Patricia,
I am writing with concern regarding the use of Policy Studies Inc. as economic
advisors with the use of child support guidelines. While current child support
guidelines are presumed to correct and appropriate, data documented in the US
Department of Agriculture's Expenditure on Children by Family report and the
Consumer Expenditure Survey both suggest that the guidelines are incorrect.
Furthermore, Policy Studies Inc.'s founder Robert Williams, the person
responsible for creating child support guidelines, admitted that the guidelines
were inflated approximately 250% to 300% and were based upon low income
households.
The Consumer Expenditure Survey specifically states: "Caution should be
used in interpreting the expenditure data, especially when relating averages to
individual circumstances. The data shown in the published tables are averages
for demographic groups of consumer units. Expenditures by individual consumer
units may differ from the average even if the characteristics of the group are
similar to the individual consumer unit. Income, family size, age of family
members, geographic location, and individual tastes and preferences all
influence expenditures." This would suggest that the child support
guidelines, based upon data utilized from the Consumer Expenditure Survey, are
not a one-size-fits-all cure all and child support cases should be considered on
a case by case basis.
Additionally, the US Department of Agriculture's Expenditures on Children by
Family report also suggests that child support guidelines are incorrect and
inappropriate as well. While the Consumer Expenditure Survey documents
expenditures, the US Department of Agricultures report does as well. However,
also documented in this report is data that renders this information incomplete,
invalid, and fallacious. Data in this report is compiled from housing,
transportation, food and health care among other costs. However, this report
also goes on to state: "Unlike food and health care, no research base
exists for allocating estimated household expenditures on housing,
transportation, and other miscellaneous goods and services among family members.
USDA uses the per capita method in allocating these expenses; the per capita
method allocates expenses among household members in equal proportions."
This indicates that these costs are allocated equally among all household
members whether they are children or not.
Furthermore, the Categories of Household Expenditures section of this report
describes what some of these items actually are. For example; Housing expenses
include things like mortgage interest, property taxes, or rent, appliances and
floor coverings. And, under transportation expenses, the purchase of a vehicle
is included. These are just a few of the things that are mentioned when
categorizing housing and transportation expenses. Why is the cost of a vehicle
allocated in the expense of raising a child when just about everyone owns a
vehicle whether they have children or not? Furthermore, why are rent/mortgage
expenses allocated as an expense when everyone who lives in a place of their own
either owns or rents their own home whether they have children or not? These two
costs
alone completely skew the costs of raising a child, making the costs higher than
what they actually are. While, these costs may increase as a result of having a
child, the increase of these costs are considerably less than what estimates
state. And, if these figures where to truly be correct, then some of these
expenses would be estimated lower from this report and the cost of raising a
child would be measured to be considerably less than what the estimates of this
report actually demonstrate. Additionally, since health care costs are averaged
into this figure, then child support guidelines are creating even more over
inflated awards from adding health care expenses to child support when they are
already averaged into these figures.
Policy Studies Inc., as I am sure you are aware, is responsible for creating
child support guidelines. However, its founder Robert Williams, is also
responsible for inflating these guidelines higher than what they should be. In
fact he himself even admitted that the estimates that he had created were
approximately %250 to %300 higher than what they should have been. Furthermore,
when these guidelines were created, they were also based upon low income
households. And, after these guidelines were instituted, Robert Williams went on
to form Policy Studies Inc. which also profited greatly from inflated child
support guidelines by instituting a collection agency for them as well.
While the above information that I have provided primarily suggests that
child support guidelines are erroneous, statistics also suggest that this is the
case as well. Child support guidelines being erroneous and over inflated have
also made it profitable for a woman to have a child, deny a father access to his
children, and promote single parent households. According to Planned Parenthood,
currently 29% of children under the age of 18 reside in single parent
households. While this may seem high, it is much higher in other states.
Furthermore, while the Bush administration is pushing its marriage and
fatherhood initiatives, child support guidelines are completely inconsistent
with these values and actually promote single parent households by substituting
arbitrary monetary awards instead of promoting healthy responsible relationships
between parents.
Furthermore, child support guidelines have accomplished nothing more than
producing more and more child support collections. In fact, according to the
General Accounting Office, the amount of unpaid child support almost doubled in
less than four years. Three of the main goals of the child support guidelines
were to get fathers more involved with their children, get welfare mothers off
of welfare, and lift children out of poverty.
While one of the goals of child support guidelines was to get fathers more
involved with their children, this problem is not any better than it was before
child support guidelines were instituted. As stated previously, currently the
rate of children under the age of 18 growing up in a single parent household is
29% according to Planned Parenthood. Currently throughout the nation it is
approximately 40% also according to Planned Parenthood. This is approximately
the rate that it was before child support guidelines were institute. So as
demonstrated here, high child support guidelines do no better at getting fathers
involved with their children than if there were no guidelines present. In fact,
according to the Strengthening Families Act of 2003, Forty percent of children
who live in households without a father have not seen their father in at least 1
year and 50 percent of such children have never visited their father's home and
50% of mothers see no value in continued contact with fathers 40% have admitted
that they have interfered with or denied access on some level.
Additionally, another goal was also to get welfare mothers off of welfare.
Child support guidelines do nothing more than promoting a welfare mother to have
more children in order to collect more child support from sucker dads.
Furthermore, welfare mothers will still be welfare mothers after child support
has terminated and it will still be the government's problem. So, child support
guidelines do nothing more than prolong this problem and possibly even make it
worse than it was before.
While an additional goal of the child support system was also to lift
children (and their mothers) out of poverty, it has also succeeded in driving
another class of citizens into poverty as well. In fact child support guidelines
actually end up impoverishing non-custodial parents. This is demonstrated in the
attached spreadsheet.
So, while child support guidelines are currently presumed to be correct and
appropriate, the data that I have provided here suggests otherwise. Furthermore,
while this data suggests that the guidelines are incorrect and inappropriate,
statistics also suggest that child support guidelines are responsible for the
high level of fatherless children that we have in this country
So, once again I would like to recommend that Pennsylvania's Domestic
Relations Section refrain from using Policy Studies Inc. as economic advisors
regarding child support guidelines.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely
Gary Bremer
