| 
Douglas W. Nelson
The Annie E. Casey Foundation
701 St. Paul Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
September 19, 2003
Dear Mr. Nelson,
This is a follow-up letter to an earlier one sent by members
of our organization to financial backers of the Center for
Law and Social Policy (CLASP). I am providing additional
information in response to comments received from several
financial backers who received an initial letter from NCCSO.
As we have previously stated, NCCSO members
believe CLASP is misguided in its unfortunate actions aimed
at limiting
(or eliminating) the options of families seeking to collect
their unpaid child support. We do not understand why CLASP
wishes to hinder the ability of custodial parents to get
the help we need in collecting some of the more than $90
billion of uncollected child support owed in the United States.
CLASP’s recent national effort to obtain data on complaints
against private child support enforcement agencies is not
the first time they have pursued actions intended to discredit
such companies.
In May 2000, Vicki Turetsky, a Senior Staff Attorney for
CLASP, began lobbying against private enforcement options
for custodial parents by testifying against certain provisions
of H.R. 4469 by Congresswoman Nancy Johnson. These provisions
would have expanded access to important data and tools to
private child support enforcement agencies for their use
in tracking down and collecting money owed to parents and
their children who were unable to get help from government
agencies.
As a custodial parent, it is appalling to me that an organization
like CLASP would try to block the use of effective enforcement
tools by a private agency that I chose to hire when the government
failed to help my family collect our child support! How can
CLASP claim to be interested in helping low income families
receive much needed economic assistance, when they are working
to keep that from happening by limiting the ability of custodial
parents to collect child support?
CLASP fought against the provisions of HB 4469, arguing
that the rights of the deadbeat parent might be violated
because of the tough enforcement practices used by professional
agencies hired by parents to collect their unpaid child support!
Why is CLASP more concerned about the rights of someone who
has ignored the law, and their responsibility to provide
for their children, than they are about my rights to get
effective enforcement assistance in collecting my unpaid
child support?
CLASP has even gone so far as to lump parents owed child
support into the same category as a business trying to
collect on overdue bills of its customers. SHAME ON THEM! We are
NOT at all in the same situation. CLASP should acknowledge
this and stop supporting laws that would treat deadbeats
just like an ordinary person who has missed a payment on
a refrigerator or a TV.
Furthermore, CLASP ‘s “anti-private child support
enforcement” lobbying at the state level is also hurting
parents. For example, in May of this year, Ms. Turetsky fought
for passage of Illinois bill S.B.44. This legislation proposed
an unreasonably low fee cap on private child support enforcement
agencies. Such a cap on fees would not have permitted private
agencies to continue helping parents in Illinois. Doesn’t
Ms. Turetsky realize that a fee cap on private enforcement
agencies, would have the same result that too little funding
has had on the government child support program?
Ms. Turetsky and others at CLASP also don’t seem to
understand that, oftentimes, it takes tough enforcement actions
to collect child support. In fact, the United States General
Accounting Office released a report in March 2002 supporting
the effectiveness of tougher enforcement efforts. The report,
entitled “Child Support Enforcement: Clear Guidance
Would Help Ensure Proper Access to Information and Use of
Wage Withholding by Private Firms”, states the following:
“The GAO observed that, as part of the enforcement
process, private agencies do more than just attempt to contact
the delinquent payor. They also enlist the delinquent payors‘ family
members in efforts to get the delinquent support paid. No
government enforcement agency was observed making such an
extraordinary effort (p.18.).”
The United States General Accounting Office
was not critical of private agencies for doing this. In
fact, they noted that
persistence, resourcefulness, and aggressive tactics are
part of the reason that private agencies are successful when
government programs are not! And yet, Ms. Turetsky has actually
stated that private agencies should not be allowed to try
to get family members to pay support on behalf of their delinquent
relative. Why not? Isn’t it better for the children
if at least a family member of a deadbeat is willing to do
what their deadbeat relative wouldn’t do?
If CLASP gets its way, government agencies
will be the only place for families to turn for help. But
CLASP knows and
has often testified about the inability of the overloaded
and under-resourced government child support program to handle
even half of their cases. I know firsthand what it is like
when the government doesn’t help. I went to a government
enforcement agency. They took a long time and did nothing.
It took a private agency to finally get me the help I needed.
Please help everyone at CLASP understand that the government
alone cannot do the job of effectively collecting child support.
Custodial parents need more options for collecting the child
support they are owed, not fewer!
Because of CLASP’s continuing efforts
to limit (or completely eliminate) private child support
enforcement as
an option for families, NCCSO and the thousands of custodial
parents who are members of our organization, strongly urge
you to work with us to ensure that parents like me are able
to choose the most effective way to get help collecting our
child support. We are interested in knowing your reaction
to our concerns about this matter and look forward to hearing
from you.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Susan Williams, President
National Coalition for Child Support Options Leader
|
