Child Support Enforcement: Leadership Essential to Implementing Effective
Automated Systems (Testimony, 09/10/97, GAO/T-AIMD-97-162).

GAO discussed the results of its recent review of automated systems
being developed by the states to aid in the enforcement of child support
payments, focusing on the: (1) benefits that automated systems are
beginning to provide, as well as the cost to date; (2) problems that
impeded early progress; (3) need for stronger federal leadership; and
(4) challenges posed by the new welfare legislation.

GAO noted that: (1) while automation has been beneficial in locating
more noncustodial parents and increasing collections, the progress of
many states in implementing automated systems has been slow; (2) at the
same time, a great deal of money has been spent, with the federal
government funding 90 percent of state costs associated with systems
development; (3) the federal contribution, through fiscal year 1996, has
been about $2 billion of the total $2.6 billion spent; (4) the lack of
progress can be partly attributed to the limited leadership of the
Department of Health and Human Service's Office of Child Support
Enforcement (OCSE) and the inadequate systems approaches of some states;
(5) OCSE did not perform technical reviews commensurate with the size
and complexity of this nationwide undertaking; (6) OCSE did not require
states to follow a structured systems development approach, nor did it
assess progress at critical decision points, thereby missing
opportunities to intervene and successfully redirect systems
development; (7) as a result, development in many states has floundered,
even as funding continued to be approved; and (8) the welfare reform
legislation enacted in 1996 dramatically altered the nation's welfare
system by requiring work in exchange for time-limited assistance.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  T-AIMD-97-162
     TITLE:  Child Support Enforcement: Leadership Essential to 
             Implementing Effective Automated Systems
      DATE:  09/10/97
   SUBJECT:  Child support payments
             Government collections
             State-administered programs
             Strategic information systems planning
             Requirements definition
             Systems design
             Management information systems
             Workfare
             Federal/state relations
IDENTIFIER:  HHS Child Support Enforcement Program
             Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program
             AFDC
             HHS Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery
Expected at
10 a.m.
Wednesday,
September 10, 1997

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT -
LEADERSHIP ESSENTIAL TO
IMPLEMENTING EFFECTIVE AUTOMATED
SYSTEMS

Statement of Joel C.  Willemssen
Director, Information Resources Management
Accounting and Information Management Division

GAO/T-AIMD-97-162

GAO/AIMD-97-162T


(511234)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  AFDC - Aid to Families With Dependent Children
  HHS - Department of Health and Human Services
  OCSE - Office of Child Support Enforcement
  TANF - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

============================================================ Chapter 0

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We appreciate the opportunity to share with you today the results of
our recent review of automated systems being developed by the states
to aid in the enforcement of child support payments.  Our report on
this subject, published June 30,\1 details a number of
recommendations we believe the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) must implement to increase the likelihood that states
will develop effective systems. 

Collection of child support continues to lag nationwide; according to
HHS, payment is made in only about 20 percent of cases.  As a result,
millions of children may not be adequately provided for or may need
to rely on welfare.  Child support payments will become even more
important to recipients who may cease to be covered under the new
welfare legislation. 

Along with evaluating the implications of the welfare reform
legislation, our review focused on the status of state development
activities, including costs incurred, and the role of HHS in
overseeing state efforts.  As you know, current law calls for
implementation and federal certification of statewide systems to
track determination of paternity and child support collections by
October 1 of this year--just 3 weeks from today. 

In brief, Mr.  Chairman, our review found that while automation can
be quite beneficial in locating more noncustodial parents and
increasing collections, the progress of many states in implementing
automated systems has been slow.  At the same time, a great deal of
money has been spent, with the federal government funding 90 percent
of state costs associated with systems development.  The lack of
progress can be partly attributed to the limited leadership of HHS'
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) and the inadequate systems
approaches of some states.  Specifically, OCSE did not perform
technical reviews commensurate with the size and complexity of this
nationwide undertaking.  OCSE did not require states to follow a
structured systems development approach, nor did it assess progress
at critical decision points, thereby missing opportunities to
intervene and successfully redirect systems development.  As a
result, development in many states has floundered, even as funding
continued to be approved. 

Our report makes several specific recommendations to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services designed to help states develop automated
child support enforcement systems that perform as required, and to
maximize the federal government's return on costly technology
investments. 

My testimony today will discuss the benefits that automated systems
are beginning to provide as well as the cost to date, problems that
impeded early progress, the need for stronger federal leadership, and
challenges posed by the new welfare legislation. 


--------------------
\1 Child Support Enforcement:  Strong Leadership Required to Maximize
Benefits of Automated Systems (GAO/AIMD-97-72, June 30, 1997). 


   THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
   PROGRAM
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

The general well-being of children and families has long been a
critical national policy goal.  The Child Support Enforcement Program
was created by the Congress in 1975 as title IV-D of the Social
Security Act.  Its goals are to increase the collection of child
support from noncustodial parents, and to reduce the federal, state,
and local expenditures that often fill the gap when such support is
not provided.  In 1996, over 8 million children relied on welfare,
constituting over two-thirds of those individuals receiving benefits
under Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC).\2

State-administered, the child support program is overseen by OCSE
along with HHS regional offices nationwide.  Total collections jumped
80 percent from 1990 to 1995--from $6 billion to almost $11 billion. 
Yet the total number of cases also increased over the same period,
rising from 13 million to 20 million.  Consequently, the number of
cases in which collections are being made has remained between 18 and
20 percent. 

State programs are directly responsible for providing the child
support enforcement services that families need; these services can
range from establishing a child's paternity to locating the absent
parent and obtaining a court order for payment, along with
collection.  These state programs are organized in different ways and
follow different policies and procedures; some are managed centrally,
while others are run locally by government entities or private
contractors. 

As in many other areas, automation has been viewed as a critical tool
in addressing the rapidly growing caseloads and increasing costs.  In
1980 the Congress, seeking to promote the use of automated systems to
assist in child support collection, authorized federal payment of 90
percent of states' total costs in planning, designing, developing,
installing, or enhancing such systems. 

OCSE requires that these systems be implemented statewide, and be
capable of performing several specific functions.\3 The Family
Support Act of 1988 mandated that each state have such a system
operational by October 1, 1995.  However, when only five states were
able to meet this date, the Congress extended the deadline by 2
years, to October 1 of this year. 

Developing these systems requires completion of a difficult, complex
series of tasks.  Along with funding, law and regulations require the
federal government--through HHS--to provide leadership and technical
assistance and to set standards for effective systems development. 
The federal government must also oversee the process through state
visits, review of planning documents, and a final, on-site
certification once a state requests it.  OCSE also has the authority
to suspend or withhold funding, although--until recently--this was
rarely invoked.  Once certified, states can obtain additional federal
funding--66 percent--for operations and maintenance. 


--------------------
\2 Effective July 1, 1997, AFDC was replaced by TANF--Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families--in block-grant form. 

\3 These functions include case initiation, case management,
financial management, enforcement, security, privacy, and
reporting--all requirements that can help locate noncustodial parents
and monitor child support cases. 


   SYSTEMS COSTLY YET SHOW
   BENEFITS; SOME STATES WILL MISS
   DEADLINE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

Many states have made progress in their automation projects, and
officials report tangible benefits from their systems.  Benefits
reported by state program and systems personnel include an improved
ability to locate noncustodial parents through the ability of
automated systems to interface with other state and federal
databases, improved tracking of paternity establishment and
enforcement actions, an increase in dollars collected, and a decrease
in the amount of time needed to process payments achieved through
greater worker efficiency and productivity. 

Benefits do, however, come at a high price.  As the chart attached to
my statement today indicates, through fiscal year 1996, that price
has been a federal contribution of about $2 billion of the total $2.6
billion spent.  And as costs have continued to mount, states'
progress has varied considerably; many states seriously
underestimated the costs and time required for developing such
systems. 

According to both state and federal officials, at least some states
will be unable to make next month's deadline.  At the close of our
audit work on March 31 of this year, OCSE's director of state child
support information systems estimated that 14 states--representing 44
percent of the nation's total caseload--would likely miss the October
certification deadline.  Irrespective of the specific numbers,
however, it seems clear that on October 2, the challenge of
implementing these systems nationwide will, to a great extent,
remain. 


   PROBLEMS IMPEDED EARLY
   DEVELOPMENT PROGRESS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

Historically, three major problem areas have impeded progress in
developing and implementing child support systems.  The first was
OCSE's delay in setting systems requirements.  Private industry and
all levels of government acknowledge the importance of defining
requirements because of the substantial payoff later in developing
systems that are cost-effective, completed on time, and meet users'
needs.  Originally expected in 1990, final requirements were not
established until June 1993.  Obviously, states could proceed only so
far in development until knowing what specific functions their
systems would need to perform; this also caused problems with
contractors.  OCSE explained this delay by citing its own failure to
use an incremental approach to defining requirements, along with a
lengthy review process. 

The second area that made the development process more difficult for
states was a 1990 OCSE decision that states transfer--for their own
use--systems that were already in operation in other states.  The
idea behind this mandate is sound; software reuse, as it is called,
can reduce development time and cost, improve productivity, and
improve the reliability of the software itself.  However, this
directive was made before OCSE had assessed whether a sufficient
number of systems were available to be transferred.  In fact, only
eight certified systems were in use--and these were certified on the
basis of OCSE's older requirements.  No systems had been certified
using the more extensive 1988 requirements.  Consequently, many
states attempted to transfer systems that were incomplete and/or
otherwise incompatible, causing additional expense and delay. 

Third, OCSE has been reluctant to implement a recommendation made in
our 1992 report\4 --to suspend federal funding when major problems
are identified.  It cited its belief that the "most constructive
approach, especially with a statutory deadline, is to provide
technical assistance to the [s]tates rather than suspend funding." It
has temporarily, however, withheld funding when it found variations
in cost figures or had other concerns about a system's direction. 


--------------------
\4 Child Support Enforcement:  Timely Action Needed to Correct
Systems Development Problems (GAO/IMTEC-92-46, Aug.  13, 1992). 


   INEFFECTIVE FEDERAL LEADERSHIP
   INHIBITS STATES' PROGRESS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

In addition to these early problems, OCSE's oversight of state child
support systems has been narrowly focused throughout and, as a
result, ineffective in assessing the states' systems development
approaches and progress.  One of the primary ways in which OCSE
obtains information about state plans and progress is through state
advance planning documents and their updates.  Yet OCSE does not use
these tools to proactively oversee, monitor, or control major
investments in systems development projects.  Rather, it operates in
large part through paperwork review tied to funding authorization and
monitoring of self-assessed progress. 

OCSE also does not require that states follow a structured,
disciplined approach to systems development because--according to
OCSE itself--it lacks the necessary technical expertise and resources
to evaluate progress at critical points in the systems development
process.  Instead, it has focused mainly on whether states are
meeting or expect to meet systems requirements--according to the
states' own evaluations--and their progress toward meeting this
October's deadline. 

Another critical factor is whether actions cited in planning
documents provided to OCSE are properly carried out and reflect what
the states are actually doing.  We found that states were sometimes
put in a position of having to present inaccurate--some felt
impossible--schedules showing that they would indeed meet the October
deadline; otherwise, continued funding was jeopardized.  As one state
official put it, "[the planning documents] are an administrative
exercise to justify obtaining funding."

OCSE's oversight has also been constrained by its timing.  Since the
detailed certification reviews of systems come only at the end of the
development process, when invited in by states that see their systems
as complete, the opportunity to change direction early--when problems
are first noted--is missed. 

A final problem we see in OCSE's approach is that it monitors systems
development strictly on a state-by-state basis.  What would be more
helpful to the states--especially those farther behind in the
development process--would be a nationwide perspective in which
trends could be assessed and best practices and lessons learned could
be shared, in the hopes that similar problems could be avoided by
other states. 


   WELFARE REFORM RAISES THE
   STAKES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

As you know, Mr.  Chairman, the welfare reform legislation enacted
last year dramatically altered the nation's welfare system by
requiring work in exchange for time-limited assistance.\5 Child
support is an integral part of welfare reform, because for those who
find themselves newly ineligible for traditional welfare benefits
and, for whatever reason, unable to work, child support payments may
be the only remaining means of support. 

Given this new reality, states are required to operate child support
enforcement programs that meet federal requirements in order to be
eligible for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block-grant
funding.  OCSE plans to release guidance to states incrementally as
policy decisions are made final; this is critical if states are to
incorporate such new requirements while at the same time finishing
development of basic child support enforcement systems. 

Another demand that must be simultaneously met is the need to develop
systems--and reconfigure existing systems that interface with
them--that can process date-sensitive information into the next
century and beyond--what has come to be known as the Year 2000
problem.\6


--------------------
\5 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996. 

\6 The Year 2000 problem arises because many computer systems were
designed such that using "00" to signify the year can be read as
1900, rather than 2000.  See Year 2000 Computing Crisis:  Time Is
Running Out for Federal Agencies to Prepare for the New Millennium
(GAO/T-AIMD-97-129, July 10, 1997). 


   FEDERAL LEADERSHIP MUST BE
   STRENGTHENED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6

The challenges being faced by those forced to do without the child
support to which they are entitled compel the federal government to
fulfill its legislative mandate of providing leadership and ensuring
that systems are developed that can help track noncustodial parents
who are not paying child support.  To enhance the likelihood of
developing effective systems, we have recommended that the Secretary
of Health and Human Services direct that the Assistant Secretary,
Administration for Children and Families, take a number of actions,
including

  -- developing and implementing a structured approach to reviewing
     automation projects;

  -- developing a mechanism for verifying that states follow
     generally accepted systems development practices to minimize
     project risks and costly errors;

  -- using an evaluative approach for planned and ongoing state
     information technology projects, one that focuses on expected
     and actual costs, benefits, and risks;

  -- conducting timely post-implementation reviews on certified child
     support systems to determine whether they are providing expected
     benefits; and

  -- providing the states with technical requirements for
     implementing welfare reform systems with sufficient time to
     allow the states to meet new legislatively mandated deadlines. 

Quick action on these and other recommendations that we have made can
go a long way toward implementing effective systems that will locate
more noncustodial parents and increase collections. 


-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6.1

Mr.  Chairman, this concludes my statement.  I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have at this time. 


CUMULATIVE FUNDS SPENT ON CHILD
SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS,
FISCAL YEARS 1981-1996
================================================== Appendix Attachment



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  HHS. 


*** End of document. ***