Debate Set on Package of Child Support Reform Bills

California’s Democratic leaders, pledging to overhaul the state’s dismal child support system, have unveiled a series of reforms aimed at finally bringing respectability to a program that is supposed to serve more than 3 million children.

But even as legislators begin debate today on everything from new performance standards to creating a state Department of Child Support Enforcement, longtime child support advocates say lawmakers are missing the most meaningful reform of all:

Removing the program from California’s district attorneys.

“These bills move in the right direction and make some very needed reforms to the state structure,” said Leora Gershenzon of the National Center for Youth Law. “Unfortunately, they don’t deal with reforming the local level . . . and because of that, I don’t think the [proposed legislation] will meet the intent, which is fixing a broken system.”

National child support expert Paula Roberts added: “What troubles me is that there is not a sense of urgency. . . . I still don’t think they have come to grips with the fact the system is in shambles.”

The warnings underscore what promises to be a spirited debate in the coming weeks on how best to reform a $440-million system that by most measures is a failure. The problems, though evident throughout the state, are particularly acute in Los Angeles County, if for no other reason than its size. With more than 500,000 cases, it is the nation’s largest county-based program and, by many accounts, one of the worst.

On one side, several key state lawmakers have introduced multifaceted bills designed to reshape the way California’s child support program functions. Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) will begin the debate today by bringing AB 196, her omnibus reform plan, before her Assembly Judiciary Committee.

The legislation by Kuehl, who has been designated Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa’s point person on child support reform, calls not only for creating a new child support department but for Gov. Davis to appoint an undersecretary for Child Support Enforcement by next January. In addition, Kuehl’s bill calls for six counties, on a trial basis, to turn over all of their collection activities to the state Franchise Tax Board, instead of the district attorneys’ offices.

And to ensure compliance by counties, Kuehl said, her bill would require the new state department to offer assistance and even emergency managerial help to local agencies that are failing. If the help does not turn a local program around, Kuehl’s bill mandates that the state either take over the local program or assign it to another government agency.

“I think this is the most important restructuring of this system . . . maybe ever. And my bill addresses all of the major problems in the structure,” Kuehl said.

In the state Senate, meanwhile, President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank) have proposed legislation similar to Kuehl’s but with stricter timelines. Under their proposal, for example, the new department would begin operation next year, not January 2001, and would give counties no more one year to correct failing programs before they could be taken away.

“It is long overdue,” Burton said last week. “We have one of the worst child support enforcement records in the country. A lot of people being denied support are becoming public charges. And that is just not right.”

In addition to those omnibus bills, there are other proposals. State Sen. Jackie Speier (D-Daly City) wants a cabinet level appointee to oversee the state’s program. Sen. Martha Escutia (D-Whittier) has proposals to bring down worker caseloads and expand family law centers.

And Assemblywoman Dion Aroner (D-Berkeley) has proposed an amnesty on some old debts to encourage more parents to pay current child support. Aroner also has reintroduced a proposal, vetoed last year by Gov. Wilson, that would provide an administrative appeals process to those with complaints about how their cases were handled by district attorneys.

Unlike years past, some legislators and staffers say, they do not expect the coming child support debate to be altogether bruising.

One reason is a consensus that California’s program is failing. Some authorities estimate that a staggering $8 billion or more may be owed in child support. And there has been growing attention to the failings both at the state and local level.

A Times investigation last year found that Los Angeles County’s program was not only failing to collect any child support in the vast majority of its cases but that it was often pursuing the wrong men for support and holding millions of dollars in collections because it claimed it could not locate the intended recipients.

But another crucial factor in shaping the debate is the reluctance, so far, of legislators to strip child support programs from California’s powerful district attorneys.

While Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti has repeatedly said he would not oppose such a move and it has been described by advocates as the cornerstone of any real reform, the official voice of state prosecutors--the California District Attorneys Assn.--opposes such a move.

“We would continue to maintain the district attorneys are in the best position to administer the program on the local level,” said the association’s executive director, Lawrence Brown. And insisting that the performance of district attorneys is improving, Brown added, “Our position would be . . . that it would be worthwhile for the legislators to build on that momentum rather than abandon it.”

For the moment, some legislators and staffers say the current proposals avoid a fractious debate while moving California toward eventual state takeover of the child support program.

Kuehl said she is convinced a methodical approach will gradually give California the sort of child support program everyone wants without upheaval.

“I am more interested in getting from where we are to where we need to be than I am in saying, ‘Here’s the end of the rainbow and I don’t give a damn how you get there,’ ” she said.

Many, however, believe the prosecutors have been given more than enough time and chances to make the program work.

Aroner, for one, remains a critic of the district attorneys’ performance.

“The assemblywoman believes 20 years of experience in California shows we have a failed structure and that part of that . . . is the district attorneys’ failure to improve child support collections,” said Aroner aide Curt Child.

Longtime advocates, meantime, insist there is no way to improve California’s system without first tearing it down.

“I am adamantly convinced that we have to get rid of the D.A.s in order to run a good program,” said attorney Gershenzon.

Although prosecutors and some legislators believe there is a risk in taking away the program from all prosecutors, advocate Roberts said that is no reason to maintain the status quo.

“There isn’t any county in California that is doing such a good job that I would be concerned about that,” she said.

More important, Roberts said, experience in other states has shown that the ones successful in turning poor programs around have done so only with clear and dramatic actions.

“I think in the end you either understand the need for uniformity and a single line of authority or you don’t. And if you do . . . you create a structure that gives you that,” Roberts said.

“That is the price you pay for consistency.”