The National Council of Child Support Directors resolves that:
Congress carefully weigh the impact of the provisions to expand child support enforcement through means other than programs financed at federal and state expense, while continuing to support equal opportunity and low-cost access to State IV-D programs.
Currently, private attorneys and non-title IV-D public agencies do not have access to all the enforcement tools Congress has provided to the title IV-D program. Pending legislation contends that if private attorneys and non-title IV-D public agencies could have access to these same enforcement tools, they could significantly augment the resources of the title IV-D program without using any federal taxpayer dollars.
The purposes of pending legislation are to more effectively fight the growing problem of nonsupport in this country, without any financial cost to the federal taxpayer; and to provide families a choice in the use of available resources to receive the child support they are owed.
No limit on the fees or percentage of collections charged by private agencies. Pending legislation provides for no limit on fees or percentage of collections, which may be shared by private agencies. This could have costly and long-term negative consequences to the custodial parent and child by reducing the amount of support received.
Pending legislation does not provide requirements for contract terms and limitations.
Custodial parents eager to collect support could unknowingly enter into contracts lasting for months or even years with little recourse.
Potential for higher fees to noncustodial parents, who have no control over whether the custodial parent uses the IV-D agency or a private collector.
Unequal distribution of monies to custodial parents involved in multiple families.
Implies that implementation procedures are revenue neutral, which they are not.
Holds potential for achieving "cost neutrality" only by diverting money from existing IV-D functions.
Requires significant startup costs at the federal level for new duties, investigation, monitoring, and auditing; i.e. more bureaucracy.
Distribution rules are not clearly delineated so that a payment to family first is the priority.
Significant requirements are associated with additional staffing and systems necessary to adequately establish and monitor the registry and to investigate and prosecute improprieties.
Increases federal and states' IV-D and Employment Security Agencies (SESA) workload and computer programming (e.g., tax intercept).
Requires enabling state legislation.
Pending legislation may not enhance, and may actually restrict, options for custodial parents as they currently are allowed to simultaneously have an active case with the IV-D agency and contract for collections with a non-IV-D entity.
Pending legislation proposes the IV-D agency shall close any case being worked on by private and/or non-IV-D entities.
The Child Support Enforcement Options Act of 1999 outlines penalties that could be imposed on the non-IV-D entities that knowingly and intentionally or with gross negligence use, for purposes other than establishing paternity, or establishing, modifying, or enforcing child support obligations, any enforcement remedies or information made available to them. Despite these provisions, there still remains the concern of misuse of information by these entities.
Because of the aforementioned concerns, the NCCSD does not support the Child Support Enforcement Options Act of 1999.