The Evaluation of Child Support Guidelines was conducted from October 1994 to March 1996 and focused on three major issues: (1) how State child support guidelines are applied; (2) the extent, amount, direction, and causes of deviations from State guideline formulae; and (3) how States account for families' special circumstances in determining child support awards. This executive summary provides synopses of finding of the expert panel, the Current Population Survey analysis, State guideline review studies, and the case record analysis.

EXPERT PANEL

A panel of experts was assembled to provide advice on the general nature of the research and to make recommendations based on the findings generated by the study. This panel was composed of knowledgeable judges, attorneys, officials, administrators, representatives of advocacy groups for custodial and noncustodial parents, consultants, and academics. The panel concluded that (1) no steps should be taken at this time to adopt a national child support guideline because States are still in the experimental phase; (2) presumptive State guidelines should continue, with emphasis that States should conduct their required guideline reviews every 4 years in accordance with Federal regulations; and (3) the Federal Government should provide technical assistance and point out areas for the States to consider within the guideline review process. These discussions have guided the nature of the conclusions and recommendations set forth in this report.

CURRENT POPULATION SURVEY ANALYSIS

Analysis of the latest available data from the Child Support for Custodial Mothers and Fathers Supplement to the 1992 Current Population Survey (covering 1991 child support information) indicated that support awards may have increased by a small amount after the shift from voluntary to presumptive guidelines. However, the income of the noncustodial parent was unavailable, preventing any definitive assessment of the impact of mandatory guidelines, and the demographic composition of custodial parents changed over the period.

STATE GUIDELINE REVIEW STUDIES

The ABA's survey of State guideline reviews from 48 States indicates that most States conducted thorough, thoughtful reviews that examined numerous issues and considered varied perspectives. Guideline reviews uncovered significant discussions or deviations in the following areas: income determination, tax exemptions, multiple families, agreements between the parties, health care, visitation and custody, and child care expenses. Consideration of these discussions and/or dataoften resulted in an adjustment to the guideline amount or a permissible deviation. Approximately 20 States have conducted a review of actual case records, and approximately 35 have reviewed the cost of childrearing, as required by Federal regulations. To conduct more thorough reviews, States should (1) allocate sufficient resources, time, and staff to the guideline review process; (2) conduct case surveys, using the results to improve guidelines by reducing deviations and increasing consistency; and (3) review the cost-of-childrearing data.

CASE RECORD ANALYSIS

CSR analyzed more than 4,000 case records from 21 counties in 11 States. While this sample contains a geographic variety of States with all three major guideline models represented, it was not designed to be nationally representative. The analysis indicates that these States formally deviated in 17 percent of cases. A deviation case was one in which a decisionmaker explicitly departed from the guideline calculation in establishing a child support award. The analysis of deviation cases shows that the four most common reasons for deviations across all cases were (1) agreement between the parties (21 percent); (2) second households (14 percent); (3) extended or extraordinary visitation or custody expenses (13 percent); and (4) low income of the payor (11 percent). In the case records, 74 percent of deviations decreased the amount of support by an average of 36 percent of the guideline amount; 15 percent increased the amount of support by an average of 30 percent of the guideline amount.

In a significant percentage of cases151ranging from less than 10 percent to more than 45 percent across the 21 counties151the ordered amount of support differed from the calculated guideline amount of support; these differences were found both in cases that followed the guideline calculations and in deviation cases. Reasons were not documented in the case records; however, they may be attributable to a variety of causes, such as incomplete documentation of facts or decisions contained only in the oral record for the case. However, this finding suggests that States should (1) strive to emphasize in the training process that decisionmakers need to document departures from the guideline amount and reasons for the departures, (2) enforce a more consistent application of guidelines across cases, and (3) improve the completeness of documentation to facilitate the guideline review process.

The study presents a detailed review of areas with significant State interest including multiple families; income definition, verification, and imputation; health care; child care; support for postsecondary education; tax considerations; and custody and visitation. While some factors (such as income and health care) were considered in nearly all orders, the incidence of other factors seemed relatively low and quite variable across counties (even within the same State). For example, child care expenses were mentioned in 19 percent of all cases, although national data show that 73 percent of custodial parents are employed. These expenses had an effect on the award in 14 percent of cases, with a range across the counties from less than 2 percent to 45 percent). Similarly, multiple families were mentioned in 9 percent of cases and had an effect on the award in 7 percent, despite a remarriage rate of approximately 75 percent in the general population.

The findings generated by the case record analysis in some of these areas indicate that when a particular factor is mandated by a numerical formula in the guidelines, there generally is a higher incidence and more uniform treatment of that factor being considered in child support actions. Data from cases in the States with mandatory numerical adjustments suggest that child(ren) in similar circumstances would be treated equitably if mandatory adjustments were included in all State guidelines. For most of these subject areas (e.g., second families, income definition, child care, health care, and visitation and custody), States should consider a mandatory or consistent treatment. For other more exceptional circumstances (e.g., extraordinary health expenses and income imputation), individual circumstances may need to be closely evaluated and a discretionary approach may be preferred. In other areas where there is a lack of a policy consensus (e.g., support for postsecondary education), discretionary treatment also may be desirable. In discussions with more than 200 decisionmakers and other stakeholders across the 21 study counties, the ABA found a consensus that these issues need to be investigated further.

In addition to the recommendations discussed above, this report makes two overall recommendations with respect to procedural aspects of guideline implementation, based on observation of the case records, State case studies on deviations, and State guideline review reports. First, States need to improve their performance on independent verification of income. Across all cases, 15 percent contained an independent source of income verification for the noncustodial parent (ranging from 0 to 53 percent). Income is the driving factor behind every child support calculation, and accurate information is vital to arriving at an appropriate order. Second, States should consider adopting a standardized support order to ensure that certain factors common to the majority of child support actions are addressed consistently. A form that required documenting departures from the guideline calculation would certainly help to reduce the number of discrepancies and would allow State review teams to evaluate child support guidelines more effectively.