|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Return to Guideline Menu Chapter 2.USE OF GUIDELINES IN CHILD SUPPORT CASES Note that the Tables and Exhibits are at the end of the chapter. Child support guidelines are required to be applied on a presumptive basis for child support cases in a state. The intent of guidelines is for similar cases to be handled in a similar fashion, thus decreasing the variability in order amounts across similar cases. The guidelines also recognize that certain factors or conditions may apply in a case that require more flexibility. Support guidelines provide decisionmakers with the discretion to vary from the presumptive guideline amount if application of the guideline would result in a situation for either parent or the child that is deemed to be unjust or inappropriate. One of the primary research questions to be answered by this study is the extent to which States apply their guidelines in arriving at child support orders. In this chapter, we adopt the following terminology to designate the possible outcomes of the deliberative process: 149The support order is in conformity with the award amount that is computed in a worksheet. In other words, the bottom line figure on the worksheet represents the amount that is to be paid by the obligor on a periodic basis. This type of case is a guideline formula case (or guideline case). 149The support order deviates from the award amount computed in a worksheet as a result of a decisionmaker's decision to exercise discretion in establishing a child support award. This type of case is a guideline deviation case (or deviation case). 149The support order does not agree with the calculated guideline amount on a worksheet, yet is not designated as a deviation. In some cases, the reason for the discrepancy may be inferred or otherwise explained in the case documentation. In other cases, the only information that exists is the two figures. This type of case is a discrepancy case. The next section describes the methodology for assessing implementation of case records. The chapter then explores State guideline implementation in some detail. The second and third sections examine guideline and deviation cases, respectively. In the third section, we analyze what the case records indicate about discrepancy cases. 2.1DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE AND DEVIATION CASES AMONG THE CASE RECORDS The determination of the conformity of case records with the guidelines was a two-step process. The first step involved coding and recording information contained in both the child support order and in the worksheet, if available. The process of recording this information is briefly described below. The second step was acomputer check that compared the order amount and the guideline, determined the magnitude of any difference, and standardized the difference as a percent of the support order. This part of the methodology is called discrepancy analysis, which is described in greater detail in Section 2.4. 2.1.1Guideline and Order Information Information on the guideline computations and order amounts were integral parts of the data collection. The child support amount contained in the order was routinely extracted as part of the case record coding process. In most counties, documenting the guideline amount required access to the worksheet. To accurately reflect the computational steps in the determination of a guideline amount, CSR, Incorporated, entered virtually all worksheet information submitted with the case record into a computer database. The worksheet database for each case documents the incomes and adjustment expenses of the parties. In addition, it contains the calculations that were performed and the mandatory numerical adjustments that were made in arriving at the guideline. Typically, each worksheet contained a bottom-line figure that the obligor would be responsible for sending to the obligee on a periodic basis, unless the decisionmaker deviated from the guideline. 2.1.2Guideline and Deviation Case Determination During coding, cases were categorized as either a guideline or a deviation case. In many instances, the order clearly indicated that the award was made in accordance with the State guideline. If the order was silent about case designation, a case was determined to be in accordance with the State guideline by default; in other words, each case not considered to be a deviation was coded as a guideline case. According to Federal mandate, decisionmakers are required to support their decision to deviate from the guideline by incorporating the reason in the order or in some portion of the record of the proceedings. The latter may encompass inclusion in the court transcript or verbally on tape. Our data collection strategy focused solely on written documentation (e.g., orders and case notes); we were precluded from obtaining findings found in the court transcript or on tape. When examining the case record documentation, coders from CSR and the American Bar Association (ABA) determined whether there was evidence that the decisionmaker exercised discretion to deviate from the guideline. We adopted a conservative approach and were guided by the language of the order. In some jurisdictions this was a straightforward task; the case documentation routinely specified whether the award deviated from the calculated guideline amount. For example, Washington State has a line item (#3.6) in its court orders that indicates the "reasons for deviation from [the] standard calculation." Other States, such as Massachusetts, have standard forms for decisionmakers to complete if they deviate from the guideline. In other jurisdictions, this determination required a measure of interpretation. For example, many orders stated that the award was not made in accordance with theguideline. In other jurisdictions, the fact finder's case notes indicated that a recommendation was made to the court to deviate from the guideline. If the court approved that recommendation, as evidenced by the actual support award in accordance with this recommendation, it was considered to be a deviation. Once the case was determined to be a deviation, the coders ascertained the amount of the deviation and whether the deviation increased or decreased the order in relation to the guideline. In many cases, these determinations were uncomplicated because they were clearly identified in the order. In other cases, it was impossible to calculate either the amount or the direction of the deviation, or both. In cases of multiple deviations in a case, generally we were able to determine only the amount and direction of the combined deviations. The analyses in the next three sections are based on the information obtained through these processes. 2.2WHAT DO THE CASE RECORDS SAY ABOUT THE EXTENT TO WHICH DECISIONMAKERS IMPLEMENT GUIDELINES? To obtain a general perspective on implementation, individual case record data from the 21 counties were pooled. The data show that 83 percent of cases were considered to follow the guideline, while 17 percent of cases were categorized as formal deviations. These aggregate statistics suggest that decisionmakers do indeed indicate that the State guidelines have been followed when establishing orders and that discretion is exercised with restraint (see Exhibit 2-1 and Table 2-1 following this page). There is considerable variation across counties in the ratio of guideline to deviation cases. Nine counties report that more than 90 percent of cases were categorized as guideline cases, with another four counties reporting guideline cases of between 80 and 89 percent. Conversely, there were two counties that reported close to 50 percent of cases categorized as deviation cases (PA2 and WA2). The percentages above represent implementation as determined from descriptive information contained in case records, as opposed to the application of mandatory numerical adjustments in support order establishment. Further analysis of the case record data reveals a more complex picture about consistency in the application of guidelines. This is discussed in greater detail in the section on discrepancy cases (see Section 2.4 below). 2.3DEVIATIONS The guidelines recognize that certain factors or conditions may apply in a case and therefore require more flexibility. Support guidelines provide decisionmakers with the discretion to vary from the presumptive guideline amount if application of the guideline would result in a situation for either the parent or the child that isdeemed to be unjust or inappropriate. A deviation occurs when a decisionmaker exercises such discretion. There is considerable variability across States with regard to the number and specificity of their deviation criteria. Some States (e.g., Delaware) are more general than others and provide little guidance to the decisionmaker; other States (e.g., Florida) provide more detailed and specific guidance to decisionmakers. One research issue on the project concerned the direction (i.e., up or down) and the magnitude of the dollar amount of the deviation. To facilitate the analysis, the data from 21 counties were pooled and then analyzed. A number of findings have emerged from an analysis of the case record data. These include the following: 149Direction of Deviations.151Across all counties having 5 or more deviation cases in which the direction of the deviation was documented, 16.7 percent of the deviations were upward, and 82.8 percent were downward. The highest rate of upward deviations was 42 percent in one county; six additional counties had 20 percent or more upward; and three counties had no upward deviations. Therefore, overall, in all counties, deviations reduced the amount of the award in the vast majority of the cases. The directions of deviations are shown by county in Table 2-2 following this page. 149Deviation Reasons.151In 1994 the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement examined State guidelines and compiled a list of deviation reasons that were included in guidelines. [ See Arnaudo, D., " Deviation From State Child Support Guidelines, " in Haynes, M.C. (ed.), Child Support Guidelines: The Next Generation (Washington, DC: Center on Children and the Law, American Bar Association, 1994).] There were 47 reasons listed, which were arranged in order of most to least frequently listed reason. CSR utilized this list in its code book, and other reasons were added if a particular reason appeared with some regularity within a county.Across all counties, the most frequent reason (in 21 percent of the cases) for deviations documented in the case records was agreement between the parties (e.g., stipulated agreements). Second households, extended or extraordinary visitation or custody expenses, and low income of the noncustodial parent (NCP), each was cited in more than 10 percent of the cases. In 8 percent of the cases, the reason given was that the guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate, and 4 percent of the cases cited extraordinary needs of the parent. Other reasons were cited in 15 percent of the cases, and 13 percent did not give a reason (see Table 2-3 following this page).CSR also analyzed the deviation reasons in each county and prepared a table of the documented deviation reasons, arranged according to the number of counties in which each reason appears in a case record. Table 2-4 presents the deviation reasons most frequently cited and the number of counties in which the reason appears in one or more case records.149Direction of Deviation by Deviation Reason.151The direction of the deviation varied significantly across each of the reasons mentioned above. As shown in Table 2-3, downward deviations were common across all deviation reasons. Deviations because of low NCP income and because of a second household were the two reasons most frequently listed for a downward deviation (each mentioned in over 90 percent of deviation cases). Amount the other common deviation reasons mentioned above, downward deviations were found in a minimum of 60.7 percent of cases. In contrast, upward deviations occurred less frequently and were concentrated on two specific reasons: agreement between the parties and guideline amount was unjust/inappropriate (in which more than 20 percent of the cases had upward deviations). In addition, more than 20 percent of the cases with other reasons or missing reasons had upward deviations.149Deviation Amount.151The average change in the award amount was calculated by comparing the amount of award before the deviation to the award amount (see Table 2-5). For awards that increased, the average increase was 30 percent, while for awards that decreased, the average decrease was 36 percent.When cases were grouped into condoles by predeviation award amount, deviations that increased the award resulted in the largest increases in the two lowest groups. Monthly child support amounts of less than $200 were increased by an average of 88.7 percent, while those in the other award amount categories increased by less than 39.5 percent (which represents the $200.00150$299.00 per month category). Deviations that decreased the award reduced it by approximately one-third in each award group, except in the lowest group (less than $200.00), which was reduced by 52.6 percent (i.e., cut in half).149Frequency of Deviation, by Obligor.151Fathers were the obligors in 93 percent of cases. Cases in which the mother was the obligor were more likely to have a deviation (28 percent) than those in which the father was the obligor (16 percent) (see Table 2-6 following this page).149Frequency of Deviation, by IV-D Status.151There was only a small difference in the frequency of deviations by the IV-D status of the case. Deviations occurred in 17.6 percent of non-AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) IV-D cases, in 13.1 percent of AFDC IV-D cases, and in 15.2 percent of non-IV-D cases. The highest rate of deviations (21.5 percent) was registered among IV-D cases in which we could not determine the status of the case as AFDC or non-AFDC (see Table 2-7). 2.4DISCREPANCY CASES AND CONSISTENCY OF GUIDELINE APPLICATION As defined in Section 2.1, discrepancy cases are those in which the computed guideline amount is not in agreement with the order amount, yet the case is notdesignated as a deviation151in fact, often there is a wide variance between the two. The degree of agreement between the two figures is defined as a measure of the consistency of guideline application in case records. Discrepancy cases were identified during case coding and as a result of an analysis of the case record data. In some cases, the reason for the discrepancy may be inferred or otherwise explained in the case documentation. In other cases, the only information that exists are the two figures. This type of case is a discrepancy. The actual computational process of determining a discrepancy is relatively straightforward once the intricacies of the different units of time and income and obligation definitions in each of the counties have been mastered. [ Discrepancy analysis could not be conducted in four counties, primarily because of insufficient worksheet information. In one Florida county and in one New Jersey county, no worksheets accompanied the case record documentation. In the Florida county, CSR was able to reconstruct select worksheets, but this was considered to be too unreliable for discrepancy analysis. The two Wisconsin counties were excluded for an additional reason. Orders frequently are expressed as a percent of the obligor's income, not as a dollar amount, which makes it impossible to conduct discrepancy analysis.] For nondeviation cases, we calculated the difference between the court order and the computed guideline figure. In designated deviation cases, the amount of the upward/downward deviation amount was factored into the calculation. All differences were converted to a percentage of the order amount. A positive sign in front of the percentage indicates that the order is higher than the guideline amount. The percentage indicates the magnitude of the difference, standardized by the order amount. For example, if the two amounts are equal, the percentage should be at or near zero. If the percentage is +10, the difference amounts to 10 percent of the total order amount. Higher percentages indicate a greater divergence between the two amounts. The same logic holds for percentages with negative signs.
This process provides a useful way of comparing cases because each of the percentages reported in this section is standardized as a percentage of the actual court order. If the percentage falls within the range of +2 or _2 percent of the order, the guideline is considered to be consistently applied in that case. This provides a margin of error and does not penalize counties for minor arithmetic, transcription, and interpolation errors when computing the guideline amount. [ In some States, the guideline permits a wider tolerance than 2 percent before a case must be considered a deviation case, and this will be noted in the comments section in the following tables.] One caveat is that discrepancy determination in individual cases is limited by the quality and completeness of the documentation made available to CSR. For example, additional information may be made known to the decisionmaker between the time the worksheet was calculated and the actual hearing. In some counties, it was made clear that worksheets prepared in the IV-D agency routinely are superseded by worksheets prepared in court when new information is presented before the court (e.g., the NCP provides documented earnings information). Some counties routinely did not include these new worksheets in the court record, especially in one county in Florida and one in Pennsylvania. In addition, no worksheet data were available for one New Jersey county. 2.4.1How Frequently Do Discrepancies Occur in the Case Records? If a discrepancy is operationally defined as a difference in the standardized percentage of more than 1772 percent from a mean of zero (i.e., no difference), it is clear from our analysis that discrepancies occur quite frequently in the case records. Two counties have discrepancies in fewer than 10 percent of cases in their counties, six counties have discrepancies in the range of 10.1 to 20 percent, five have discrepancies in the range of 20.1 to 30 percent, and four have discrepancies in more than 30 percent of cases (see Table 2-8 following this page). When this analysis is conducted on guideline cases only, the distribution of discrepancy cases is similar to the pattern for all cases. When the analysis focuses on deviation cases, we expect that guideline cases would be more consistently applied than deviation cases. [ Technically, guideline cases follow the guideline computations, and deviation cases do not; however, there is a computational logic to deviation cases in which we can determine whether or not the computed guideline amount plus or minus a deviation amount (depending on the direction of the deviation) equals the order amount. The same analysis that is performed on guideline cases was also performed on deviation cases.] The data presented do not support this contention. There is no clear direction or pattern in the consistency of application. In some counties, consistency across guideline and deviation cases is nearly equal. In other counties, consistency clearly favors one type of case over another. Again, this indicates that there is (1) little difference between case types and (2) extreme variability within and across States. When the order is larger than the guideline, positive discrepancies can occur; the opposite is true for negative discrepancies. Overall, it can be seen that discrepancies occur with about equal regularity, regardless of whether the standardized percent has a positive or a negative sign (see Table 2-9 following this page). This suggests that there is no systematic pattern across counties in terms of orders exceeding or not exceeding the guideline. 2.4.2Why Do Discrepancies Occur? Several factors can explain discrepancies, which can be categorized as either random or systematic and are summarized in the following sections. 2.4.2.1Random Factors Random factors include arithmetic error, transcription error, insufficient or incomplete documentation, complexity of the case, and inconsistency among fact finders in documenting deviations. 149Arithmetic Error.151This includes error in computing the guideline, error in using a lookup table of child support obligation amounts, and error in interpolation or rounding the support obligation amount. 149Transcription Error.151This occurs when the wrong amount (e.g., guideline amount or income amount) is transferred to the order or is not incorporated in the order. 149Insufficient or Incomplete Documentation.151This can occur when the worksheet that was sent was superseded in a court hearing, when worksheets were missing, when worksheets were incomplete and had missing fields (especially gross income), or when information on prior orders and subsequent families was referenced in a worksheet but the computations to take multiple families into account frequently was not included in the documentation. 149Complexity of the Case.151Worksheets frequently are able to capture only select information on a complex case and the court order may only contain a skeletal statement of fact. In addition, stipulated agreements frequently contain complex arrangements between divorcing parties on marital property, tax, and other considerations that may affect an order amount, yet the agreement may not be included in the documentation. Unique situations may be minimally referenced in the documentation, such as NCP's in jail who are ordered to pay a high alimony and child support award or NCPs who earn small amounts of money (verified) and yet are ordered to pay child support greater than their income. Parents who have sole physical custody of the child may be ordered to pay child support to the parent without physical custody of the child. 149Inconsistency Among Fact Finders in Documenting Deviations.151In some States, decisionmakers are very thorough and consistent in documenting deviations; in other States, they are not. Some States have forms that should be filled out by a decisionmaker if he or she exercises discretion on a case and deviates from the guideline; few forms ever appear in the documentation. Because the lack of consistency occurs both within and across States, this factor can be seen as either random or systematic, or both. 2.4.2.2Systematic Factors Systematic factors include inconsistency in policy within and across agencies and courts, the decisionmaker exercising discretion to lower the order below the guideline amount, and decisionmaker discretion to increase the order above the guideline amount. 149Inconsistency in Policy Within and Across Agencies and Courts.151Guidelines frequently are applied in an inconsistent manner by fact finders. For instance, NCPs earning below a minimum monthly figure are automatically ordered to pay a minimum monthly amount of $25.00 or $50.00 per child, depending on the county. Some fact finders specify this as a deviation, while others are silent on a similar case. Administrative cases may also deal with identical situations, yet agency policy usually prohibits the fact finder from recommending a deviation, barring exceptional circumstances. Because the ordered amount is always less than the computed amount in these situations, the difference will appear as a discrepancy, unless the case has been specified asa deviation. A high discrepancy rate in some counties may be attributed to this lack of consistency. 149The Decisionmaker Exercising Discretion To Lower the Order Below the Guideline Amount.151The majority of the discrepancies occur at percentages that exceed 10 percent of the order amount. In cases where the guideline amount is greater than the order, the majority of discrepancies occurs at the lowest income levels. This suggests that decisionmakers are exercising a measure of discretion in establishing orders for parents with very low incomes. For example, a typical case might be an NCP earning a gross income of $800.00 per month, in which the calculated guideline amount would be approximately $150.00 per month. The decisionmaker might order child support in the amount of $50.00 per month. The discrepancy in this case would be $100.00, twice the order amount of $50.00. State policy on how to categorize low-income cases is inconsistent. 149Decisionmaker Discretion To Increase the Order Above the Guideline Amount.151The majority of discrepancies in these cases occurs at percentages that exceed 10 percent of the order amount. Many of these discrepancies occur in cases where the obligee's income is among the highest income levels. This suggests that decisionmakers are exercising a measure of discretion in establishing higher orders for parents with very high incomes. Paradoxically, there also are significant numbers of low-income parents that agree to awards that are higher than the guideline amount. The fact of the matter is that some discrepancies can be explained by some aspect of the case or its accompanying documentation. In these cases, it is possible to explain or infer a reason for the discrepancy. Other discrepancies occur and cannot be explained. [ From the data CSR collected and entered into its case record database, it is possible to determine a likely reason for many of the discrepancies. This is beyond the scope of the current contract and is left to researchers who may use the database in the future.] 2.5CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE CONSISTENCY OF GUIDELINE APPLICATION This section outlines conclusions and resulting recommendations regarding the consistency of guideline applications. 2.5.1Conclusion In this chapter we have noted that there is considerable variability within and across States with regard to the consistency of guideline application. In a majority of cases, guidelines are implemented in a way that the order agrees with the computed guideline figure. While this was expected, consistency of guideline application is lower in some counties than expected. As noted above, there are avariety of random and systematic factors that account for discrepancies, and no single reason systematically explains discrepancies across or within counties. 2.5.2Recommendation A number of strategies need to be adopted by the various States to increase the consistency of guideline application. These include the following: 149To address random inconsistency, better training and technical assistance on applying and completing worksheets needs to be provided to fact finders and decisionmakers; complexity and length of the worksheets seems to be less important in determining consistency of application than the training provided to decisionmakers in completing the worksheet. Expectations need to be set regarding the careful and complete documentation of deviations; in some counties and States, the case documentation is thorough and well laid out, while in others it is incomplete at best and unavailable at worst. 149To address systematic inconsistency, coordinated and consistent policy within and between agencies and courts is needed with regard to expectations and procedures involving worksheet completion, documentation of deviations, application and attribution of deviations, and assuring the completeness of total case record documentation. 2.5.3Conclusion In some States and counties, CSR had to develop either a worksheet and/or a supplemental data form to obtain information required for the study. For example, Arkansas, Minnesota, and Wisconsin151States categorized as Income Shares151do not use worksheets in the calculation of a child support award. In one Pennsylvania county, as well as in Arkansas, the child support order does not contain information on case type, the number of children, and other case characteristics that are necessary for the analysis. The absence of such worksheets made the evaluation more difficult and may have led to deviations or discrepancies that could have been avoided. In the absence of complete case records, it is difficult for analysts151evaluation researchers or State guideline review commissions151to assess the extent to which guidelines are applied to child support cases. 2.5.4Recommendation States should consider adopting more standard case documentation within their counties. This should include a standardized worksheet containing the final data on which the court or other decisionmaker based the award decision, the basis for any deviations, and select characteristics of the case.
|
