Evaluation of the WtW Grants Program
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)