Recovering the costs of the child support system:The approach of Australia, NZ, UK and US.

Daniel  Meyer; Christine Skinner; Kay Cook; Michael Fletcher

Recovering the costs of the child support system:The approach of Australia, NZ, UK and US.

Daniel Meyer, Christine Skinner, Kay Cook, Michael Fletcher

Social Policy and Social Work

Research output: Contribution to conference › Paper › peer-review

Abstract

In times of austerity, governments concerned about the economic vulnerability of lone-parent families may look to non-resident parents to provide more income through child support payments. Emerging research has examined the way child support schemes and welfare benefits interact, revealing that child support’s poverty-reducing effects can be limited by these hidden interactions (Skinner et al., 2016). However, the prior research (which examined the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and the US) was focused on the perspective of the resident parent, ignoring effects on governments’ expenditures. This paper extends that research, using the same countries, but focusing on the government perspective. Research questions include: (a) For different model families, how much does the government provide and how much child support is expected from nonresident parents? (b) If that amount of child support is paid, how much is kept by the government to offset welfare expenditures versus going to the family? (c) Are separated parents expected to contribute to costs of running the child support scheme through fees? (d) What are the advantages of various approaches? Using a vignette (model family) approach, we examine 10 scenarios in which two separated parents have different levels of earnings. First, we use policy rules to calculate whether each parent would be eligible for welfare benefits. Second, we calculate the amount of child support that would be due in each country in the scenarios. Third, we assume the required child support is paid and reexamine the effect of the child support receipt on the level of welfare benefits (and thus governmental costs) that result. We also incorporate the effect of any fees imposed on either parent for participating in the child support scheme. Finally, we calculate the extent to which the net income of lone parents is coming from government, nonresident parents, or lone parents themselves.

Original language	English
Publication status	Published - 14 Sept 2017
Event	Espanet 15th Annual conference : New Horizons of European Social policy: Risks, Opportunities and Challenges - Portugal, Lisbon, Portugal Duration: 14 Sept 2017 → 16 Sept 2017 https://blogg.hioa.no/espanet/2017/06/01/2017-annual-espanet-conference-call-papers-open/

Conference

Conference	Espanet 15th Annual conference
Country/Territory	Portugal
City	Lisbon
Period	14/09/17 → 16/09/17
Internet address	https://blogg.hioa.no/espanet/2017/06/01/2017-annual-espanet-conference-call-papers-open/

Keywords

child support
cost recovery
State
UK
US
NZ
Australia

Access to Document

ESPAnet paper Sept 2107Final published version, 687 KB

Cite this

@conference{df06905baa494e3dbe6d1dd3aa473509,

title = "Recovering the costs of the child support system:The approach of Australia, NZ, UK and US.",

abstract = "In times of austerity, governments concerned about the economic vulnerability of lone-parent families may look to non-resident parents to provide more income through child support payments. Emerging research has examined the way child support schemes and welfare benefits interact, revealing that child support{\textquoteright}s poverty-reducing effects can be limited by these hidden interactions (Skinner et al., 2016). However, the prior research (which examined the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and the US) was focused on the perspective of the resident parent, ignoring effects on governments{\textquoteright} expenditures. This paper extends that research, using the same countries, but focusing on the government perspective. Research questions include: (a) For different model families, how much does the government provide and how much child support is expected from nonresident parents? (b) If that amount of child support is paid, how much is kept by the government to offset welfare expenditures versus going to the family? (c) Are separated parents expected to contribute to costs of running the child support scheme through fees? (d) What are the advantages of various approaches? Using a vignette (model family) approach, we examine 10 scenarios in which two separated parents have different levels of earnings. First, we use policy rules to calculate whether each parent would be eligible for welfare benefits. Second, we calculate the amount of child support that would be due in each country in the scenarios. Third, we assume the required child support is paid and reexamine the effect of the child support receipt on the level of welfare benefits (and thus governmental costs) that result. We also incorporate the effect of any fees imposed on either parent for participating in the child support scheme. Finally, we calculate the extent to which the net income of lone parents is coming from government, nonresident parents, or lone parents themselves.",

keywords = "child support, cost recovery, State, UK, US, NZ, Australia",

author = "Daniel Meyer and Christine Skinner and Kay Cook and Michael Fletcher",

year = "2017",

month = sep,

day = "14",

language = "English",

note = "Espanet 15th Annual conference : New Horizons of European Social policy: Risks, Opportunities and Challenges ; Conference date: 14-09-2017 Through 16-09-2017",

url = "https://blogg.hioa.no/espanet/2017/06/01/2017-annual-espanet-conference-call-papers-open/",

}

TY - CONF

T1 - Recovering the costs of the child support system:The approach of Australia, NZ, UK and US.

AU - Meyer, Daniel

AU - Skinner, Christine

AU - Cook, Kay

AU - Fletcher, Michael

PY - 2017/9/14

Y1 - 2017/9/14

N2 - In times of austerity, governments concerned about the economic vulnerability of lone-parent families may look to non-resident parents to provide more income through child support payments. Emerging research has examined the way child support schemes and welfare benefits interact, revealing that child support’s poverty-reducing effects can be limited by these hidden interactions (Skinner et al., 2016). However, the prior research (which examined the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and the US) was focused on the perspective of the resident parent, ignoring effects on governments’ expenditures. This paper extends that research, using the same countries, but focusing on the government perspective. Research questions include: (a) For different model families, how much does the government provide and how much child support is expected from nonresident parents? (b) If that amount of child support is paid, how much is kept by the government to offset welfare expenditures versus going to the family? (c) Are separated parents expected to contribute to costs of running the child support scheme through fees? (d) What are the advantages of various approaches? Using a vignette (model family) approach, we examine 10 scenarios in which two separated parents have different levels of earnings. First, we use policy rules to calculate whether each parent would be eligible for welfare benefits. Second, we calculate the amount of child support that would be due in each country in the scenarios. Third, we assume the required child support is paid and reexamine the effect of the child support receipt on the level of welfare benefits (and thus governmental costs) that result. We also incorporate the effect of any fees imposed on either parent for participating in the child support scheme. Finally, we calculate the extent to which the net income of lone parents is coming from government, nonresident parents, or lone parents themselves.

AB - In times of austerity, governments concerned about the economic vulnerability of lone-parent families may look to non-resident parents to provide more income through child support payments. Emerging research has examined the way child support schemes and welfare benefits interact, revealing that child support’s poverty-reducing effects can be limited by these hidden interactions (Skinner et al., 2016). However, the prior research (which examined the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and the US) was focused on the perspective of the resident parent, ignoring effects on governments’ expenditures. This paper extends that research, using the same countries, but focusing on the government perspective. Research questions include: (a) For different model families, how much does the government provide and how much child support is expected from nonresident parents? (b) If that amount of child support is paid, how much is kept by the government to offset welfare expenditures versus going to the family? (c) Are separated parents expected to contribute to costs of running the child support scheme through fees? (d) What are the advantages of various approaches? Using a vignette (model family) approach, we examine 10 scenarios in which two separated parents have different levels of earnings. First, we use policy rules to calculate whether each parent would be eligible for welfare benefits. Second, we calculate the amount of child support that would be due in each country in the scenarios. Third, we assume the required child support is paid and reexamine the effect of the child support receipt on the level of welfare benefits (and thus governmental costs) that result. We also incorporate the effect of any fees imposed on either parent for participating in the child support scheme. Finally, we calculate the extent to which the net income of lone parents is coming from government, nonresident parents, or lone parents themselves.

KW - child support

KW - cost recovery

KW - State

KW - UK

KW - US

KW - NZ

KW - Australia

M3 - Paper

T2 - Espanet 15th Annual conference

Y2 - 14 September 2017 through 16 September 2017

ER -