*Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Washington; and the School of Social Work at Columbia University and Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. This is a revised version of a paper presented at the Western Economic Association International 65th Annual Conference, San Diego, June 29, 1990, in a session organized by Adela de la Torre, California State University, Long Beach. The Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Ford Foundation, and the Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin-Madison, supported this research in part.
CHILD SUPPORT, ROUTINE INCOME WITHHOLDING, AND POST-DIVORCE INCOME
Version of Record online: 2 JUL 2007
Contemporary Economic Policy
Volume 10, Issue 1, pages 52–64, January 1992
How to Cite
KLAWITTER, M. M. and GARFINKEL, I. (1992), CHILD SUPPORT, ROUTINE INCOME WITHHOLDING, AND POST-DIVORCE INCOME. Contemporary Economic Policy, 10: 52–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.1992.tb00211.x
- Issue online: 2 JUL 2007
- Version of Record online: 2 JUL 2007
Policymakers are proposing child support reform as a way of reducing “welfare dependency” and countering the “feminization of poverty” while increasing the well-being of children living in single-parent households. The federal government and some states have begun to change laws regarding establishment of child support awards and collection of payments. The 1988 Family Support Act mandates routine income withholding of child support payments—i.e., collecting child support directly from the payer's paycheck. This article assesses the effects on post-divorce income by using data from a demonstration of routine withholding in ten Wisconsin counties. Unfortunately, these data conclude that routine income withholding has little effect on post-divorce income, at least in the year following divorce. The authors suggest three requirements for substantially increasing post-divorce income, as well as child support: (i) More family court cases must establish awards, (ii) The amount of those awards must be greater. (Hi) The collection rate for those who have awards must improve.