This document provides an overview of the programs of research developed to monitor the implementation of the various components of the Child Support Initiative. It has been prepared in consultation with federal, provincial and territorial officials responsible for implementing the Initiative or for policies in closely related fields.

Over the summer of 1998, the Department of Justice Canada also solicited input from non-governmental organizations, groups and individuals with an interest in the Federal Child Support Guidelines, including support payers and recipients, members of the Family Law Bar, mediators, academics, and others who are knowledgeable about relevant research issues and methodologies. Respondents' suggestions were incorporated into the final draft where possible.

Section 1 gives a brief overview of the Child Support Initiative and describes the purpose of the research, each of the research programs, the role of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT) Research Subcommittee and the main constraints under which we will be working.

Sections 2 through 6 provide more detailed information about the planned programs of research.

Annex A reproduces section 13 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, which outlines the information to be specified in child support orders under the Divorce Act as of May 1, 1997.

Annex B provides a tabular view of research projects that are currently underway or planned.

Annex C outlines additional sources of information.

1.1 BACKGROUND

In 1990, the Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT) Family Law Committee embarked on a study to address widespread dissatisfaction with the methods for determining child support. On behalf of the Committee, the Department of Justice Canada undertook a four-year research program to develop a formula for determining child support awards in cases of family breakdown. A full description of this research can be found in the January 1995 report, An Overview of the Research Program to Develop a Canadian Child Support Formula by Ross Finnie, Carolina Giliberti and Daniel Stripinis, Communications and Consultation Branch, Department of Justice Canada.

On March 6, 1996, the federal government announced its policy intentions for child support in cases of family breakdown that are being dealt with under the Divorce Act. The announcement addressed plans to improve the way child support awards are determined, taxed and enforced by:

amending the Divorce Act to introduce child support guidelines to help parents, lawyers and judges set fair and consistent child support awards in divorce cases;
changing the tax treatment of child support payments so that payments would no longer be taxed as income of the recipient or be tax deductible for the payer;
introducing new measures and enhanced services to help enforcement agencies ensure that support is paid in full and on time; and
increasing the maximum level of the Working Income Supplement (now absorbed in the National Child Tax Benefit).

The Departments of Finance Canada and Revenue Canada are responsible for implementing the tax reforms. The Department of Justice Canada is responsible for implementing and maintaining the family law reforms-the Child Support Guidelines and enhanced support enforcement measures.

In 1996, the Department of Justice Canada was given resources and a five-year mandate to pursue seven key activities within the framework of the Child Support Initiative:

amend the Divorce Act to introduce child support guidelines;
strengthen enforcement procedures to ensure family support obligations are respected;
improve the public's awareness, knowledge and understanding of family support obligations through a general communications campaign;
implement a cooperative education program for justice officials, justice service providers and the general public;
provide financial assistance to the provinces and territories to implement innovative, efficient and cost-effective services that will assist parties in obtaining child support orders;
provide financial assistance to the provinces and territories to enhance their maintenance enforcement programs; and
conduct research designed to monitor the impacts of the child support guidelines and the new and enhanced federal enforcement measures.

At about the same time, the federal, provincial and territorial deputy ministers of justice and deputy attorneys general established the Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT) Task Force on Child Support Implementation. The task force has a five-year term with a primary mandate to oversee the implementation of the reforms.

On February 19, 1997, the amendments to the Divorce Act and the changes to the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act (FOAEA) and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act (GAPDA) contained in Bill C-41 received royal assent.

On May 1, 1997, the Divorce Act amendments, the accompanying regulations containing the Federal Child Support Guidelines and the amendments to the federal enforcement of support legislation came into effect. The amendments to the Income Tax Act concerning the tax treatment of child support payments also took effect on this date.

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH

The Child Support Initiative has profoundly affected the way child support is determined and enforced in Canada. New methods of data collection and wide-ranging research are required to assist in the implementation of the provisions, and to provide ongoing feedback on the extent to which the policy objectives are being met.

The programs of research proposed in this framework document will be undertaken by the Research Unit of the Department of Justice Canada's Child Support Team. The broad purpose of the research framework is to establish the databases and empirical research required:

to provide timely feedback to the Department of Justice Canada and the FPT Task Force;
to serve as the basis for a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the Child Support Guidelines and the determination of child support for Parliament by May 1, 2002 (as required by the Divorce Act); and
to support the overall evaluation of the Child Support Initiative.

The evaluation of the Child Support Initiative is being carried out by the Evaluation Division of the Department of Justice Canada, in accordance with Treasury Board of Canada requirements. To complete the evaluation, the division will need comprehensive data on compliance with and impacts of the legislative changes, and on the results of programming undertaken in areas such as funded projects, communications and law information.

It should be noted that the evaluation of the Initiative will require information and analyses that go beyond the monitoring activities outlined in the research framework. Accordingly, the Evaluation Division will undertake separate studies to address, among other issues, how well the cost-shared funds were managed and how effective the research, communications and policy functions were in supporting the policy intentions of the Initiative.

1.3 PROGRAMS OF RESEARCH

The Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT) Task Force on the Implementation of the Child Support Reforms established the FPT Research Subcommittee to help develop the research framework in mid-1996. After a series of conference calls, a small group of provincial and federal representatives met in January 1997 to begin elaborating the requirements for monitoring the Guidelines component of the Initiative. The subcommittee now includes at least one representative from each province and territory, a representative from Statistics Canada (the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, or CCJS) and a representative from Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat.

The subcommittee holds regular conference calls and periodic joint meetings to establish consensus on short- and long-term research requirements and to promote cooperation and collaboration on research activities of mutual interest. Members clearly realize the advantages of coordinating their activities to avoid overlap or duplication of effort.

The overall research framework is designed to address the need for ongoing data collection and analyses to monitor the major components of the Child Support Initiative. To this end, five major programs of research are being developed. Research activities include the following:

Monitoring the implementation and functioning of the Guidelines. This includes monitoring the effects of changing federal and provincial tax parameters on the table amounts.
Monitoring the enhanced enforcement measures, such as tracing and licence and passport withholding; conducting a feasibility study on the creation of a "new hires" program to help locate debtors' income; helping Statistics Canada develop the annual Maintenance Enforcement Survey; and undertaking a national study of the reasons for default on or compliance with support orders.
Identifying the communications and law information needs of various groups.
Evaluating selected innovative provincial and territorial projects, such as those that help the public calculate and negotiate appropriate child support agreements and those that promote enforcement of child support orders.
Conducting special studies to establish baseline and trend information relating to child support order amounts, child custody arrangements and family issues in general. Specific Statistics Canada surveys and databases will be particularly valuable for these purposes.

1.4 CONSTRAINTS: TIME, PRE-IMPLEMENTATION BASELINE DATA, RESOURCES, COMPLEXITY ANDF SCOPE OF THE ISSUES

Funding for child support research began in April 1997 and will end in March 2001. This is a relatively short period in which to measure the impact of such far-reaching changes in policies and approach. Nonetheless, the report to Parliament on the provisions and operation of the Guidelines and the determination of child support must be completed within that timeframe.

Unfortunately, there are very few pre-implementation data on key issues such as multi-year trends in child support award levels in cases of divorce, multi-year trends in child custody and parenting arrangements in cases of divorce, and the frequency with which different mechanisms have been used to resolve child support and custody issues between divorcing parents. Although we intend to compile some baseline and trend information using existing Statistics Canada surveys and other administrative databases, we will have to rely very heavily upon primary data collection to answer questions about the Guidelines and the maintenance enforcement measures introduced by the Department of Justice Canada. Data will be obtained from family courts, maintenance enforcement programs, experimental projects and key informants, including professionals and payers and recipients of child support.

In order to construct a more complete assessment of the Guidelines, we will be seeking input from as diverse a spectrum of stakeholders as possible, including Aboriginal persons, members of minority ethnocultural communities, recent immigrants to Canada, persons with low literacy skills, persons who cannot afford legal counsel and so on. Such an approach will help us identify differential or unintended impacts of the Guidelines.

Although the lack of pre-implementation data will limit our ability to make definitive pre- and post-implementation comparisons, we will be able to track the implementation process itself. We will also be able to describe and assess trends and patterns as they emerge over the first four years.

We are aware of the many personal and policy issues that surround family breakdown in general, and divorce involving dependent children in particular. However, the research framework cannot address all of the important child support issues that concern Canadians. Given the constraints we have described, the research will focus on issues that are directly related to the implementation and impact of the Guidelines and of the amendments to federal legislation on maintenance enforcement.

2.0 MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNCTIONING OF THE GUIDELINES

Section 28 of the consolidated Divorce Act requires the Department of Justice Canada to prepare a report to Parliament on the substantive and functional aspects of the annexed Federal Child Support Guidelines by May 1, 2002:

The Minister of Justice shall undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and the determination of child support under this Act and shall cause a report on the review to be laid before each House of Parliament within five years after the coming into force of this section.

An important component of the report to Parliament will be an assessment of the extent to which the formally stated Guideline objectives have been met. Section 1 of the Guidelines states the following.

The objectives of the Guidelines are:

to establish a fair standard of support for children that ensures that they continue to benefit from the financial means of both spouses after separation;
to reduce conflict and tension between spouses by making the calculation of child support orders more objective;
to improve the efficiency of the legal process by giving courts and spouses guidance in setting the levels of child support orders and encouraging settlement; and
to ensure consistent treatment of spouses and children who are in similar circumstances.

For each formally stated Guideline objective, we present the major research issues that have been identified so far, potential sources of qualitative and quantitative data, and the status of projects that are underway or planned.

2.1 GUIDELINES OBJECTIVES

2.1.1 Establish a fair standard of support for children that ensures that they continue to benefit from the financial means of both spouses after separation

For many families living in or close to poverty, the loss of economies of scale upon family breakdown results in a dramatic fall in the standard of living for both custodial and non-custodial households. Early in the development of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, it was recognized that a child support formula on its own could not eliminate child poverty (Finnie et. al., 1995a: 2). Therefore, the first stated objective of the Guidelines emphasizes that children should continue to benefit from the financial means of both parents.

Since the determination of child support amounts is based on the parents' ability to contribute, the issue of fairness will be examined in relation to the parents' financial means.

Research Issues

Are actual award amounts lower than, equal to, or higher than the table amounts indicated by the Guidelines? Are the table amounts being used as a base or "floor" amount for the awards, as intended? Are there discernible regional or other patterns in child support order amounts? Do award amounts vary significantly according to the gender of the payer and by income level?
Are consent orders lower than, equal to or higher than the table amounts indicated by the Guidelines? Are there discernible regional or other patterns in amounts arrived at through consent agreements?
How frequently are children at or above the age of majority included in support orders? How frequently are special expenses for post-secondary education awarded? How are award amounts usually determined in these cases?
Taking into consideration changes in the tax treatment of child support awards, are awards made under the Guidelines higher or lower than those made before their introduction?
How frequently are the special or extraordinary expenses allowed by the Guidelines claimed and included in child support orders? How do parents share the expenses? How do special or extraordinary expenses affect the overall award amount?
In what proportion of cases do payers and recipients make undue hardship claims? Do the courts record the reasons for their decisions regarding these claims? To what extent do undue hardship claims increase or decrease award amounts?
How is the concept of household standard of living used in undue hardship claims? Do judges, professionals, payers and recipients think that the undue hardship test set out in Schedule II of the Guidelines is easy to understand and to use?
What are the frequencies and patterns of sole, shared and split custody arrangements? Is there any relationship between level of income of one or both parents and type of custodial arrangement? Is there any change over time in the proportion of shared and split custody cases (i.e., since the implementation of the Guidelines when the new definitions came into effect)? How are support amounts determined in cases of shared custody?
How frequently do child support orders include provisions for spousal support? Has there been a change over time in the proportion of cases with both spousal and child support orders?
Do payers, recipients or professionals view the table amounts and the overall award amounts as being equitable for paying and recipient parents? Do perceptions of fairness vary by income level of the payers and recipients?
Among parents with child support orders issued before May 1997, how many elected to change the tax treatment of these awards? What are the socio-economic and other demographic characteristics of parents who requested a change in tax treatment?
What are the trends in and patterns of variation orders? Can we determine the reasons for requesting variations to pre-implementation orders? What proportion of variations increases award amounts, and what proportion decreases amounts? Are payers or recipients more likely to request variation orders?
How frequently are support orders varied? What are the considerations that support or hinder either payers or recipients from filing an application to vary (e.g., lack of information, inability to retain legal counsel, unwillingness of parents to re-open the issue, family violence)?
In what proportion of cases is an application to vary child support accompanied by, or countered with, an application to vary custody arrangements?
How are the courts determining award amounts when incomes are greater than $150,000?
What are the short- and long-term economic consequences of family breakdown for lower-income parents? Have there been any measurable changes in these consequences since the adoption of the Guidelines? (See also section 6.4 of this paper.)

2.1.2 Reduce conflict and tension between spouses by making the calculation of child support orders more objective

Research Issues

Has there been a change in the proportion of contested child support cases since the Guidelines came into force? Has this changed from year to year? Are there differences by income level, by age of children or by other social characteristics?
Do payers or recipients believe that the Guidelines have helped or hindered them in negotiating an agreement or a variation? What are the other considerations that enhance or minimize tension levels when parties are negotiating child support agreements?
What do payers and recipients perceive to be the most common sources of difficulty in arriving at an agreement on child support amounts? What do lawyers, mediators and other professionals perceive to be the most common sources of difficulty in arriving at an agreement on child support amounts?
Do professionals (e.g., lawyers, accountants, mediators, court administrators) perceive a change in the way they themselves or others approach child support issues with separating parents?
To what extent have interventions such as mediation and parenting courses affected the level of conflict and tension between spouses?
How has the obligation to disclose financial information between parties worked in practice (as reported by key informants)?
Are there any discernible changes in the level of custody litigation or incidents of access denial as a result of the introduction of the Guidelines (as reported by key informants)?

2.1.3 Improve the efficiency of the legal process by giving courts and spouses guidance in setting the levels of child support orders and encouraging settlement

Research Issues

Do judges and professionals (e.g., lawyers, accountants, mediators, court administrators) feel that the various provisions of the Guidelines are easy to understand and to use? What considerations have supported or hindered their use (e.g., training, software applications for calculating award amounts, availability of specialized court personnel or child support clerks and so on)?
Do payers and recipients feel that the various provisions of the Guidelines are easy to understand and to use? What considerations have supported or hindered their use (e.g., law information, free assistance, software applications for calculating award amounts, availability of specialized court personnel or child support clerks and so on)?
Are there any changes from year to year in the proportion of payers or recipients who are represented by legal counsel when negotiating child support awards?
Have the Guidelines affected the amount of time devoted to each stage of the legal process (e.g., lawyers' preparation time, court time)? (This issue should be addressed only after an initial period of transition.)
Do professionals think that the proportion of contested cases has increased or decreased since the Guidelines came into effect? What do professionals identify as the major factors that assist or hinder the parties in arriving at an agreement regarding child support?

2.1.4 Ensure consistent treatment of spouses and children who are in similar circumstances

Research Issues

Controlling for income of the parents, number of children and type of custodial arrangement, how comparable are the post-implementation award amounts? Has the discrepancy in award amounts increased or decreased over the duration of the Initiative? Are there regional or other differences in the use of special expenses or in the acceptance of undue hardship claims?
Controlling for income of the parents, gender of paying parents, number of children and type of custodial arrangement, are consent awards lower than, equal to or greater than awards determined by applying the Guidelines?
How do award amounts based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines compare with awards made under other guidelines (e.g., Quebec guidelines)?

2.2 RESEARCH STRATEGIES

Most of the research strategies identified in this section of the framework will address more than one of the issues noted under sections 2.1 to 2.4.

2.2.1 Collection of Pre-implementation Data

A summary of existing baseline statistics on Canadian families and family law has been prepared and will be available as a Child Support Team research report by the summer of 1998. This report will be updated annually.
No national, standardized data are available on pre-implementation award amounts. We will attempt to create a limited base of information on pre-implementation award levels by analyzing 1993, 1994 and 1995 income tax data for support payers who claimed tax deductions for support payments and for support recipients who were required to declare child support as part of their personal income. However, following changes to the tax treatment of child support as of May 1, 1997, data will only be available on unrevised orders made before that date.

2.2.2 Collection of Post-implementation Data on Child Support Awards

The first project underway is the Survey of Child Support Awards under the Divorce Act. During the summer and autumn of 1997, the Child Support Team Research Unit worked in close collaboration with the members of the FPT Research Subcommittee to launch the pilot phase of this project. The general purposes of the pilot survey are:

to provide early feedback on the extent to which the Guidelines are being used in determining the table amounts, the patterns of inclusion of special or extraordinary expenses, the patterns of use of the undue hardship provisions, whether child support amounts vary significantly according to the gender of the paying parent, whether the concept of "household standard of living" is being used appropriately in undue hardship claims and so on; and
to determine the most effective way to continue monitoring child support amount information over the duration of the Child Support Initiative.

Monitoring of the implementation and impact of the Guidelines is heavily dependent upon the collection of standardized information from award agreements and orders under the Divorce Act. The data collection form for the court-based survey of awards relies upon the mandatory information itemized in section 13 of the Divorce Act (see Annex A for a full listing), as well as other information included in court files. Data items collected for the survey of awards include the following:

the year of birth of each child to whom the order relates and his or her place of residence;
the type of custody arrangement (i.e., sole, split or shared);
the gender of the payer and the recipient;
the income of any spouse whose income is used to determine the amount of the child support order;
the particulars of any special expense, the child to whom that expense relates, the amount of the expense or the proportion to be paid in relation to the expense;
the amount of the child support agreement, order or variation order; and
the particulars of undue hardship claims.

Some additional file information is also being collected, such as whether the parties were represented by legal counsel, the reason for a variation order (if available or applicable), the amount of the previous order and so on.

Data collection for the pilot phase of the survey began in the autumn of 1997 and was completed in September 1998. All jurisdictions except Quebec, participated in this phase of the survey, providing data from at least one court. A report on the preliminary findings should be available in early 1999.

Based on the experience of the pilot phase, some minor methodological adjustments were made to the survey. The revised survey of awards was put in place on October 1, 1998, and will continue until the end of the Initiative in April 2001. It is anticipated that all jurisdictions will participate in this phase of the survey.

2.2.3 Case Law Reviews

There will be ongoing reviews of the case law, which may help us define research issues and provide examples of how the courts are interpreting the Guidelines. In addition, we will monitor commercial services that provide information on reported cases, and publications that feature family law and child support issues, to find relevant information.

2.2.4 Survey of Professionals' Experiences with, and Perceptions of, the Functioning of the Guidelines

Professionals such as family law practitioners, mediators, and court and maintenance enforcement program administrators will be surveyed at various times over the life of the Child Support Initiative to gather information on their experience regarding the determination and enforcement of child support awards. This information will help further define issues and assess the overall functioning of the Guidelines.

2.2.5 Surveys of Persons with Support Orders (Payers and Recipients)

Payers and recipients will be surveyed at various times over the life of the Child Support Initiative to help us define issues and assess the overall functioning of the Guidelines.

2.2.6 Monitoring of the Table Amounts

The Child Support Team will monitor changes in federal or provincial tax regimes to assess their impact (if any) on the calculation of the table amounts and their effect on tax deductible shared section 7 expenses.

2.2.7 Monitoring of the Impact of the Guidelines on Custody and Parenting Arrangements

Baseline data on custody arrangements will be developed using the Statistics Canada National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) and the "Family and Friends" component of the General Social Survey (GSS) for the 1990 and 1995 cycles. (See section 6.0 of this paper for additional information about the surveys.)

Future work will also include analyses of data on custodial arrangements obtained from the Survey of Child Support Awards under the Divorce Act. More in-depth information will be gathered though special studies on families with shared custody arrangements and on issues surrounding special expenses for adult children.

We will also consider the possibility of conducting focus groups with parents to understand how better to support them during the divorce transition and assist them in resolving custody and access issues.

Finally, we will monitor possible unintended consequences of the Guidelines on custody and parenting issues, such as a possible change in the rate of parental abductions and the level of custody litigation. The CCJS Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) statistics now provide relationship data on such cases from 40 percent of the jurisdictions. We will monitor the number of reported cases and of actual offences, charges and dispositions.

2.2.8 Preparation of the Report to Parliament on the Functioning of the Guidelines

By May 1, 2002, the Department of Justice Canada will prepare a final report synthesizing the results of this program of research on the Guidelines.

3.0 MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNCTIONING OF THE ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVES

The program of research on enforcement consists of two parts. The first part outlines the work that will be done to monitor the new and enhanced federal enforcement measures. The second outlines work on other related issues, including the feasibility of creating a Canadian "new hires" program; the characteristics of support payers; the reasons for default or compliance with support orders; and the results of the Maintenance Enforcement Survey (MES).

In some cases, the same research strategies and data sources will be used to address issues outlined under different parts of the research program. For instance, the proposed surveys of professionals and of payers and recipients will address the usefulness and impact of the federal enforcement measures as well as other related issues.

3.1 MONITORING FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT MEASURES

As previously mentioned, the amendments to the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act (FOAEA) and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act (GAPDA) came into force on May 1, 1997. These amendments are designed to provide provincial and territorial maintenance enforcement programs with new or improved federal enforcement mechanisms.

The amendments to Part l of the FOAEA now allow Revenue Canada databases to be searched for the residential address of debtors as well as their employer's name and address. The amendments also created a new section (Part III), which enables provinces to apply to the federal government to suspend, revoke or deny certain federal licences. Currently, Part III lists passports and transport (aviation and marine) licences. Although no revisions were made to Part II of the FOAEA, which deals with the interception of federal funds for child support purposes, these provisions will be monitored to assess their usefulness.

The GAPDA, which came into effect in 1983, makes federal public service employees' salaries available for support enforcement purposes. The May 1, 1997 amendments removed the requirement for a notice of intention to be served 30 days prior to the garnishment of federal salaries. This was meant to facilitate the garnishment process for the courts and support enforcement programs.

The enforcement of child support orders depends on a combination of federal, provincial and territorial activities in this area. Therefore, it would be difficult to attribute the collection of arrears to any single enforcement action. We will concentrate on identifying and implementing a set of general indicators of federal, provincial and territorial caseloads, flows and outcomes related to the use of federal enforcement measures. In addition, we will undertake studies to collect more detailed information on the cases sent for federal enforcement and to examine the interrelationships between federal, provincial and territorial enforcement activities.

3.1.1 Addition of Revenue Canada Databases to Part I of the FOAEA

Research Issues

What are the success rates of provincial and federal tracing efforts before and after the amendments to Part l of the FOAEA (i.e., success rates in locating debtors and in collecting money in arrears)?
In what proportion of cases were defaulters or assets to pay arrears located using Revenue Canada databases? In what proportion of cases were searches of these databases issued and completed? What information was used in locating debtors or locating assets to pay outstanding arrears?
Does successful federal tracing lead to more out-of-province reciprocal enforcement maintenance order enforcement?
What happens to cases if both provincial and federal tracing efforts are unsuccessful? Are there additional federal databases that could help in the location of debtors?

Research Strategy

We are currently working with a provincial maintenance enforcement program to support the development and implementation of standard reporting mechanisms that will assist us in addressing these issues. We have undertaken a pilot study to examine possible indicators of the program's caseload, flows and outcomes. Once a set of viable indicators has been identified (e.g., number of tracing requests sent to the FOAEA Unit by month, number returned with complete and up-to-date addresses or employment information, number and type of actions taken), we will encourage the other jurisdictions to undertake similar reporting.

In addition, a sample of federal tracing requests initiated through the program will be tracked. Trace results and their usefulness to the program will be examined in light of the characteristics of payers and recipients, the amount and type of orders, the amount of arrears, the age of the order and so on.

A second sample of cases will be tracked at a later point in the Initiative to better monitor the impact of adding Revenue Canada databases to Part l of the FOAEA.

Data Sources

We will obtain data without personal identifiers from relevant federal automated systems, those of provincial and territorial maintenance enforcement programs, and the Maintenance Enforcement Survey.

3.1.2 Interception of Federal Funds Under Part II of the FOAEA

Research Issues

What are the characteristics of cases sent to the FOAEA Unit for the interception of federal funds? Is the success or failure of the interception of funds related to particular case characteristics? Is timing of the summonses an issue for successful interception of federal funds?
Which federal funds are intercepted most frequently (e.g., federal income tax refunds, GST credits, Employment Insurance payments)? What is the dollar amount intercepted from each source?
Has the removal of the tax deduction for child support reduced the amounts received from Revenue Canada?

Research Strategy

As was outlined under section 3.1.1, we will undertake a pilot study to examine possible indicators of caseload, flows and outcomes for a selected provincial or territorial maintenance enforcement program. Once a set of useful indicators has been identified (e.g., number of summonses for interception sent to the FOAEA Unit, number of successful interceptions, source of the funds, amounts garnisheed), we will encourage the other jurisdictions to undertake similar reporting.

Another objective of the study is to describe the cases that are sent for interception of federal funds. A sample of interception summonses will be tracked through the system. Outcomes will be examined in light of the characteristics of the cases (e.g., characteristics of payers and recipients, amount and type of orders, amount of arrears, age of the order and so on).

Data Sources

We will obtain data from relevant federal automated systems, those of provincial and territorial maintenance enforcement programs, and the Maintenance Enforcement Survey.

3.1.3 New Licence Denial Provisions under Part III of the FOAEA

Research Issues

What is the proportion of payers in default who have a federal licence that may be suspended, denied or revoked? What proportion of payers in default have a passport?
To what extent have the provinces and territories used this new federal enforcement measure and what is their sense of its usefulness?
In what types of cases are notices of suspension, revocation or denial of federal licences sent by maintenance enforcement programs? Will the characteristics of these cases change over the period of the Initiative?
Are federal licence suspensions, revocations or denials an effective warning or threat to defaulters, leading them to take action to avoid these measures? At what point do the most defaulters take action: when the province sends its initial notice, when the federal department sends its notice, or after suspension or revocation? At what stage of the licence denial process are the most payments made?
Is there a difference in results between the denial or revocation of passports and the denial or revocation of various transport licences? Which provisions are most successful: those that restrict abilities to conduct employment-related activities; or those that are more likely to affect personal use?

Research Strategy

We will conduct in-depth studies in each of the next three years to monitor these provisions.

A pilot study will be conducted to assess the use of federal licence denial. This study will attempt to isolate useful indicators of caseload in one maintenance enforcement program, such as the number of warning letters sent to debtors, the number and type of responses received, the number of licences denied by type of licence and so on.

A sample of cases will also be tracked in more detail to determine the characteristics of cases where a letter of intent to deny, suspend or revoke a federal licence was sent.

Data Sources

We will obtain data from relevant federal automated systems, those of provincial and territorial maintenance enforcement programs and the Maintenance Enforcement Survey.

3.1.4 GAPDA - Parts I and II

Research Issues

What proportion of payers in default are recipients of federal salaries or pensions?
Has the number of garnishments changed as a result of the GAPDA amendments?
Have the amendments resulted in shorter time lags for placing garnishees and for the reception of funds? What are the timeframes for removing garnishees when they are no longer necessary?

Research Strategy

There is no central reporting system to track information such as the number of applications and the amounts garnisheed under the recent amendments to the GAPDA. Therefore, we will meet with federal, provincial and territorial departments that administer the Act to develop formal reporting requirements for monitoring caseloads, flows and outcomes. These procedures should enable us to address the questions outlined above.

Data Sources

We will obtain data from the various federal departments that administer the Act, the automated systems of provincial and territorial maintenance enforcement programs, and the Maintenance Enforcement Survey.

3.2.1 Feasibility of Creating a National "New Hires" Database for Enforcement Purposes

Several American states collect information from employers on new or re-hired employees so that support enforcement agencies can locate defaulting payers and begin collecting arrears as soon as possible. Recent federal legislation in the United States requires all state agencies to have such "new hires" or "employer reporting" programs in place, and to report new and re-hire information to a national registry.

There are no procedures in place in Canada at the federal or provincial level to locate newly hired or re-hired employees or their income. The apparent importance of this enforcement tool in the United States has prompted a great deal of interest among provincial and territorial maintenance enforcement programs. The Department of Justice Canada has agreed to investigate the usefulness of this type of enforcement mechanism in the Canadian context and the feasibility of developing and implementing this enforcement measure in Canada.

Research Issues

How successful have American "new hires" programs been in locating payers' places of work and collecting money in arrears? Do the United Kingdom, Australia or New Zealand have similar programs? If so, how useful have they been? Would any of these programs or program elements be appropriate within the Canadian enforcement context?
Are there constitutional issues involved in having employers reporting employee information to one or more levels of government?
Is the voluntary program used by Human Resources Development Canada to track overpayment of Employment Insurance a useful starting point for developing a "new hires" program?
What mechanisms do provincial and territorial maintenance enforcement programs currently use to garnishee wages (i.e., administrative or court-based)? What is the nature and extent of contacts between the programs and the employer community?
What would be the costs and benefits of implementing a "new hires" program?

Research Strategy

The work will be done in three phases. We have undertaken a critical review of existing "new hires" programs in the United States and other jurisdictions to identify the range of factors that federal, provincial and territorial governments will need to address in contemplating the development of such a program in Canada.

In addition, we are currently analyzing the federal, provincial and territorial constitutional issues that may arise in structuring a Canadian "new hires" program.

Once these studies have been completed, we will assess various models for structuring such a program in Canada based on their respective policy, administrative, technical and financial implications.

Data Sources

Information will be obtained from the following sources:

Documentation from the U.S. Office for Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) and various state programs;
discussions and interviews with administrators, evaluators and employers who are part of the American federal and state programs;
existing automated systems in Canadian federal departments; and
provincial and territorial maintenance enforcement programs, other federal departments, the business community and associations such as the Canadian Payroll Association.

3.2.2 Identification of the Reasons for Paying or Not Paying Support Obligations

This information is needed to inform policy discussions on enforcement and to improve program delivery for both payers and recipients.

Research Issues

Why do some parents default completely on payments or make partial payments only, thus incurring arrears? Why do some parents pay their child support in full and on time?
How, and in what proportion of cases, are default and compliance linked to other related issues, such as the type of custody arrangement, the nature and extent of access, and the socio-economic circumstances of payers?
What is the impact of default or non-compliance on the standard of living and general well-being of children affected by marriage breakdown?
What are the characteristics of payers, including their age, occupation, income source and income level?
Are the characteristics of payers who pay fully and on time different from the characteristics of those who don't pay or pay infrequently?
Which payers are most likely to have federal enforcement actions taken against them, including tracing, interception of federal funds and licence denial?

Research Strategy

A literature review was conducted to provide an overview of Canadian and international studies on default on and compliance with support orders. Particular attention was paid to the data sources and methodologies that were employed and the possibility of generalizing results. This review was used to develop a research design that will enable us to better understand reasons for paying or not paying support obligations.

A study of the determinants of compliance and default on child support orders will be conducted in several jurisdictions. Data on patterns of compliance, default and a variety of other case characteristics (e.g., socio-demographic, payment history, enforcement history) will be analyzed to guide the subsequent conducting of interviews with professionals and parents involved in the enforcement process.

Data Sources

We will obtain aggregate data from the National Maintenance Enforcement Survey and collect more detailed data from samples of cases from provincial maintenance enforcement programs. We will also collect data through interviews with parents and professionals working in the field.

3.2.3 Analysis of the Maintenance Enforcement Survey (MES)

The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (CCJS) is collecting standardized information on support orders registered in provincial and territorial maintenance enforcement programs. This will provide a much-needed overview of the characteristics and financial status of support orders, and enforcement activities in Canada.

Research Issues

What is the total caseload of Canadian maintenance enforcement programs? What is the distribution of reciprocal enforcement maintenance orders by jurisdiction?
What are the characteristics of the cases referred to maintenance enforcement programs, including the age of the parties, the number of children involved and the support amounts? Under which legislation do the orders fall (i.e., the Divorce Act, or provincial or territorial legislation)?
What is the rate of compliance? How many cases are in arrears and by how much? What has been the frequency and amount of payments? Have most payers made a payment in the last year?
What number and type of enforcement actions did the maintenance enforcement programs take in the last year (e.g., default hearings, provincial or federal tracing, garnishment and so on)?

Research Strategy

The CCJS has developed a set of national data requirements for the MES and is working with each jurisdiction individually to implement the survey. Most jurisdictions should be reporting to the survey by the end of FY 1999/2000. Three jurisdictions began reporting data in 1998/1999. The Child Support Team's Research Unit will analyze results as they become available.

Data Sources

We will obtain data from the MES.

3.2.4 Special Studies on Related Policy Issues

This section deals with issues that are not directly related to the monitoring of federal Enforcement Initiatives but are nonetheless important to the enforcement community.

Research Issues

What is the range of sanctions for default imposed by jurisdictions such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand? How are civil contempt matters resolved in Canada?
What are the timeframes for confirming reciprocal enforcement maintenance orders? What is the proportion of variations for interprovincial and international reciprocal enforcement maintenance orders?

Research Strategy

A literature review and a survey of American and other jurisdictions using criminal sanctions will be completed by June 1999. Included in this study is a review of civil remedies used by the provinces and territories.

Data on timeframes for reciprocal enforcement maintenance orders will be requested from the Maintenance Enforcement Programs (MEP) and the results analyzed.

Data Sources

Key informant interviews with officials from other jurisdictions and Canadian Maintenance Enforcement Program Directors.

4.0 COMMUNICATIONS AND LAW INFORMATION ACTIVITIES

We will undertake research to further the development, implementation and assessment of communications and law information activities to raise awareness and understanding of the Guidelines among professionals, payers and recipients of child support, and members of the general public. Findings under other components of the research program may also provide indications of the effectiveness and appropriateness of activities to date and suggest additional communications or law information needs and approaches.

Research Issues

What communications and law information activities has the federal government undertaken or supported since the introduction of the Guidelines? To what extent have these activities enhanced awareness and understanding of the Guidelines among members of the public?
What are the particular law information needs, with respect to the Guidelines, among sub-groups in the general population (e.g., Aboriginal and ethnocultural communities, recent immigrants to Canada, people with low literacy skills, people who cannot afford legal counsel)? What would be the most effective approaches for providing law information to these groups?
Which intermediaries (e.g., court administrators, maintenance enforcement staff, public legal education and information organizations) are likely to be approached for information about the Guidelines and related issues of family law? What information would be most useful to intermediaries to help them respond to their clients' needs?

Research Strategy

In the summer of 1998, the Research Unit began a study to document communications activities undertaken by the Child Support Team and the jurisdictions in years one and two of the Initiative. The study also summarizes available data on the effectiveness of these activities. This National Overview of Communications Activities may be updated during the Initiative.

A survey assessing awareness of the Guidelines among separated or divorced parents was conducted in the Spring of 1998. The report summarizing the survey results is now available. The survey will likely be repeated periodically to monitor any changes that may occur in subsequent years.

The Child Support Team will also support law information needs assessments to identify the particular law information needs of sub-groups in the general population, as well as appropriate and effective strategies for responding to those needs. Some focus testing of existing public legal education and information materials has already been done to determine their suitability for selected Aboriginal groups.

5.0 EVALUATION OF SELECTED PROJECTS FUNDED BY CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENTS WITH THE PROVINCES AND TERRITORIES

The objectives of the Child Support Implementation and Enforcement Fund are to help the provinces and territories develop and implement enhanced mechanisms for obtaining original child support orders and variations, for the regular updating of orders and for their enforcement.

In collaboration with the provinces and territories, we will evaluate selected innovative projects so that all parties can share information about best practices more easily. Of particular interest are projects to help the public calculate and negotiate appropriate child support agreements; measures to promote enforcement of child support orders; parenting courses for separating and divorcing parents; and any projects developed to address the particular needs of specific target groups.

5.1 IMPLETATION COMPONENT PROJECTS

Appropriate projects and research approaches will be selected and implemented with the collaboration of the provinces and territories.

5.2 ENFORCEMENT COMPONENT PROJECTS

Appropriate projects and research approaches will be selected and implemented with the collaboration of the provinces and territories.

6.0 SPECIAL STUDIES ON SOCIAL CONTEXT

A number of studies and analyses are planned to provide baseline information about the broader social context of the Child Support Guidelines and Enforcement Initiatives. These studies will be based on Statistics Canada and Revenue Canada databases that contain information on divorce, separation, child or spousal awards, and custody and access arrangements of families in Canada generally. A description of the surveys themselves can be found in Annex C.

6.1 ANALYSIS OF THE NATIONAL LONGITUDINAL SURVEY OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH (NLSCY) ON ISSUES OF CUSTODY, ACCESS AND CHILD SUPPORT

The Department of Justice Canada participated in the development of some specific questions on custody, access and child support for the family and child custody history section of the NLSCY. An analysis of the first cycle data is underway and is due for release in spring 1999. Data from the subsequent cycles will be incorporated as the data become available.

6.2 SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES OF PAYERS AND RECIPIENTS

This research will attempt to describe the population of payers and recipients using data collected from a number of different sources. At the moment, little is known about the socio-demographic characteristics of payers in particular. A number of strategies will be used to try to improve our level of understanding of this group.

Initial work will involve examining Revenue Canada tax files to explore the relationships among the award amount and income level and income source of both payers and recipients. Data from Statistics Canada's Longitudinal Administrative Database, Survey of Consumer Finances, General Social Survey and Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics will also be analyzed to provide additional information on the socio-demographic characteristics of payers and recipients, including their age, gender, income level, sources of income and occupation.

6.3 SELECTED STATISTICS ON CANADIAN FAMILIES AND FAMILY LAW

The Child Support Team's Research Unit has compiled a brief report that provides statistics and statistical trends on the status of families in Canada and on related family law issues, such as divorce, separation, child support, custody and access. The first report is now available from the Child Support Team. It is anticipated that this publication will require updating periodically as new information becomes available.

Many different data sources were used in the first edition, including the Central Registry of Divorce Proceedings, Revenue Canada tax statistics, and most sources listed in Annex C.

6.4 SHORT- AND LONG-TERM ECONOMIC CAREERS OF LOW-INCOME PAYERS AND RECEPIENTS

This project will examine the impact of separation and divorce on the household economies of low-income parents. In particular, this study will try to address the issue of whether there has been any measurable change in their circumstances since the adoption of the Guidelines and, more generally, to understand how support awards interact with social assistance benefits over time and in various jurisdictions in the country.

REFERENCES

CSR Incorporated (with American Bar Association). Evaluation of Child Support Guidelines, Volumes I and II. Office of Child Support Enforcement, Washington, D.C., 1996.

Finnie, Ross; Carolina Giliberti and Daniel Stripinis. Highlights: An Overview of the Research Program to Develop a Canadian Child Support Formula. Communications and Consultation Branch, Department of Justice Canada, Catalogue No. J2-130/1995-1E, 1995a.

Finnie, Ross; Carolina Giliberti and Daniel Stripinis. An Overview of the Research Program to Develop a Canadian Child Support Formula. Communications and Consultation Branch, Department of Justice Canada, Catalogue No. J2-130/1995-1E, 1995b.

Hornick, Joseph P.; Nicholas C. Bala and Lorne D. Bertrand. Child Support Guidelines: Research Issues and Strategies. Document prepared for the Department of Justice Canada, Catalogue No. CSR-1996-1E, 1996.


		Last Updated: 2006-04-28		Important Notices

Child Support Initiative: Research Framework

Child Support Initiative:
Research Framework