Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Support topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Child Support Services reports $72M collected and outlines state guideline changes that shift arrears to families
Summary
Alameda County Child Support Services reported $72 million in collections and described state and federal rule changes—cited as AB 207 and SB 343 implementation and FEM rule alignment—that will pass through some arrears to families, alter guideline income bands, and may lower orders for minimum‑wage earners.
Phyllis Nance, director of Alameda County Child Support Services, told the Social Services Committee that the office has collected more than $72,000,000 on behalf of families through August and is serving roughly 26,000 children. "That's on target to, for the collections that we collected last year," Nance said when presenting caseload and demographic breakdowns.
Nance and Vanjeria (Vanjeria/Benjeria) Harvey, the supervising attorney, walked supervisors through recent legislative and regulatory changes that affect child support practice. Harvey described AB 207 (referred to in the presentation as a 2022 law) and summarized its pass‑through effect: "Any collections that happens on those arrears, those funds now go straight to the family," she said, estimating local pass‑through amounts at about $1,400,000.
Staff also outlined California’s implementation of the federal FEM final rule and state Senate Bill 343 (noted in the presentation as senate bill 343, effective 09/22/2023) to modernize guideline calculators and income bands. Harvey said the new formula creates additional lower income bands and adds a low‑income adjustment tied to full‑time minimum wage, which will reduce guideline orders for lower‑income obligors. The presentation gave an illustrative example: a guideline order that had been $543 under the old calculation would drop to $323 under the revised bands.
Supervisors asked about paternity establishment for incarcerated custodial parents and how tax intercepts or refunds are distributed. Nance explained that paternity can be established through court proceedings or voluntary hospital declarations and that collections interfaces with IRS and state tax refund systems; she said the department has an interface that routes funds to families when appropriate.
Committee members also pressed on operational constraints and data limits: about 45% of noncustodial parent records lack W‑2 wage information in county files, complicating enforcement against gig‑economy or self‑employed earners. Nance described partnership and workforce initiatives—referrals to employment programs and organizational changes—to address low employment in portions of the caseload.
On arrears relief, Nance said the department runs a debt reduction program limited to families who are or were public assistance recipients and that broader amnesty for all obligors is not legally allowable under current rules.
Supervisors asked staff for follow‑up details on data, the agency’s potential move from Pleasanton and comparisons with peer counties; staff agreed to return with additional numbers and implementation timelines.
